Now please don't take this the wrong way all you DSLR shooters but do I get the feeling that this forum is filling up with DSLR wedding shooter issues/questions?

First, nailing my colours so to speak, I am not a DSLR shooter and think the pseudo-cinematic look created by a horribly narrow DOF is a trend which graduates of film school appreciate more readily than us old graduates of broadcast television (and film for television).

Please don't tell me again that an episode of "House" was shot on a 5D... please. Okay if you can tape measure your focus distance (by the first camera assistant)... have the opportunity to do a walk-thru and get the actors to "go again" (thank you assistant director - floor manager)... rehearse your slider move and have your dolly fixed to a track (thank you grips)... check your exposure meter... get the lighting director to... etc etc.

Under those conditions the results are often superb, but weddings (lest you forget) are live events... no rehearsal, no walk-thru... no "let's go again." Therefore I am of the opinion concerning those seemingly slick "sample" videos which keep popping up "for feedback you understand" that the wastage (and price) is on the high side and there is often a lot of post work to get the project into shape.

I do understand that:

1. This is an international Board, therefore may follow both national and international trends.
2. DSLR owners shooting stills wanting (understandably) to add in video as part of the package.
3. Entry level for those not wishing to spend $5-10K on a videocam (and who does like spending their own money?)
4. The word "cinematic" as a selling point is another "cool".

However, at the recent BVE (Broadcast Video Expo) here in the UK you couldn't help notice all the young fresh faces on the Canon stand looking at... you guessed it... and the next stop was the slider shop. Which might answer another question posed in this forum about photographers getting equally fed up with videogs acting "unprofessionally." You can add your own interpretation as to what is deemed unprofessional.

At BVE you couldn't help notice young steadycam strong men looking like a Ripley-clad transformer-like person going to do battle with the Alien packing a 5/7D on the end of a macho-looking mechanical arm. Is there some ego at play I ask myself? I bet the mother of the Bride will love that one seeing it waiting at the end of the isle!

Peace :)

Claire,
You have any recommendations of the best videographers that shot with the methods you outlined? In my area, I grew up with the stigma that wedding video's were bad/cheesy. I got into the business with the assumption (possible incorrectly) that dslr were the response/solution.

Doesn't blending into the day add to what you offer a bride?

Claire, I'm not sure of the point of this thread.
There are many different videographers out there, each using different tools available to them.
Philip Howells is an example of someone who does not use DSLRs to shoot weddings, but is very successful and sought after. That's fine. Patrick from StillMotion is an example who uses DSLRs to shooting weddings, and he also is very successful and sought after.


It sounds to me, not knowing all the facts of course, that you are upset that you purchased an expensive videocamera and are now seeing other videographers popping up using equipment a fraction of the cost?

If in fact what you are saying that DSLRs don't have a place in the wedding videography world, then you have nothing to worry about; time will prove you right.


If you don't like the technology, don't use it. There is nothing else I can say.

The question I ask myself, is what look would I want if it were MY wedding? After looking at a lot of skilled cinematographers/videographers I prefer the look of the shallower depth of field. I'm not saying paper thin, but I do like the shallow depth of field look. The reason I say after looking around, I was thinking of switching over to DSLR's last year and did a lot of research, but the form factor didn't entice me. I did however just purchase the AF100 because I DO like it's form factor. I have been shooting on XHA1's prior to purchasing the Panasonic, and when I see good stuff shot with DSLR's I think to myself how much I prefer that look and how much it blows the XHA1 out of the water. I think it's more of a personal choice rather than a fad. I'm a business owner at 28 years old, and a lot of the brides and grooms I work with are of the same age, and it seems that my taste is VERY similar to my clients. Maybe it's a generations thing, but everything evolves, no matter if it's a fad or a phase. It's still an evolution.

A good saying "I am convinced, that if the rate of change inside an institution or business, is less than the rate outside, the end is in sight"
This holds true, If people are searching and looking for a certain product, shallow depth of field, sliders, what have you. Consider that the change. If your not keeping up, the end is in sight. Sure you'll still get some work, but believe me when I say the large sensor look is now!

Claire,

I think you might feel you are drowning in DSLRs because frankly, that's where I see the majority of semi pro and "smaller video house" users going. I am reading more and more threads where guys are relegating their existing traditional video cams to the locked down shots, while going for "the cool" with their DSLRs. I have also read threads where providers are saying that when their brides are given the choice of them shooting with the traditional cam vs the DSLR, the "look" from the DSLR is winning far more times than not.

There are things DSLRs are not good at, or not capable of, that traditional cams are. But in just about every instance there is an acceptable workaround getting the DSLR shooter up to par.

The biggest incentive a person has for going DSLR is as you stated, the amount of "bang for the buck". My GH1s can kick the butts of my old DVXs for less than half the price. When I go and compare dollar for dollar between the GH2 and the AF100, I can get 5 GH2s for the price of 1 AF100. Is that AF100 5 times more camera than the GH2 ? For most shooters and what they are shooting, my guess is it is a definite NO. Is the client going to see 5 times the quality if you use a AF100 compared to a GH2 ? Again I am going to say it is a definite NO. Will the AF100 cut down one's post time by a factor of 5 compared to a GH2 ? We all know that isn't going to happen even in a million years.

For me and my decision, it basically was a no brainer. I didn't see enough significant advantages to a traditional cam to warrant the expense as of against a GH1. I also saw abilities the traditional cam couldn't give. For me, when I subtracted the minuses form the pluses, it was still a no brainer. As with just about anything, YMMV.

Now please don't take this the wrong way all you DSLR shooters but do I get the feeling that this forum is filling up with DSLR wedding shooter issues/questions?

Things come and go in cycles. Right now, the DSLR / EVIL cycle is heading for its likely peak. But I do expect this to be the year of the DSLR / EVIL. You don't have to like it. But it is what it is.

The "problem" is that the DLSR / EVIL is offering high value picture quality for a bottom end price. This is disrupting the status quo, thus the huge interest. Any disruptive technology in any market generates this same kind of response.

If the traditional video camera makers want to regain the market's attention, they'll have to compete. The Panasonic AG-AF100 is just the start of that competition. And competition in the video camera market is a good thing no matter which side of the debate you end up on.

Hi Claire, fellow little islander.

If everyone were talking about the latest, shoulder mounted broadcast camera would you still feel like you were drowning?

It is true that everyone seems to be talking about DSLR's but thats because they are pretty amazing. Some say they are doing a job they wernt designed to, but like many breakthroughs it was accidental but in a good way.

I think its fair to say that DSLR's are not for you in the same way a Steadicam or slider are not for others. People try and they simply cannot get on with them or dont know how to use them. But is that to say its wrong?

We are guilty of being DSLR. We ditched our Sony FX1's the moment we saw the footage. Ignoring the shallow DOF for one moment the footage simply sang to us and it's a song which resonates with our couples.

I'm not sure about the purpose of your post. Is it frustration that couples are choosing DSLR shooters over the traditional, totally unaware of the pitfalls of such a medium? Technically, there not as good as a good old camera but what really matters is how the finished product looks and our couples certainly like it. We do have to try harder on the day but we didnt get into this for an easy ride. We like a challenge. I'm just curious as to what your really trying to say.

If DSLR's are not for you, thats fine. Keep rocking whichever way fits you best.

Hey C

You have a massive understanding of all things technical (going by your previous posts/replies), but putting technical ability and knowledge aside, let's show a couple camcorder and DSLR clips. Which do they prefer? Honestly? And no, we're not talking shallow depth of field here...

And I sincerely believe you're over-worried about filming a one-time event with them. You don't need a follow focus, you don't need grips... Check my clips if you like. I don't use or worry about them. I have a monopod, tripod, and can happily not use my slider and glidecam. (e.g. My latest clip)

No-one is saying you should follow a trend...but all I will say is, borrow a DSLR for a week, see what you think (and your friends/family/customers think), then re-assess :)

p.s. I still use camcorders too. But I'd grab a dslr first if my house was burning ;)

Hi Guys

I might be wrong but maybe Claire is looking at the fact that there seems to be a lot of DSLR technical issues discussed here that should be in the 7D or Canon forum and not in the wedding and events forum??? I'm still a video guy and if I want to discuss/ask/suggest anything on my Panasonic HMC82's I put them in the Panasonic AVCCAM forum not in the wedding forum.

I guess its tough deciding "Well, I have a question about using my Canon 7D on a slider rig at weddings"
"Do I put it in the Canon 7D forum, the rigs forum, the weddings forum or all three?????"

Maybe Chris Hurd might want to chip in and tell us where dividing lines are?????

Chris

Hi Claire,

Your personal point of view, noted.

Mine: Ditch the all the video cameras, fight hard with the double-edged sword (that is DSLR), and don't look back.

Hi Claire

I guess DSLR users are a lot more edgy than video cam users????

The bottom line, of course, is it doesn't matter what you shoot with...as long as you get the job done and the bride is happy. As long as the posts here are wedding/event related, that's what the forum is for. The abundance of DSLR posts are probably due to the fact that it's a newish field and therefore there are more people looking for answers.

If it helps Claire, I am taking delivery of my second upgraded shoulder mount camera today to replace the old ones so there are still video cam users around to talk to.

What you use is totally a personal choice. If you can get good results for the bride using a bunch of Kodak Flips then great. In fact my buddy Chip in Green Bay has migrated to GH2's now but he's still my buddy regardless and his footage is still good!!!

Chris

The bottom line, of course, is it doesn't matter what you shoot with...as long as you get the job done and the bride is happy. What you use is totally a personal choice. If you can get good results for the bride using a bunch of Kodak Flips then great. Chris

Amen to that!...its whats between your ears that really matter not what is in your hands...I wonder though if an amateur with big cash buys the 5D with all the L series lenses he could afford , a crane, slider, steadicam etc... and....have Jason Magbanua or Susanto shoot with a sony dvx 2000 i wonder who would produce a top notch wedding story? You know the answer :)

Kren
Vertical Video Works* Winnipeg Videography (http://www.verticalvideoworks.com)

Claire -

Well, as someone who has been contemplating the use of DSLR for some time, and finally actually added a video capable SLT to the "fleet", I think that the reason so much discussion is going on is that there is a "certain something" that happens when you "nail" the shot with a shallow DoF vibe - something that adds to the production value and intimacy of a finished production over that of traditional "video"... and everyone's trying to figure it out! It ain't as easy as it looks!

Coming from the still side, I definitely saw that "something" when I first picked up a video capable SLR, something I intend to use for what it does well. I was overdue for still camera body upgrades anyway, so why not add ones with video capability? I may add a couple "fast" lenses to my colllection to get better results... or I may decide it's too much hassle! My CX550's and 500's will continue to do what they do well (including performing better in bad light, thank you very much).

I've played around with steadicams, but frankly they too fall under the "one take" dilema - I can "fake" steadicam and slider shots with a monopod or my shoulder rigs, with NO setup time, and maybe save enough time for a second pass (more likely three or four) if I goof...

It's so easy to see an effect or a "look", and want to ape it (monkey see...), but in the end you're shooting a one take event, and you have to be able to pull it off seamlessly - if you can do that with a stack of Flips, great, if you've got a different approach, that is probably fine too, IF it works for you and your clients.

I'm not going to NOT buy a camera body because it has video, but I'll use it for what it does well, and let the video cameras serve their purpose as well.

Never hurts to look at what others are doing, but doesn't mean you've got to jump on just to "keep up with the Jonses". If you find intricate discussions of lenses too tedious, just hit the back button - it's easier and less hassle!

As Richard says, shoot something side by side with a DSLR and show it to your clients (they are afterall the ones who matter), which do they prefer? DSLRs still not for you? Fine, just avoid partaking in the discussions relating to them. The problem we saw with video cameras is the footage looks like it was shot on a video camera. You offer HD, there are people here who dont see the point and feel the same way about HD as you do DSLRs.

DSLR shooting has allowed us to increase our prices while everyone around us has lowered them to levels which just damage the industry. I'm guessing this is one of the reasons why you hate so much. How people using this 'toy' video camera are actually charging more than you (I've seen your prices, your way too low for your work) but when you add up all the reasons why we switched and the other changes shooting on this medium just naturally brings it has allowed us to enter a whole new market.

But the bottom line is this, if you dont want to shoot on DSLRs Claire.... DONT! If you think a shallow DOF look is wrong, dont use them, just keep doing what your happy with.

From looking at your site I would say all this stems from the fact you seem to have been brought up with a clear definition as to what video is, the rules. The same rules which mean the BBC refuse to use them. It is these rules drive you and make you... you. Stop spending time getting your knickers in a twist, move on, ignore us DSLR folks. This forum shouldnt have a DSLR vs Video split any more than it should have a HDV vs DVCAM split or monopod users vs tripod users. What we use to create our art is our choice.

The reality of it, is the large sensor camera is here to stay. You don't HAVE to shoot with a DSLR anymore. In a few years the DSLR term will be less used, but we'll still see the same images. The panasonic AF100 is out (large chip camera), the sony F3 is on it's way (large chip camera). These are proper pro video camera's with pro camera features as well, waveform, ND filters, XLR audio inputs, overcrank etc

But to just rag on DSLR users is a waste of time. The large sensor look Is not a fad, it's here to stay. You can either choose to embrace it, or stay with what works for you. Every business person has to face decisions like this, when a wave of different tools come along. Do I take the latest and greatest, just to say I have it...probably not a good idea. Should I take the camera because I think it will boost my production value and in return hire more clients the following year? I did. I knew if I put out a better product THIS year, in return I'm hoping I can either charge more the following year, or book more brides. Everyone that you'll be booking in 2012-2013 will be basing your work off what you did in 2011, as they view your online portfolio. I'm setting myself up. It's all a chess game. The video camera's will work, but you don't yourself or your style to become stagnant.

As someone posted fairly early on... prepare for the flack... possibly they had a similar experience from replies - I don't know - I didn't know this was a "hard-hat" area.

<emoticon of wearing hard hat>

@Dave - Sony PD150? No, I'm hacked off and trippin out because they've now brought out the PD170 - darn! Planning on doing multcam shoots using a few EMI 2001s I got cheap... Good to see someone's got some humour left... thanks Dave :)

To others, thanks for your comments... and those who searched the web ;)

Whether you use 'proper' video cameras or DSLRs they are only tools. Those who proudly boast that they use DSLRs exclusively are restricting themselves just as much as those who won't look at them. Personally I use both. When using DSLRs I love the lens choice, portability, the ability to use a shallow DOF for a cinematic look, being able to shoot great stills, low light capability & the possibility of shooting video in 'stealth mode' ( I do not trick out my DSLRs with rails, matte box, follow focus, loupe, monitor etc). When using a video camera I love the ergonomics, general ease of use, the great built in audio, the potential for unlimited recording time & the higher quality video that is quicker & easier to edit.

I've seen the future... If anyone's interested? Launching at NAB this year.

Edit: there was supposed to be a piccy attached to this. Oh well, no worries :)

it says 'help'
I'm sorry, what kind of help you're looking for?
Help you to understand why some people use DSLRs where other use camcorders?
Have you tried to shoot DSLR yourself? If not, you should try;
From my experience I can tell that it is an amazing tool and I am not planning to let them go in the near future, (i've seen the future too:)

the future is .... 35mm camcorders where you can put lenses on the front.... if that excites you, then try this thing called a DSLR ;)

I think what videographers like Claire forget is that we DSLR users once used video cameras ourselves. We know both sides of the fence where people like Claire have an opinion on something that they've never experienced.

My thoughts exactly. We've got "both" and use DSLRs for a reason. The video cameras are staying on the shelf more and more.

Claire, for the life of me I can't grasp what the purpose of your post was. It seems to be a bit of a rant against DSLRs or the people who use them, but the whole post is so ambiguous and scattered that I really don't know.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but it would probably help you if you made your opinion more clear in the future. What it sounds like to me is that you just don't like all of the attention that DSLRs (and the people who use them) are getting, and that you also don't understand the benefits of using DSLRs. News flash, it's not all about DOF. Image quality, low light ability, small form factor and more have all contributed to the massive shift in our industry. As someone else said, you can dislike new technology all you want, but it's not going to stop others from evolving and using it.

Claire, I'm just now leaping into the technical side of video. The more technical it gets, the less romantic it feels. At the end of the day, it is just that....it's romance. It's love. It's ideals. It's goals. It's dreams. It's cheezy lifetime movie moments. At the end of the day, that is what it's about. It's about the bride and the groom and the day. I am not able to argue dslr nor vid cam. It's too early in the game for me. But what I can offer you with assurance is what a bride wants. I can tell you with confidence, that she no more cares if you are using a dslr or a panasonic hmc150. In fact, she is truly more concerned about making it down the isle without losing it, or even as shallow as a broken nail at the last minute or a bobby pin sticking out of her head. There's a whole laundry list of stuff she is concerned about. Whether you are toting a big camera or a shoulder rig dslr won't mean a hill of beans to her.

Once the day is done and she is viewing your footage. She isn't looking for DOF. She's looking for the romance of it all. Did you capture the look on his face as the doors opened and she comes in? Did you get the tearful exchange and the love in mom's eyes at the rose ceremony? Did you get the teary eyes from dad as he twirls his little girl around? Did you get all of the gentle touches, the soft looks, the dances, the moments. If it makes her cry....it's a great video. If it makes her mother cry, it was worth the money. But I assure you, she cares nothing about what you capture her moment with, but rather that you captured it well.

It's easy to get wrapped up in the technical garb because that is what your experience has brought you. You've earned the right to have your opinions on the matter, but at the end of the day, it truly doesn't matter to your bride. If your comfort is big rig and that is what brings your art to your bride, so be it. But if someone else choses the warmth of dof to bring to the bride, I can assure you she will appreciate the softness and romantic feel that it brings.

Maybe I'm rambling, but I say, do what you do and what your experience has led you to greatness, but maybe ease up on the dslr/appropriateness in this forum. Watching Travis Cossels videos from a bride perspective....made ME cry!!! When the hubby glances down to catch the brides eyes....priceless. It's moments. It's all about the moments. The deep colors and warm dof just makes for warm fuzzies. And in my opinion....that is truly what it is about. Just sayin'.... Amanda

Hey Amanda

You hit the nail on the head!!! The bride couldn't care less what camera you use and what techniques you employ!! Just do me a DVD full of my special day, filled with emotion and I will be happy.

Not one single person this season has asked about my camera, make, model, format OR even if I have one or two!!!! They really don't care about the technical side.

BTW: Shot a wedding with the HMC80's on Saturday and they are great!!!!!

Chris

But I assure you, she cares nothing about what you capture her moment with, but rather that you captured it well.



You have learned well, young Jedi!

I second & third Amanda & Chris' comment. The Bride does not care what camera you use, I remember years ago, I worked with a photog who was shooting with a point and shoot at the park because her main camera broke down. Not once did I see the Bride complaining about the PS camera. At the end of the day as long as she has a nice album and a nice video of her day that is all that matters.

I am planning to buy a T2i for Bride prep shoot but will still continue using my Video camera for most parts of the day. It is a nice tool to have at your disposal.

my 2 cents

I don't agree. I give the Bride & Groom the option of either hiring me with my A1 or my 7D. When I show them sample videos from each, they ALWAYS choose the 7D. So in theory, they don't care about the camera but they care about what they are seeing on the TV. Oh, and I also charge a lot more for the 7D.

It seems all the non-DSLR users think that the bride doesn't care about what camera you use. However, if you actually gave the bride the option of a conventional video camera vs. dslr, you would find out that she really does care.

I do have a question for you folks; given that there is a much better chance of blowing focus with a DSLR during a one-time only event, does that ever come up as an issue? i.e. where something critical was missed and the bride later complains about it being out of focus etc?

Michael, we all sell our products differently and as I have mentioned it is a nice tool to have. So let's not make this thread into a DSLR vs. Video Camera as I am sure there are pros & cons to each medium. You don't need to justify why you like DSLRs I am sure you do a great job nor do non-DSLR shooters need to justify theirs We all have different comfort levels in shooting and as I have mentioned the thought of shooting in 12 minute increments is too much for me to handle.

I do have a question for you folks; given that there is a much better chance of blowing focus with a DSLR during a one-time only event, does that ever come up as an issue? i.e. where something critical was missed and the bride later complains about it being out of focus etc?

Charles, thanks for gracing us with your presence. As a single shooter this is one of my main concern, I know some have developed the skills to pull it off but I find comfort in having a Videocam shooting the whole time at the ceremony/reception and save the DSLR usage for Bride preps/Park Shoots.

Hi Michael

I think you missed my point! The bride doesn't care what you use...if you showed her samples using a 7D,
5DMkII or a Pansonic AF100 she will choose the content she likes not the camera....she is not hiring you because you have a 7D at all...she is hiring you cos your sample shot with the 7D is to her liking.

If it's not overdone shallow focus is a sure fire sales winner for brides but like Noel, in the heat of "battle" I really don't want to have to fight focus and time limit issues ...I appreciate the huge advantages of DSLR's for creating footage that video cams cannot do but as I work alone I do need a camera that will "look after me" ..... I'm already looking at getting a GH2 for photoshoot and ceremony closeups so please don't get me wrong I like both camps!!! I can see huge advantanges using a DSLR for initame shots but I'll still use my standard cams for the rull-of-the-mill events.

Chris

I do have a question for you folks; given that there is a much better chance of blowing focus with a DSLR during a one-time only event, does that ever come up as an issue? i.e. where something critical was missed and the bride later complains about it being out of focus etc?

Charles ... this comes up. Depends too on what you are offering ... I personally only do extended highlight videos - 10-15mins max. So if I miss something ... you just deal with it. I've never shot a wedding where I was able to acquire EVERYTHING perfectly. This is a fact of life regardless of format.

Michael, you added the extra twist for your own argument. If I ask a three year old if they want to play blocks the answer is yes. Do you want to play with the blue blocks or the shiny yellow ones adds a new flavor. When you give a bride the option of choosing what looks better to her, that is fine and dandy. Of course she will have a preference. I admit, I love love love the look of the dslr footage. But here is my point...

Just because a person uses a dslr doesn't mean that they get Travis' (sorry to pick on you Travis) quality of work. I have watched a million clips of dslr footage and just because you have the camera doesn't mean that you GET the yummy warm fuzzies. There's some skill there. Just like I'm sure Claire, in all her years of expertise, has on her traditional camera. It really comes down to what you are shooting though and how you shoot it. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can go to film school. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can pick up a camera and shoot a wedding. It's not rocket science. But that same guy who spent all those years in film school may not have the natural gift for it, whereas the guy who just picks it up....just might.

My wedding video is crappy. In fact, it actually sucks butt. It's grainy. It's dull. It's super shaky. The lady never, not once, shot a single thing on a tripod. It bites. HOWEVER, I watch it over and over and over and over again, because she managed to really capture the feel for the day. She got all the right stuff....and I cry every single time I watch it. She really had the gift for the moment. My girlfriend, on the other hand, paid a ton of money for some big shot to come in with fancy cams. She has excellent video quality, but it's cold and very uninviting. She hates it. She says all the time how she wishes she had mine.

I think the best wedding videographer is the one who is in the middle. The one who has a natural feel for capturing the right moments, as well as having some technical knowledge. Weddings are just a different bird. There is a rhythm and a flow. There is a mood. I've been to a gagillion weddings. I can play them front and back. But I have only FELT my own. And that is what a bride wants. She wants to relive her day over and over and over to reFEEL the feelings. My friend's video is like watching a wedding as a distant spectator. Mine is like being right in the middle of my husband and I's every whisper, touch, glance, dance, and I think at the end of the day that holds more weight.

I just don't think the argument should ever be whether one is better than the other. A camera, whether DSLR or whatever, is just that....it's a piece of equipment. If you can't get the moment....in the eyes of the bride, you really got nothing.

Granted all your points are bang on. The point is - don't knock the technology. If you want to shoot on a HVX200 or a 5D or 8mm ... thats your own prerogative. I think we can all agree it doesn't matter what tools you have in your hand ... but DSLR's in my opinion give you more options to create better work. And that really should be what its all about.

There is no problem with DSLR cameras. They are fantastic tools - when used properly. And that's the point. The capabilities that DSLR cameras offer in skilled hands are amazing. The problem, and I believe may be an underlying issue with "DSLR haters", is the misuse by people who don't know how to use them or people who overdo some of the cameras capabilities. So when you see bad examples of DSLR footage, don't blame it on the camera, blame it on the nut behind the viewfinder.

As for blown focus, cover cameras have always been a good idea. Just add another good reason to use one when shooting a wedding with a DSLR camera. When those high risk DSLR shots turn out well, they are supurb; and when they don't, that's what the cover camera(s) are for.

I'll fully admit that once I tried a friend's DSLR with video, I saw the potential... there's something there, in the right hands. It's a diferent skill set, a whole other layer of things to be on top of, and potentially "blow", but if you nail it, it's got lots of additional potential in the quality of the footage.

With my shooting style, I can have several video cameras running (they're here anyway, right?), and be running the SLT/SLR (I've already noticed I switch off the auto focus...sigh, manual just "feels" better), catching those high visual impact shots - that's how I see it fitting in.

IF I have a second shooter (and preferably a third) that is skilled and competent to shoot video with an SLR, I wouldn't mind doing that - but I don't know a lot of people who have enough shooting time (myself included at this point) to have that level of confidence in nailing the shot. I run dual audio anyway, so that's not an issue. The short clip limit is something I'm less than comfortable with, but could work around it - just a matter of careful planning.

I'm not going to "fly" the thing on a steadicam, nor am I going to be using a slider - I have enough confidence in my simple rigs to get those style of shots and get steady, well framed video, whatever camera I'm pointing at the target... and I hope to capture that special something that Amanda speaks of, those shots that make you go "wow", not because of what they were shot with, or how fancy the equipment used was, but because you caught the essence of the moment, and IMO THAT is what makes all the difference.


Perhaps part of the "problem" is that with all the drawbacks, DLSR's allow you to more easily get a much more filmic look that has that mystical "dreamy" thing going on, and that "works" for WV...

I do have a question for you folks; given that there is a much better chance of blowing focus with a DSLR during a one-time only event, does that ever come up as an issue? i.e. where something critical was missed and the bride later complains about it being out of focus etc?

Funny story... this past weekend I shot a wedding in a crowded space, with two traditional cams covering safe. One of them was manned (or womanned, in this case). The unmanned cam was completely blocked when a bridesmaid stood 3 feet away from where she was supposed to. The womanned cam was almost completely obscured by a photog who knowingly kept blocking it (she later apologized). The most usuable and safest footage came from the DSLR that I was using.

Such is the way at weddings. One day I'd like to yell 'Cut' when stuff like this goes on... and see what happens.

Hi Charles, focus isn't really an issue. We currently shoot with naked dslrs, no ff, viewfinder or monitor. We do have some shots which are too soft to use but never of any crucial moments. Granted there is a higher chance of it happening but it's worth it.

Shooting live events you hone a particular skill for getting things done in one take as I'm sure you know. The same could be said about our use of steadicam, missing a shot because I walk into someone down the aisle.

The reason we do all this is people are bored of the play it super safe videographer who are now ten a penny. But every risk is backed up in some way :)

I do have a question for you folks; given that there is a much better chance of blowing focus with a DSLR during a one-time only event, does that ever come up as an issue? i.e. where something critical was missed and the bride later complains about it being out of focus etc?

My A1's auto focus would sometimes focus on an object in the background and not the bride and groom in the foreground. That stunk. I like having the manual focus control of the DSLR because I choose what is in and out of focus.

Claire for just a bit of balance and a lean towards you. I think that many might be trading their picture perception up from semi-pro mini DV or HDV rather than coming down from 3x 2/3" professional cameras with f1.2 lenses, as you might be. Your long-term career in broadcast and related industries will have given you and eye and expectation of true broadcast quality images. That's what some DSLR shooters are now only seeing for the first time.

Don't turn on me now though; I've just borrowed a GH2 and intend to see how I get on with it at a warehouse shoot I'm doing on Monday. All under control so I shouldn't get in too much of a panic. I'll have the HM700 on standby just in case.

Earlier in this thread Danny both hit the point and missed it. This is an event/wedding section; it covers events and weddings in a variety of cultures/fashions/geographical locations and we cope very well with that. But Chris was right, this is not the place for "what DSLR camera shall I buy?" questions - there are sections for that and, like Claire, I am just a little weary of ploughing through screeds of postings which rightly belong elsewhere. Chris Hurd has given us plenty of options, please just use them.

But....

Happily there is room in this section for those wedding/event markets (often in the USA) which generally demand a cinematic type approach and those which usually prefer a documentary approach - and please note those two qualifying adverbs, generally and usually. But those programmes don't suit everybody. I can assure those who are able to tie up the couple for an afternoon, even a couple of days running around with their steadicams, their sliders and their filters that they'd be as welcome by most UK brides as a pork sausage at a Bar Mitzvah.

Most UK couples want to enjoy their wedding, meet their relatives and friends and enjoy a day to remember for the rest of their lives, not spend the day or more as unpaid actors. As Claire and Amanda both point out our brides couldn't give a tuppeny damn what we use, as long as we stay out of the way and make programmes which bring their memories flooding back. The poster who dissed Claire's mythical PD150 completely missed the point and should think again. As I say, clearly there are places, especially the US where the couples are generally (that word again) happy to give up hours to take part in a cinematic experience. Neither is wrong, but the production techniques vary greatly.

Where I work couples usually expect that we'll capture every salient moment, that everything will be in focus and nicely lit and that it looks like the programmes they usually see on their TELEVISIONS not in the art gallery.

But this is a business so I'm glad there are those who can live with (or blag their way out of) the occasional soft focus shot because whilst I may be the safe, backed up type Danny so disdains, my clients know they can ask me if I caught Uncle Charles tripping over the carpet and 3 to 1 (video cameras) I'll almost certainly be able to say yes, not try and explain I was getting that cool slider shot of the bride's shoes under the garden seat at the time. And Michael, please stop banging on about not being able to speak on a subject you've not tried - I'm over 21; I know the oven's hot, that's why I don't put my head in it.

For me, cinematic or highlight-only productions are the indulgence of producers preoccupied with themselves, their "art", the latest fad and dreaming of winning prizes. I don't want to single out any specific example for that would be hurtful but there has been more than one video here which the producer got wet pants about but which are frankly awful, unsteady, ungraded, lacking any technical merit whatsoever. And it isn't just a matter of the eye of the beholder. A technically incompetent film is technically incompetent, regardless of how many brides thought it was the dog's bananas.

Incidentally, we include a highlights programme in our package - to all intents and purposes we give it away - but it's an extra programme not the whole darn shooting match.

The photographer who produces the stills part of our package uses two Nikon D3s cameras. He's worked with me for over 20 years, on my video shoots around the world because in those days we could afford someone we'd call a Director of Photography except that we were never bothered with titles. So he knows the business of recording images regardless of the medium. His view is that the DSLR enthusiasts are just the current version of equipment nuts we've seen in every generation, except that now they have the advantage of being cheaper. "They'll learn" he says but then he remembers when Amateur Photographer magazine was full of questions like "which lens do you use most?" - that was in the 1970's. For Claire's sake as well as mine, please understand it's tiresome to find them mixed up in a wedding section.

Hi Philip

Very nicely put. This is a wedding and events forum and if I need to know what mic I should be using then I head off to Chris's Audio Forum!! Makes sense as all the audio experts are more likely to be browsing posts there than under weddings.

DSLR's produce awesome footage in the right hands but if you need to discuss what accessories you need on your 5D or 7D then surely the best place to find the answers is the Canon forum.

It would be nice if we could stick to Chris's forum title "Wedding/Event Videography Techniques"

Chris

Well, my hat is off to you folks for shooting with bare cameras and focusing from the rear screen under challenging lighting conditions. On my last two projects we had some critical focusing situations that didn't work out and now we are cutting around them, and those were under controlled conditions.

I was working at a production company over twenty years ago and was assigned to shoot a wedding--my boss was kissing up to one of his clients and offered it gratis (yet I was the one who worked on a Saturday for free, what a sucker). When everyone stood up as the bride came down the aisle, I got caught and had to raise the sticks--this was a broadcast camera with heavy duty legs that had to be extended one at a time. Thus much of the shot of the bride looked like an earthquake hit it. I still remember meeting her after we turned in the edit where she asked if there was anything we could do to make the shot less shakey. This was of course long before post stabilization. She was near tears when I apologetically told her no. That would be my last time shooting weddings on a pro level. I can take the heat of an irate Hollywood director but not the intensity of an upset bride!!

Like I said, hats off to you guys and gals...

At weddings so much can happen and go wrong. You can be on a nice stable floor and have vibrations from an unknown source cause loss of image quality. Kids running around or in the case of the Steadicam stuff wind and no grip to shield you :)

But often we have an alt angle we can cut to while the disruption (kids) do their thing. But seeing as our main productions only contain less than 2 mins of the main ceremony there isnt that much we actually need. As we dont show the ceremony blow for blow we use editing to use cutaways and shots from various points in the ceremony or speeches to build up the complete picture.

Now I know some wouldnt ever consider the short form edit and see it as cheating the bride. Again, totally depends on what you offer. The people who come to us want that. But by condensing an hour into 2 minutes you get so much more footage to create something special. Same as the hollywood peeps.

Charles Papert doing weddings. I somehow just cant see it.

Charles Papert doing weddings. I somehow just cant see it.

yeah well, I guess neither could I!! too much pressure there, hence my heading to Hollywood!

Even before that incident, I was hired to do Steadicam on a wedding. (if this story sounds familiar, I think I may have told it here before a long time ago--apologies). I believe that the cousin of the groom had hit it big in the stock market and wanted to show off to the family by hiring a large amount of pro crew to shoot this thing "properly". We had three multi-person crews with either Betacams or 3/4 two piece systems, I forgot which--this was 1986 or so--and I was there with a rental full-size rig, this being before I bought my own. I remember preceding the bride down the aisle feeling terribly embarrassed (I can guarantee that no-one in that room had ever seen a Steadicam before and were completely distracted by it). The priest even started off by requesting that I stay off to one side during the ceremony. We shot the reception and then the party afterwards, which I helped light with a lot of units bounced into the ceiling as the tube cameras were not very light sensitive--the guests kept turning the lights off to dance until the bride made a special request on behalf of the video! It was an uneasy situation to say the least. At one point we were reviewing playback with a small JVC field monitor (anyone remember those?) on a table; the prototypical drunk uncle sat down and turned the monitor towards him. I reached over and swung it back. He responded by sweeping it off the table and lurching back into the crowd...

What a mess.

The only other memorable experience I had with this was showing up to Garrett Brown's son Jonathan's wedding with fellow operator Dave Chameides (one of the best in the biz--http://steadishots.org/shots_operator.cfm?opID=87) and having Garrett unexpectedly plunk camcorders in our hands. When the big man gives you an assignment, you go do it. It was all worth it watching GB wield his prototype JR (which looked uncannily like the eventual production model Merlin) as the proud papa!

For the record: if I was ever to get married, I'd probably want it shot on DSLR's or equivalent. By that time, it will be in 3D, or maybe 4 or 5D, with self-stabilizing cameras floating in zero gravity or something...

I think there are some truly inspiration people in this business who have shown how you can tell some beautiful stories with the smallest of kit bags. It is afterall a wedding.

I too was worried at first what guests would make of a Steadicam but in all honesty. Most of the fellas watch football and have seen them on the sidelines. I also break it out during the guest mingling for no reason other than to let people get used to it. If the first time they see it is walking down the aisle all eyes tend to turn. Although this can be good to create the POV of the bride illusion.

I can see how it would be hard to say no to the Godfather.

Earlier in this thread Danny both hit the point and missed it. This is an event/wedding section; it covers events and weddings in a variety of cultures/fashions/geographical locations and we cope very well with that. But Chris was right, this is not the place for "what DSLR camera shall I buy?" questions - there are sections for that and, like Claire, I am just a little weary of ploughing through screeds of postings which rightly belong elsewhere. Chris Hurd has given us plenty of options, please just use them.

[CENTER OF POST REMOVED FOR SAKE OF SAVING SPACE]

The photographer who produces the stills part of our package uses two Nikon D3s cameras. He's worked with me for over 20 years, on my video shoots around the world because in those days we could afford someone we'd call a Director of Photography except that we were never bothered with titles. So he knows the business of recording images regardless of the medium. His view is that the DSLR enthusiasts are just the current version of equipment nuts we've seen in every generation, except that now they have the advantage of being cheaper. "They'll learn" he says but then he remembers when Amateur Photographer magazine was full of questions like "which lens do you use most?" - that was in the 1970's. For Claire's sake as well as mine, please understand it's tiresome to find them mixed up in a wedding section.

Philip,

As I'm sure it is here as it is there in the UK, this is a business not about us feeling like we make these films for us. We make these highlight films because thats what the clients want. Sure there are people in my market shooting with regular cameras and and they also think that the HD-DSLR craze is stupid and they don't understand it, but those people are making less than half what I'm making per video because in this area thats what the clients want. They like the look of these films and prefer it. You also mention that people prefer the look of everything in focus because thats what they see in the real world, such as television shows. I don't know what shows you're clients are watching but House, and 24 both shot at least part of their shows on Canon DSLRs.

But lets again talk about cameras and wether or not the shallow dof is actually good for what people perceive to be good quality. If "The Social Network" was shot on a pd-170 instead of a large sensor (red) camera would it be nominated for best picture? If last seasons finale "House" was shot on an XH-A1 instead of a large sensor (5D Mark II) camera would people say that it was the best episode shot so far? These large sensor cameras are the future of imagery in the future, they are not going away. Doesn't mean everybody has to use them, but you can not hope that those people disappear.

So do I agree that this forum should be about actual weddings and not about DSLR use? Do I think that if you want to ask a DSLR question you put it in the forum for the appropriate forum? Yes I think that should be the case.. But, Do I think you came off in a way that screams "I'm the only one here worth of working in this industry and screw all of you who use large sensor cameras"? Yes, and suddenly I think I might start skipping over some of what you write because it appears you don't have much to say or much respect for your peers so why should we offer you the same?

Hi Philip, since you're just over the border I'll try not to upset you here ;) BTW - I would like to thank you for the enumerable times you contribute with your valuable experience gained over many years. We never stop learning, and while I haven't been doing this quite as long as you, I'm always willing to learn from other people, because there is always more to learn. Maybe DSLRs are part of that learning for some of us ;)

Most UK couples want to enjoy their wedding, meet their relatives and friends and enjoy a day to remember for the rest of their lives, not spend the day or more as unpaid actors. As Claire and Amanda both point out our brides couldn't give a tuppeny damn what we use, as long as we stay out of the way and make programmes which bring their memories flooding back.

+1 The number one question I get is about how discreet we are going to be, not what kind of cameras we are using. In fact only twice have I been asked about camera models!

Where I work couples usually expect that we'll capture every salient moment, that everything will be in focus and nicely lit and that it looks like the programmes they usually see on their TELEVISIONS not in the art gallery.

+1 - However, I've found it's actually easier to get well exposed low noise shots in the darker receptions and achieve critical focus in a hurry when using a DSLR over a camcorder.

But this is a business so I'm glad there are those who can live with (or blag their way out of) the occasional soft focus shot

Well, that's not just a DSLR problem. I've had soft shots from video cameras too (and thrown them away in post - just like I'd throw away soft DSLR footage). Soft footage is not artistic, it's a sign that you are not paying attention to your job.

my clients know they can ask me if I caught Uncle Charles tripping over the carpet and 3 to 1 (video cameras) I'll almost certainly be able to say yes, not try and explain I was getting that cool slider shot of the bride's shoes under the garden seat at the time.

'DSLR' and 'Slider' are not synonymous. Not every one using DSLRs gets on their hands and knees with sliders, just like not every one with a camcorder is shoulder mounted. BTW - there are lots of people with camcorders using sliders too ;) I'm not defending either position, just saying ....... ;)

For me, cinematic or highlight-only productions are the indulgence of producers preoccupied with themselves, their "art", the latest fad and dreaming of winning prizes. [.......] Incidentally, we include a highlights programme in our package - to all intents and purposes we give it away - but it's an extra programme not the whole darn shooting match.

+1 We never ever do a highlights only production. They get a short highlights video on the web (usually several weeks) before they see the main production, but the main production includes the entire ceremony (hymns are usually cut) and speeches as well as the highlights. They can pay extra if they want an extended cinematic highlights but most choose not to. Not everyone 'up north' produces sufficiently eloquent speeches at receptions and not all Vicars (or photographers for that matter) are co-operative enough during the vows and ring to allow the audio to be extracted and taken out of context, like most cinematic features seem to use. That does of course assume there are no screaming kids in the background to aid the sound effects ;)

Having read more posts than perhaps I should have had the time to, I realise that views are fairly polarised. There are three camps (not two). The first is the camp that don't like the idea of DSLRs, don't even want to try them and are hoping they are a fad that will go away. The second camp is a mixture of those who have tried them and are as yet unconvinced. The third camp have tried DSLRs, found how to work around the issues (and yes there are quite a few) and have embraced the new way of working. Perhaps there is a fourth camp of those who would like to try them but haven't yet, but they will eventually fall in to one of the other three.

It really doesn't matter which camp you are in because it's very unlikely you are going to persuade the other camps around to your point of view.

On the point of whether we should or should not discuss DSLRs in the wedding forum, I'd say that would have to depend on whether we can discuss any other type of equipment here. If we can discuss camcorders or microphones or lighting then we should also be able to discuss DSLRs as they related to the wedding & event business. It's perfectly reasonable to ask which DSLR may be better in xyz situation at a "wedding" because the masses that have jumped on the DSLR bandwagon as part of the 'amateur short film' brigade may never encounter these conditions so can't give well thought out answers. As an example, I'm so tired of hearing the advice to 'add more lighting' when talking about shooting at high ISO / GAIN in low light receptions. Some people just don't understand the concept of discreet ;)

In the UK the style is still leaning more towards documentary than highlights only. That's not driven by the videographer (film maker if that's your preferred label), it's driven by what the Brides want. We show them both, they get to choose. Most (by a long way) choose documentary style. That may change over time, but as yet, I'll make the film that the customer wants, not the film I want to make because it's 'art'. Those were not your words, so don't take offence, but I've seen some people use that as an excuse to charge $3K for a 12 minute film that really didn't cover the day very well at all. That simply wouldn't work in the real world called 'Yorkshire' where I live and work, nor the real world called 'Lancashire' that Philip works in. If it did I'd probably take their money and run.