Reading that the new Canon XA-10 can match the GH2 in low light except possibly with the very fastest lenses, I cannot personally see the attraction of filming weddings with any DSLR compared to the ease and convenience using a cam like the XA-10, which is a superb performer by all accounts.

Martyn, what are you using for weddings?

I personally can't see the attraction in filming weddings, but then that's the crux of every question like this: what are your personal aesthetic preferences?

Some people might like the look of the GH2 more, and it's a few hundred dollars less expensive. Maybe they like using their Bokehriffic Zoolander 25/f0.65 lens. Maybe execs at Canon purposefully murdered their dog and they can't bring themselves to buy their products. Whatever the case may be....

In the end, I'm having a heck of a lot more fun shooting my GH2 than I ever did my previous comparably-suited HV30, even though the HV30 is "easier" and "more convenient"... and heck if I could put my finger on exactly "why."

I personally like to use my GH2 in conjunction with my EX1R. I think they complement each other very well. During the course of a full wedding shoot, they each have a very appropriate place. I don't subscribe to the notion of 'one camera fits all'.

The attraction for shooting wedding varies with the individual. It pays bills, is easy to get into. I personally make my living doing them, along with a few corporate gigs here and there.

The Canon does look to be a very nice camera for the money, and I am anxiously waiting it's release.

But back to Martyn's post. Martyn, you often discuss which cameras you like better then the GH2, but you do not take into account that these are tools and that as Jim so succintly says, one size does not fit all. They all have there place.

The Canon could not do many things the GH2 could do, and vice versa. The Canon would be an excellent addition to a wedding videographer's arsenal, at any rate.

What really sucks about the new camera, for my purposes, is that it does not shoot 60p or even "real" 24p, but instead 30p or 24p in a 60i wrapper.

No 720p is a real disappointment for me, as that is what I shoot in.

I don't do weddings for a living. I have done various ones over the years for friends and family. If i was forced to do one now it would be with my HV30 as personally I could do a lot better job with it. I rarely use the HV now as for general hobby filming I love the GH2, but the XA10 that has been out for a while now is getting rave reviews regarding use, and picture quality including low light that rivals the GH2 with the 20mm f/1.7.

Regarding me discussing cameras I like better than my GH2, I think a slight preference for Canon DSLR skin tone, poor etc. and overall camcorder ease of use is about it.

For recording the events of the day, a camcorder like the XA-10 is great. For a cinematic look though, isolating the subject, and generally just a more pleasing rendition of the scene, a GH2 or DSLR would be my choice.

Yes, I see it is out Martyn, it's just not available anywhere here, at least that I can find.

The lack of 720 60p is a deal breaker for me anyway, but it's like everything else, when you are using consumer grade equipment there are usually compromises. The next cam up I'm sure has the features I'd like, but it's out of my price range today.

Somebody asked me to shoot an Off-Broadway show this week with a single GH2. I told them flat out, this is the WRONG camera for this. A video camera is the way to go. In such a situation the GH2 is b-roll and inserts at best. The same goes for weddings. Yes, some shots will be fantastic but too much will be lost while fiddling with the focus/exposure/shutter/ISO.

I would like to see the proof of the amazing low light capability of the XA10. It's the same sensor as the XF105 which I own & in low light the GH2 with the 20mm F/1.7 lens is miles better. ISO on the GH2 can be cranked up to the max without much deterioration in image quality whereas the XF105 even at +12db is noisy.

Interesting Nigel. The Canon is rated at 1.5 lux, but at what gain setting, I wonder? I wondered how a 1/3" single chip camera could produce equal low light performance to the Sony VX2100, but then I remembered the way they measure varies from manufacturer, and that the whole deal is subjective.

For low light at weddings I think the GH2 with Voigtländer Nokton 25mm f/0.95 and Steadicam Merlin might be an interesting setup.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5092/5595633824_d898777113_b.jpg

Are the GH2 and DSLR's practical for weddings? No, not really.

However I think the real question is "are they worth the extra effort." Usually after trying them out, the answer for many people is unquestionably yes.

As has been said already, they fit perfectly with some styles and not so well with others. For one man weddings they are probably too much hassle but with a crew of 2 or 3, it opens up the possibilities immensely and gives you more opportunity to play to the strengths of DSLRs/GH2 and avoid the weaknesses.

Somebody asked me to shoot an Off-Broadway show this week with a single GH2. I told them flat out, this is the WRONG camera for this. A video camera is the way to go. In such a situation the GH2 is b-roll and inserts at best. The same goes for weddings. Yes, some shots will be fantastic but too much will be lost while fiddling with the focus/exposure/shutter/ISO.

Yes as good as my words, regarding the doubts of the XA-10s light I have seen films showing its ability if the doubters want to search they are there. Anyway for my casual filming nowadays mostly nature and documentary my GH2 is great.

Martyn, if Nigel is correct that the Canon has the same chip as his camera, speculation ends pretty much there. It doesn't matter which camera it is in, it's going to perform pretty much the same, though a better lens may help, etc, but it won't be significatly better in low light.

The Canon may be excellent for it's size, but it is still a 1/3" chip camera. I for one don't care, if it shot in modes I wanted, I'm sure it would be a fine little camera to have.

The GH2 sensor is close to .9 inches diagonally, which is approaching triple the size of the Canon sensor.

Again, it's apples and oranges anyway. They each have their use!

As has been said already, they fit perfectly with some styles and not so well with others. For one man weddings they are probably too much hassle but with a crew of 2 or 3, it opens up the possibilities immensely and gives you more opportunity to play to the strengths of DSLRs/GH2 and avoid the weaknesses.Even for a one man band a DSLR can be used in combination with one or more traditional video cameras capturing safety shots & using the DSLR for the the roaming & candid work plus the more 'arty' shots.

For low light at weddings I think the GH2 with Voigtländer Nokton 25mm f/0.95 and Steadicam Merlin might be an interesting setup.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5092/5595633824_d898777113_b.jpg

When I use the Merlin I switch to the Lumix 14-42mm. I don't think the Voigtlander is wide enough to use on there. However, witch the extremely light weight of the Camera and stock lens it makes stabilizing a little more difficult. The Voigtlander has some nice weight, so it would probably make flying easier. Either way, you want a deep DOF when on the Merlin since you can't adjust focus, so using the Voigt seems pointless.

The 7-14mm 2.8 - 4.? is really nice for flying.

Yeah, I definitely wouldn't mind having that len$ lol. Jeff, you said you had one or both of those Olympus f/2.8 zooms, right? How is/are it/they working out? btw, I like your website. Nice and clean.

My website is out of date and I find it tired and worn out looking, but your kind remarks are appreciated. I put it together a couple of years ago and I just haven't made a move to put up a new one.

I really like my Sigma 18-50mm F/2.8, it is at times my favorite lens. I have a polarizing lens on it now and I'm going to the park.

My Tamron which is on the way from B&H will be very useful, and I'm excited about it. But we always say that about new equipment, don't we? Still, it might become my walkaround lens with that kind of range.

When I use the Merlin I switch to the Lumix 14-42mm. I don't think the Voigtlander is wide enough to use on there. However, witch the extremely light weight of the Camera and stock lens it makes stabilizing a little more difficult. The Voigtlander has some nice weight, so it would probably make flying easier. Either way, you want a deep DOF when on the Merlin since you can't adjust focus, so using the Voigt seems pointless.
At F1.4 it has DOF equal to a 50mm @F2.8 on a FF DSLR like the 5D MK2 so it might have enough DOF.

Forgetting DOF, the 25mm is just too wide for classic moving shots. Yes, of course you could "make it work" and get some nice shots, but for flying, for general purposes, most people want a wide lens. 50mm effective is just too long, at least it would be for me.

Somebody asked me to shoot an Off-Broadway show this week with a single GH2. I told them flat out, this is the WRONG camera for this. A video camera is the way to go. In such a situation the GH2 is b-roll and inserts at best. The same goes for weddings. Yes, some shots will be fantastic but too much will be lost while fiddling with the focus/exposure/shutter/ISO.

I might agree with you on the DSLR being the wrong camera for a stage show, maybe. But the wrong camera for a wedding? Really? There are plenty of studios who do this successfully every week. We are one of them. The key, of course, is multiple cameras, using 3 or 4. I would argue that even with a "video" camera we need to always be adjusting focus/shutter/ISO, and that shooting in auto mode is NOT the way to go, especially with stage performances.

At F1.4 it has DOF equal to a 50mm @F2.8 on a FF DSLR like the 5D MK2 so it might have enough DOF.

I mostly use the Merlin outside, and I have the lens stopped down for a deep depth of field. You wouldn't want to use a low f stop because your dof would be too shallow and your subject wouldn't stay in focus while moving.

VARIOUS PLACES FILMING WITH MY GH2 on Vimeo This is the type of filming I like doing with my GH2, Chris is my middle name and I use it mostly.

Chris, nice shots, I very much enjoyed watching your clip. Since you shoot so much outdoors and often have water in your scenes, you might consider trying out an inexpensive polarizing lens. I think you would love the results even more.

Please post more when you can!

Very nice shooting Grant. I agree with Jeff about the polarizing filter -- it makes a world of difference.

Have you noticed any artifacts with the GH1/GH2 when shooting things like grass/areas of patterns? I set up a shot in my living room the other day, and in areas of repeating patterns -- the carpet -- and in areas of large blocks of color -- the wall -- I noticed some very funky things happening in the way of blocky artifacts. In fact, the carpet looked like it was dancing around a bit. And I swear I wasn't on anything ;)

I've noticed moire Corey, but only once, only on a striped tie. But as it turned out, it was only on the LCD, it did not show up on the clip later.

I might agree with you on the DSLR being the wrong camera for a stage show, maybe. But the wrong camera for a wedding? Really? There are plenty of studios who do this successfully every week. We are one of them. The key, of course, is multiple cameras, using 3 or 4. I would argue that even with a "video" camera we need to always be adjusting focus/shutter/ISO, and that shooting in auto mode is NOT the way to go, especially with stage performances.

Of course multiple cameras are a solution, I shoot interviews, concerts and other events with multiple cameras. But if you are a single cameraperson the GH2 is going to be a hard job in live event situations. A pro video camera has all the controls in a operable place whereas the GH2 has many of them in inconvenient menus. A pro video camera has live focus assist while the GH2 is difficult unless you use the EVF which isn't always easy. A video camera has wide DOF even at low f-stops compared to a GH2. Zooming is rough with the GH2 and you do need smooth zooming to cover some stage events with one camera. The GH2 is a great camera, I have already used it for several different shoots with success but it's not a camera with which I would be comfortable in a situation where only one camera is recording a live event. And I never said it was the wrong camera for a wedding, it's a difficult camera for a wedding unless people do as you do and I'm sure your work is excellent.

There is no reason in the world a GH2 is bad for concerts. In fact, because of the large light gathering sensor relative to dedicated video cams, it's actually an excellent choice. Not to mention the availability of unlimited choices of glass.

There is nothing particularly difficult about focus, if the AF bothers you, go full manual. If you're doing this for money, you should able to manually focus. It's not THAT hard. Set you ISO and that little thumbwheel jogs between exposure and shutter. What's so hard about that? It just takes a little getting used to. Don't let the idiotic owners manual fluster you.

The Canons are a different story, they overheat and some have a record limit, they are bad for events, but the GH2? Piece of cake.

I've noticed moire Corey, but only once, only on a striped tie. But as it turned out, it was only on the LCD, it did not show up on the clip later.

It wasn't moire, but compression artifacts. I have noticed moire on the LCD that didn't end up in the recorded clip. The only time I did get recorded moire is when I was shooting my cat through a screen door. Shooting my cat? That sounds terrible.

I'm thinking the compression artifacts may have been due to the low light in those areas. On the floor and the wall where I noticed the artifacts, the light was not spilling into them as much. So, there's not as much visual information going to the sensor, thus it's having a hard time rendering them properly. Does this make sense?

And I never said it was the wrong camera for a wedding,

OK, but it did seem like that's what you were saying:
I told them flat out, this is the WRONG camera for this. A video camera is the way to go. In such a situation the GH2 is b-roll and inserts at best. The same goes for weddings.

It's just a tool, not every camera is best for a given situation, and it's also a personal preference.

I completely understand William's seemingly conflicting statements, as I feel the same way. It is the wrong camera and it is the right camera. It is also exasperating. HDMI out but only when shooting 24p in a 60i wrapper? Cannot adjust iso when recording, the list goes on.

The event and shooting style dictates what is best of course. For a continous performance, the GH2 is not ideal, not even close but we are using it as an inexpensive means to beef up our images.

When we see events on television such as the royal wedding, or a football game, they are not using fixed lenses or DSLR cameras. They have an huge budget and can shoot with whatever they need. They choose video cameras with powerful zoom lenses and automatic focus.

That would be the ideal for any event, really.

The GH2 is being used by primarily hobbyists and gadget lovers. That is who is is geared for. It is not user friendly for the purposes of live event shooting, period. That cannot be denied or argued, it is the reality.

For me the camera has been close to a curse, with it's accompanying difficulties, adapters, etc. On the other hand, I shot last night with it, and things went relatively well, and I'm pretty excited about my next wedding, which is tomorrow.

It can do the job we need but learning how to use it is not an overnight process. If I had the money I would be using an EX1 as Jim S does, with my GH2 as a 2nd camera, and third even.

As I get better using it, I will master it enough I'll be fine, and I will be a much better shooter for the experience.

Corey, were you possibly shooting at a very slow frame rate, I wonder? I had some hinky footage last night in very low light conditions and was running in Aperture priority, and suspect the shutter slowed down too much. I would prefer to run in manual, but I really like auto iso, and dislike the hunting in shutter priority.

DSLRs make the hard work of a wedding shoot even harder. Fine for infill and cutaway shots, if you want to spend the time matching colour in post. I used a 550D as B cam to my EX1 for a while, fine camera, particularly with ML on board. But as a wedding tool, well no, not for me anyway. It was soon replaced with a Panasonic TM900. There are just to many issues with the DSLR for wedding/event use. 12 min recording limit, moire and aliasing, lousy line skipping in camera conversion to HD, low resolution compared to a video camera, ergonomics etc, etc. I agree you can get some excellent images out of a DSLR. In a controlled environment, they are fine, anywhere you can check your shot, and retake it if neccesary. You dont have that luxury on a wedding shoot, well not during the ceremony and speeches. This is of course very subjective, and as others have said, many are using DSLRs succesfully in the wedding production industry. They are a very handy tool to have in the kit bag, but as a main wedding tool, no.

Not arguing with you Colin, but just for clarification, many of the problems you list with DSLRs are not issues with the GH2. (It is not a DSLR, which is an important point in this conversation because it's being a Hybrid is part of why it has overcome some of the issue you mention).

Moire and such are totoal non-issues, conversion of this footage is phenomenal, for me so far. No 12 minute limt. Images, when you get them right, are VERY good and convertible with no issues.

I'm finding the biggest problem is for the most part manual focusing is required, but I'm learning to get better at it.

Of course, overall, you are correct, even with the GH2 having overcome many of the the traditional DSLR issues, traditional video cameras are simply more efficient!

Colin, the Panasonic has a 1/4" sensor. I find many cams with 1/3" too weak in low light. That sounds like a real challenge.

Corey, were you possibly shooting at a very slow frame rate, I wonder? I had some hinky footage last night in very low light conditions and was running in Aperture priority, and suspect the shutter slowed down too much. I would prefer to run in manual, but I really like auto iso, and dislike the hunting in shutter priority.

I'm sure that wasn't it, as I was shooting 720/60p at 1/60 . . . I'll have to try to recreate the problem and see exactly what settings I was on.

Nothing that I say is 100% true for every situation or person, it's just my experience from years of event videography and other projects for filmmakers and broadcast.

As a single camera the stock GH2 with a tripod is great for:
- Interview filming, especially if you record the audio separately.
- Insert shots at weddings, events, concerts, possibly sporting events with the zoom lens.
- For independent film-makers.
- Any filming that has ample set-up time; commercials, promos, music videos, etc.

In my experience you need to start considering additional equipment for other uses: quality monitors for focus, shoulder rigs for hand-held, special lens, etc. The expenses start to add up. Not to discourage anyone from purchasing the camera but the question is practicality. In my opinion the GH2 (which I'm about to go on a job with now) is not practical for many types of filming unless certain criteria are met. These being: are multiple cameras being used? Is one willing to go for the expense of additional equipment? Is impeded function access acceptable?

For information sake, there are regular video cameras that produce excellent images for around the same price and are a lot easier to use. They just don't produce the same quality of image as the GH2. That's the choice we make with this camera. I made it and don't regret it.

Colin, the Panasonic has a 1/4" sensor. I find many cams with 1/3" too weak in low light. That sounds like a real challenge.
Not so Jeff. The TM900 has 3 1/4 inch sensors, for its size it is an amazing camera. I have never had an issue with low light, everyone seems to be obsessed with it these days. I come from the days of 3/4 inch tape, and tube cameras with a 30 lux rating were considered state of the art. My son got married a couple of weeks ago, I used the TM900 for most of the day, only using my EX1 as A cam for the service and speeches. The little camera performed flawelessly in lighting conditions that went from clear skies to thunder storms, dark church and reception venue. Example of the day here http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-avccam-camcorders/495507-tm900-wedding.html

I understand it has three sensors. Your footage was great, and for purposes of having auto focus during the ceremony I would use it during the processional, but that would be the extent of it's usefullness for me.

Actually, than Panasonic would be very useful during reception events that are well lit, as it would maintain focus on it's own and would make for a great wide shot. If it shot 720p, it would be a great choice for me as an extra camera.

Not so Jeff. The TM900 has 3 1/4 inch sensors, for its size it is an amazing camera. I have never had an issue with low light, everyone seems to be obsessed with it these days.

three 1/4" chips means you have 1/4" sensor, and no matter how you slice it, it won't have the light gathering ability of the GH2's m43 sensor. Some dedicated small chips cams might seem equivalent to the gh2 in low light because they have very fast lenses and then they compare it to the stock GH2 kit lens. But try putting the F0.95 Voightlander and the do a comparison. There is no comparison really.

I'm not sure why you guys say it's bad for events, someone listed Moire, short record times, aliasing, low resolution, well this is the Panasonic forum, not Canon. GH2 resolves well over 700 lines.
The VF is easy for focusing, sharper than my EX3. So far the only valid point I've read is that Jeff said it's kind too tiny and not that ergonomic. That's fair, but I think you can used to anything.

To be honest, I find it a very usefull, all round camera. I add again, this is very subjective. The final edit of the wedding will include about 60% of TM900 footage

Well, the footage from your sample looks nice, but there was something missing in it, but I can't put my finger on what I didn't care for. It seem flat looking, I think, lacking in saturation, maybe it was the lighting conditions, maybe it was the encoding for the web, I don't know.

The reviews of the camera on B&H are quite good overall, and people say it's great in low light.

This is my assesment: for a 1/4" sensor, it looks excellent, even amazing, but it is still a 1/4" sensor.

It's kind of like my old Canon HV30. In many situations the footage was outstanding, but there were times, quite often, that it was painfully obvious it had a small sensor.

The physical size of a 1/4" chip just limits it too much in ways that it cannot possibly allow as much information in as a 1/2" or greater chip will do.

I agree on your comments re 1/4 sensors Jeff. Of course there is a vast difference between the two.The church in the clip is our local church. It is 13th century and sits on the cliffs overlooking the Atlantic. It is without a doubt, the darkest church I have worked in, in the last 30 years. To give you an idea of the light levels, the EX1 was wide open + 9db of gain. I toyed with taking it up to 12, but decided against it, all worked out well. As for saturation on the TM900, I have actually reduced it to get it close to my EX1. I guess we have to remember, one camera costs £750, the other £5,000. But to get back to the thread title, I would rather use the TM900 than a DSLR for any kind of event shooting. It just makes life easier, and the end results, for me, are more than acceptable.

This thread is kind of silly. Most of the top wedding videographers are using DSLRs to shoot weddings. Those that have dedicated themselves to the medium are getting stunning results. I remember when guys first started using the 5D Mark II. They were brutalized on this site. Now, they are common place.

The GH2 does everything a DSLR can do, but with less limitations. If you can shoot a wedding with a DSRL, you can shoot one with the GH2. If you don't like using "photo cameras" to shoot weddings, then don't use them. Stick to what you like.

We are artists and as such, we can use any brush we like to paint a picture. If you don't like a certain tool, that is fine, use something you do like. But don't waist your time knocking someone else's choice in tools. Do something productive like learn to edit better or work on your marketing. Four pages of back and forth is silly.

Respect
Evan

Expensive but an EX3 for me, less work, I will stick to fun locations with mine, all the best to you gluttons for punishment [joking].

This thread is kind of silly.
...
Do something productive like learn to edit better or work on your marketing. Four pages of back and forth is silly.


I have to respectfully disagree. I'm loving the discussion, and am learning a lot about the cameras, their capabilities, and people's experiences/impressions with them.

Discussion about editing and marketing can be done on other threads, there are plenty out there.

Keep it going!