No matter how many raves I read about using DSLRs for weddings, I'm just not seeing enough advantages over traditional video cameras. Am I just being an old fogey? Here's what worries me:
- no servo zoom, resulting in stiff on-camera zooming
- dismal audio capabilities. No XLRs, no headphone jack on many models, use of wireless audio recorders means you can't monitor audio
- simultaneous manual focus and zooming a real bitch

Are these legitimate concerns? The audio part alone makes me want to never go near a DSLR.

It's a problem, I admit that. Audio and DSLRs are not good bedpartners. That is the reason most DSLR-shooters choose to record their audio on a dedicated audio-recorder, preferably one with XLR-inputs. This also solves the headphones/audio-monitoring issue, but creates another: your audio and video are recorded on two seperate devices, and thus you'll need to sync in post. It's a hassle, but for most of 'us' it's very much worth it!

Are those all the problems that come with 'm ... nope ... the trouble keeps heaping up. There's (with most DSLRs) a time limit. You can only record for approx. 12 minutes in one take. After reaching the 12-minutes-line the camera will stop recording, without a warning. Also, that 12-minutes limit is not even a guarantee, I've had it record up to 20 minutes before it kicked. The problem is the way these camera's handle their files, they've got a 4GB/file limit. This means: 12 minutes of video per take, at least, but longer is possible. This is a very dangerous thing to 'play' with in case of event shooting. Then there's also moire and anti-aliasing to take into account. But still, for many of 'us', it's still worth it!

Were that all the downsides? Most certainly ... not. There's the matter of zooming and focusing manually. There is no automatic mode (unless you're ready to shelf out big buck for third party equipment). Zooming is done exclusively by manually turning the zoom-ring of the lens, the same goes for focusing. That's why the use of a follow focus is generally very popular amongst DSLR-shooters. Zooming and focussing at the same time is not only hard, it nearly impossible. And of course there's the matter of ergonomics when using this type of camera for video-shooting... but I won't even get into that.

And still people, including myself, prefer the use of a DSLR over the regular videocamera -- in the sub $6000 price range. I love the flexibility of being abled to switch between lenses, especially primes (with a fixed focus lens). I love having the capability (at times, don't over-do it) of achieving the befamed shallow-depth-of-field, because of the very large sensor (in comparison to most video-camera's). The low-light performance and the fact that I have to be extremely conscious of every setting I'm shooting at.

And in the end for a lot of folks it's simply the low entry-level price point. One can get into the video-DSLRs for less than $700 - not including lenses, which is a ridiculous low pricepoint for a camera which will -if in the right hands- deliver a image quality that surpasses many much-pricier videocameras.

One man (in case of weddings) who I'd call 'the right hands' would be for example JJ Kim (Orange Wedding Films) - 'cause everyone will admit: these visuals (http://vimeo.com/26923550) look just gorgeous!

I'm just not seeing enough advantages over traditional video cameras. ...The audio part alone makes me want to never go near a DSLR.
Bill, you don't have to, and we all know limitations of video recorded with photo camera, but I just wonder, have you tried to shoot DSLR with some decent lens? I'm asking cuz I was really sceptical about DSLR video myself, but as soon as I borrowed one from my friend, and tried to shoot some clips on my next wedding job, right after that I was buying my first 5DmkII
it's a tool, try it, if you'll like it - you use it in your production, and if you don't - you don't

I love the flexibility of being abled to switch between lenses, especially primes (with a fixed focus lens)
that would be a pain to use;)

Bill, I'm well-known enough as a "video" man here but I can see that DSLRs will have a following.

They're well suited to the "arty-farty" type of programme;
They're good for people who don't mind lots of disparate equipment on a job and have the time to fit all the different recordings together before they start editing;
They're trendy (and there'll always be some people for whom that's important);
They're cheap - at least at the entry level there's generally a price differential in favour of the DSLR;
If you're using multiple cameras then AFAIK there's no way of putting all the camera settings into all the cameras in seconds as some serious video camera users (eg EX1/3) can.

I'm sure the DSLR afficionados could add another 20 benefits (which I could easily counter with an equal number of disadvantages) but if none of those five appeal to you then I think you'll find a "proper" video camera better suited to your work.

The important thing is that provided we're talking weddings and events there'll be room here for their users' opinions and views.

Wow, Philip, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder regarding DSLR's. You made each of the 'benefits' you listed sound like negatives.

Look, DSLR's aren't for everyone. They DO have disadvantages. They also have pretty amazing advantages too.

The primary reasons we started using DSLR's were much better image quality, much better low light performance, much better DOF control, the ability to use different lenses, and the much smaller form factor (ease of travel). If none of that appeals to you, then I wouldn't bother with DSLR's. Otherwise you'll just have to gauge whether or not the advantages outweigh the disadvantages for your shooting needs.

Sorry Travis, only the last of my five points was intended to be negative at all.

As I wrote, in my view the DSLR negatives are legion (as the similar thread on this topic indicates) but I do recognise that some people a) like them and b) find them useful for their type of programmes. With the precursor that I am a "proper" video camera man, I don't think one can say fairer than that.

Perhaps one other comment is apposite and that it that there are very successful and regarded people in this business who still work with PD170s and I'd be the last to gainsay them.

I love the GH1. And I'm not trendy. It's absolutely amazing -- the single best piece of video equipment I've happened upon in a very long time. Small light body, manual or auto focusing with the right lenses, no recording time limit, awesome low-light capability and nice shallow DOF in a lot of instances. I don't zoom much at all, so I don't care about manual zooming. They don't take any more time to set up and shoot with than traditional video cameras.

But I also use HMC40's, because they also come in very useful.

They're all tools in the toolbox. They all are great in some situations, and suck in other situations. If you don't like using DSLR's or something like the GH1/GH2, that's great. But I like having a nice array of tools at my disposal.

I bought a DSLR as a b cam at first to my larger JVCHD 200U (which I loved at the time). The very first wedding a photog let me use his 1.2 85mm during the reception. I was BLOWN AWAY! It was like shooting with night vision goggles attached to my camera (only without the shades of green and noise).
The wedding I shot last week had such great uplighting that I didn't have to use any external lights at all...

Steve

I'm in the same paranoia boat...

That's why i'm holding off for an AF100 for next year(fingers crossed) or something similar...
Until then, i'm starting to incorporate a lot of the techniques I enjoy viewing from the DSLR side of things...

Bill,

The DSLR or the "proper camera" are tools. Seeing how this theory applies to human nature, let's talk about a different tool, lawn mowers.

If it is time to go get a new lawn mower, of course you do your research before heading to the store. During the course of that research, let's say you decide you really like the traditional riding lawn tractor. You looked at and investigated those new fangled zero turn riding mowers, but in your gut, they just aren't "you".

When you go to the lawn mower store, you already know you like the John Deere green traditional lawn tractors. Once inside the store, let's say you end up with a very persuasive salesman who pitches all the benefits of the zero turn, even though you keep eying up that shiny John Deere next to it.

Somehow after all the pitch of all the benefits, the salesman then convinces you to buy the zero turn.

The zero turn gets to your house, you try it out and you see it is just too weird and complicated to operate. You try your best to figure it out but deep inside you are kicking yourself because you KNEW you really wanted that John Deere.

IN YOUR MIND and in no time at all, that zero turn is going to be the biggest piece of crap you have ever bought in your entire life. With each passing use of it you are going to hate it more and more and more !!!

You eventually go back to the lawn mower store and trade in that worthless piece of crap for that John Deere you really wanted. Forever after, that John Deere is going to be the absolute best tool you ever owned !!!

Don't fight your gut Bill....regardless of what others say, your gut is telling you what is right for you.

i need to jump in here. I was shooting my Ex1 AND 7D side by side this past weekend.
yes,the DSLR has a "sharper" image, however, despite me using a f1.4 lens in a very dark
room, the equivalent ISO on the DSLR and the gain on the EX1 gave the EX1 the advantage of
a cleaner picture. Both were using LED lights. Maybe its the 7D, but even in the church, i saw
no discernable advantage to the 7D in that particular instance, it had a tad more reach with
the 70-200 due to the 1.6x crop, but not by much. I don't know man. I tell you, it gets tiresome
rolling around with two bags of crap on a wedding day. I am about to abandon the DSLR all together
and stick with the traditional video cameras. After all, content is king, and sometimes i HATE not
having a fast servo zoom at my finger tips.

Hey Guys

There seems to bit a hint of bitterness between DSLR users and video camera users which to me sounds rather silly. Both have their advantages and also their disadvantages but if we start to squabble over which is better we might as well start fighting over 7D verus GH2 and Canon versus Sony!!!

Seriously, does it REALLY matter what gear you use?? I use Panasonic HMC cameras..does that make me a bad or incompenent videographer???

IMO use whatever suits you and gets the job done..I personally prefer shooting with normal cams as their AF is very good and it's one less think to worry about BUT that doesn't mean that everyone should follow me!!!

Chris

I can say right now that I will not use DSLRs for my work. Why? Not because I necessarily dislike them (I have tried them out and they do produce very nice footage and have some definate advantages over the traditional vidcam) but because I'm too damn old and too near retirement to worry about learning new gear now. Like Chris said just because I'm still shooting tape, SD, 4:3 BTW, on... wait for it, an 11 year old PD150 and an 7 year old PD170, doesn't make me a bad guy either. I still do 55 to 60 per year, make a very decent living, fill my clients needs and since most of my clients are referrals or have seen me at one of their friends weddings, they know what they're getting. Plus some of my corporate clients like the idea of giving them the tapes at the end of the day so their people can do the edit.
The point is this. You use what you're comfortable with and while I'm comfortable with a DSLR for stills...not so much for video. Will I upgrade my cams? Yeah it appears so. Will I get DSLRs? I would say no. Would I try to talk someone out of them? Naw, not my business. You want 'em, get 'em. Don't like 'em, sell 'em. Move on.

And things will change again.. today, it's DSLR.. tomorrow, it could be an iPhone 5 :P

I agree, use what suits you best and fits your clients needs best.

Perfect point Don!!

I changed to HD for only one reason!! Bride's wanted 16:9 to suit their new LCD TV's BUT they couldn't care less about whether it was SD or HD (in fact most have absolutely no idea at all!!)

I looked locally for 16:9 cameras and the only ones available were PD170's or Sony's shoulder mount's which were out my price range for 16:9 units and I prefer shoulder mount cameras anyway!!

Funnily enough, my latest HMC's have been given a DV Mode too and I would MUCH rather shoot in SD and edit in SD ..way quicker!!! Seriously if the bride wants a DVD then why not shoot in SD if you can??

I currently shoot in AVCHD, transcode to HDV or Canopus HQAVI and then render out to SD MPEG2
What I should be doing is shooting in DV mode 576i or 576p and then render out to SD MPEG2!!! So even I am NOT using my tools correctly..while at least Don is doing the right thing!!!

OK, I going going the DSLR route either, I reckon the way to go is a bunch of GoPro Hero's strapped to your body and you are done!! one chest mount and one helmet mount and one wrist mount....now, if only they could shoot in SD !!!

Chris

haha chris that's great, gopro's are the way to go for sure!

But seriously, I use a gopro and a contour for the ceremonies as "hidden cams" for angles I may miss due to movement restrictions or whatnot. I usually use my gopro in the balcony to capture a extreme wide of the church which always looks cool and I end up using it a couple times in my edit even if I dont have to, it's a bit grainy but with a boost in saturation, a tad of crushed blacks, and a good round of Neatvideo noise reduction it ends up looking pretty good. My contour on the other hand I rarely use unless I absolutely have to. It performs pretty badly and I can't monitor the shot like I can with my gopro LCDbackpack.

So phillip with his "proper" video cameras, and travis with his "fake" video cameras can suck a lemon because me and Chris are revolutionizing the wedding industry with helmet cams. Welcome to the future punks, good luck catching up to the revolution! ;)

Nice one David! Unfortunately a couple of months ago I wondered here when I'd have the balls to shoot a wedding with 20 Flip cameras, each on a gorillapod, each aimed on a specific place where the action would take place. Me? I'll be in the car park with my coffee flask!

And didn't someone suggest a gopro in the bouquet a while back?

Revolution? What revolution?

No matter how many raves I read about using DSLRs for weddings, I'm just not seeing enough advantages over traditional video cameras. Am I just being an old fogey? Here's what worries me:
- no servo zoom, resulting in stiff on-camera zooming
- dismal audio capabilities. No XLRs, no headphone jack on many models, use of wireless audio recorders means you can't monitor audio
- simultaneous manual focus and zooming a real bitch

Are these legitimate concerns? The audio part alone makes me want to never go near a DSLR.

Bill, it makes you wonder why anyone would switch from "proper" video cams to DSLR, but they do. Now since they do, there must be some advantages..right?

I bought a Flip Ultra HD for vacation videos, its a pain lugging a shoulder mounted camera. Have anyone tried to use Flip as a B-Cam? I was able to import the clips but can't output to DVD using Adobe Elements 8.

With regards to DSLR, I will be buying one (Bride prep, B-Roll, E-shoots) but will still use my hd1000U as main cam. If you noticed these are scenes where I have the option of getting a take 2.

My 2 cents

Because dslr's give you the future tech today. I'd love a red epic, and in 5-10 years that tech will trickle down so that we can use it in our workflows.

Dslr's are designed to mimic film. Film has a nostalgic feel that the vdslr user think will sell the best to the brides. It might not be the right thing to do, for the same reason shooting into the sun to create lens flares is technically not the right way to capture footage. But it makes things feel romantic. And when telling the most romantic story of a persons life, its, IMO the way to go.

If we are making films, rather than videos, it makes sense to adopt the visual language that has evolved from making movies in Hollywood. If you look at Hollywood movies, you will rarely see zooms. If you do, it is very subtle and very slow because it is communicating something. What it communicates is that what the person is saying, the viewer should be pulled into. Otherwise, a zoom communicates a jarring event.

I'm just not seeing enough advantages over traditional video cameras.

There are many disadvantages using a dslr, that's why I never will sell my real videocamera and continue using it for important shots where I get one chance to have it right, or where I need good audio.

But still I bought two 550D bodies and some set of lenzes, why? I can shoot with a very wide angle lens (much wider then my videocamera) on my blackbird steadicam and hold it much longer then when I would put my videocamera on it since the combination is so light.
I can shoot in very dark receptions without extra light meaning I still can have colorfull images where my videocamera just gives very muddy and grainy footage.
I can shoot these nice images with a small dof without zooming in giving my footage a much nicer look.

I only use my dslr's when the environment is a bit more controlled which is usually starting at the reception of a wedding or when I have to cover an event. These small and cheap dslr's have given me footage that I never could have gotten with my videocamera so even if they are a pain to use, I couldn't imagine working without them but the same applies for my real videocamera.

For me at least their addition have been a very good investment considering what they cost and what result I can get out of them.

All one has to do is view Pacific Pictures website or other similar studio to see why people are using DSLR. The footage these cameras produce is stunning, pure and simple. My camera has sensors that are nearly 1" in size. Find me a "proper" video camera with a 1" sensor please, that doesn't cost the price of a new car, and I'll buy it.

DSLR shooting is not an emerging trend, is already here, and has been used for a couple of years now by many major event studios. This is not a new thing folks.

Ardent criticizers and opponents of DSLR are simply expressing anxiety which is common when anything new appears, I've exhibited the same behavior many times myself. When one of us goes to lengths to discredit or diss something new, it speaks more to the state of mind of the person making the statements than it does to the subject at hand. Constructive discussion and questioning is one thing, but rejecting out of hand a useful new way of doing things without having tried it, is another.

This "trend" is the driving force behind many of the new developments in videocameras, such as the Sony with interchangeable lenses, and other large sensor cams that will undoubtedly be hitting streets.

I am shooting strictly GH2s and GH1s, and am finally acquiring footage I could only dream of in the past.

Someone mentioned cheap? Yes, we can achieve decent results cheaply, but it is also well known that the best results with these cameras come at great cost.

A fast (F/2.0) zoom for my Panasonic with very limited range costs $2500. You could outfit a single camera easily with $6K worth of glass and have only the basics covered. Someone somewhere around here used the figure of $10K recently, but I'm being conservative.

DSLR shooting is huge and a LOT of folks are going this route, some with better results than others. Some have tried it and given up, that's cool, they gave it a try. Others don't feel the need to try it, that's cool too. Some, like me, are stuggling and fighting the good fight. Still others are 30 years younger than me and are doing amazing things because they are learning much faster than I am able. It is those guys and gals I'm envious of.

This journey into a new way of shooting has been one of the most frustrating things I've ever done. I'm 56, and I'm running four of these damned things by myself. In the end, I feel confident it will work out. I don't normally back down from a challenge, but if I could get comparable images from a "proper" video camera, believe me I would. Unfortunately I don't have $20 or 30K to spend to do so.

I'm 56, and I'm running four of these damned things by myself.

Really?? that's insane :) I already struggle with 2 dslr's

Very balance commentary there Jeff.

I'm someone who dipped a toe in but felt the water was too hot. You say that you are now finally acquiring the footage you've been after, my concern is what happens during the re-education period. Weddings are a one off and I don't feel comfortable trying out new techniques that are so far from the way I'm accustomed to working. I'd be so nervous of the missed opportunities whilst wrestling with the camera or shooting footage that is not up to the mark. The fact that some of what I get might be awesome is not enough for me to weigh the balance.

I know that if I was staring out in this area I'd be all over DSLRs, I have got one, and I can only admire your courage to tackle weddings on your own armed only with GH2s, but having made a great investment in "proper" video cameras (JVC HM700s) and all the ancillaries plus many years of honing my style of shooting, I'm not one who will be crossing the border to DSLR land. I don't have the urge or feel the need to make my wedding days any harder work or any more stressful.

I must admit that Jeff does a pretty good job but I don't think I would like to wrestle 4 DSLR's and shoot with manual focus and manual exposure. I guess it comes down to the fact that I'm basically lazy so if a DSLR was in fact easier to use than a video camera then, by golly, I would be all over them!!

I have always shot documentary style so I don't need the DOF advantage of DSLR's and although a lot of people shudder at the thought that I shoot a lot of my weddings in full auto, it does mean that for me especially running DSLR's would require more work ...not my favorite word....if there is an easier way..I'll take it.

Now, if I was shooting a lot of commercial stuff where the environment is controlled and you can reshoot scenes then I would definately use DSLR ... I do like the fact that if the bride suddenly does something silly on the dance floor and indicates she wants it filmed, I can grab one camera and just hit record without any focus or exposure issues ... maybe you DSLR pros could do it as fast but certainly not me!!

I honestly admit that I would like a pro camera that doesn't need a crane to pick it up but I do a lot of handheld shots so by the time a DSLR was on a fancy rig with all the bits and pieces it would probably weigh as much as my current cameras. Surely Jeff, you are not doing handhelds with the tiny GH2's without some sort of support or are they that stable to use???

Chris

Really?? that's insane :) I already struggle with 2 dslr's

45 years old here and work 3 DSLRs for the ceremony by myself.

Noa, it is insane, as you can imagine! One of the hardest parts is choosing which lens goes where for a ceremony, I still am workng that out after a dozen weddings!

Those of you who primarily shoot weddings and have made the switch from video to stills cameras exclusively, what was the main reason for your decision to switch?

I know that most decisions are made after weighing a combination of reasons but if there was one over-riding reason was it:

Personal satisfaction: Seeing what you would be able to get you were prepared to put in the effort for your own benefit, which in turn you could pass on to customers?

Reaction: Customer driven in that your customers had seen examples and were asking for the 'look' and you felt you had to compete to keep/increase your bookings?

Proactive: Thinking that you could get an advantage in your market and drive customer expectations by demonstrating the production values achievable, making you stand out against your competition?

Like a challenge: Keeping abreast of the inevitable/relentless changes in technology that will happen anyway so "I'd better get on"?

Any of these?

George, many of us thought we would give the whole dslr "trend" a try a year or two ago, were completely blown away, and haven't looked back since.

Too many of the other posters who are middle aged and don't want to deal with the hassles of a dslr, I'm younger and absolutely love having to work more to use my canon. I feel as if manual focus has made me such a better videographer and if I ever pick up a traditional camera again I will, one, be that much better, and two, likely still use manual focus. Also, I'm a gear junkie, when I had my vx2100's I pretty much ran out of accessories to get. With the dslr's, its really never ending.

George, I will tell you why I switched. But first some background.

Let's start this story at about 18 months ago, in my living room. Normally when I would show my work to a prospect, I would get lots of really nice reactions as they viewed my weddings shot with the FX1000.

I gave my prospects the names of competitors, and told them to shop around before deciding and to watch my competitors work before they made a decision, and this worked out fine for me. I almost always got the job, and was chosen over my competitors 9 times out of 10.

Fast forward to 6 months ago, and I lost 4 or 5 jobs IN A ROW this same way. Two customers told me point blank my images were not so great as they sat in my living room, which was a new occurence for me, and very unpleasant.

When I follow up with a customer, if they book someone else, I always ask who they hired instead, so I know what is happening in the marketplace. DSLR shooters got all of the above jobs, at twice my price and more.

As the above scenario played out, it was booking season, and I was losing jobs. I depend on deposits during off-season. This experience was psychologically and financially painful.

I was being told by customers that there was a problem. I had to decide what to do about it. I decided to fight. I sold my gear, almost all of it, and started from scratch. To say it was scary, and that it still is, is not over-stating things.

Mostly what is now happening is that people are spoiled now by 1080 images on Network television and cable.

Cincinnati couples who are shopping for video almost all have 42-52" inch hi-def televisions, and many now have plasmas. A portion of the current crop of couples looking for video services are higher end clients that, in the past, would have shopped excuslively with higher end vendors, but due to the shift in the economy, are now sitting in my living room trying to save money. These customers are more sophisticated than my previous prosepects were, and they expect better quality images. They will go elsewhere if they must for better quality, but if I can provide it they'll buy from me. Otherwise, no amount of price-slashing or deal-making will save me or pay the rent.

Now, mind you, all my customers don't get bluray, but many are, and I'm giving it away in some cases, because it's free advertising. I edit 720p footage on my timeline, and can go either way when it's time to render for either bluray or DVD. This is a huge advantage of 720p, by the way, as it doesn't need resized in post for SD DVD.

Anyway, as you can see from my story, the assessment by some that those of us shooting using DSLR as being caught up in a "trend" are mistaken. In some markets, like mine, it's a matter of survival.

I have described my customer, as far as what they are looking for. This doesn't apply to everyone even in my own market. I have a friend/competitor whom I refer to often when I tell anecdotes about the video market here, and he is largely shooting with the VX2100, which blows me away still. He keeps a staff of over 30 shooters busy all season long, and has several full time editors.

He bought two of my FX1000s, and uses them for select weddings, and some of his shooters use newer cameras, but overall his business is extremely good, and he is doing fine, thank you very much.

So what you or the next guy does or needs to do to survive and thrive will vary, as the customer bases are as varied and as segmented as the equipment we use, even within a large market.

Very interesting read Jeff.

Can I just pick out one thing you said regarding 720P not having to be resized for SD DVD, how's that?
I shoot in 720P but still have to encode at 576 for DVD (I'm in PAL land).

Luke, what you say about the middle aged guys being unwilling/unable to try DSLR will likely offend a few sensitive souls, but you speak the truth of course.

I was dragged into it, didn't want to go there, but here I am. You "youngsters" are at the forefront of the whole thing, and are leading the way for the rest of us. We are at the beginning of shift away from SD to HD/Bluray and to wherever else it will lead. Things will never go back to the way they were, as much as some of us wish they would.

Middle/old age is characterized often times by inflexibility and laziness, and a desire to rest on our laurels. It has alway been this way, and will always be so. The DSLR thing has helped me to become more flexible in my thinking, which is absolutley necessary for happiness in life anyway.

So keep it up Luke. Thanks for doing your part to help push the oldsters like me into the new millennium!

Very interesting read Jeff.

Can I just pick out one thing you said regarding 720P not having to be resized for SD DVD, how's that?
I shoot in 720P but still have to encode at 576 for DVD (I'm in PAL land).

History repeats itself. When I started shooting with VHS the then 'old brigade' using wide-tape formats or even film, said it'd never catch on. Subsequently small tape formats expanded the market for video production and even carved out entirely new markets.

George, I know nothng about pal, so I dont know. I do know that from Vegas the process of rendering out to SD widescreen or choosing to go bluray is extremely simple, though it was a bit of a pain figuring it out, and I got a lot of help learning.

The dimensions of 720p are so like 480 that you can simply change project properties as needed, do a very slight crop (optional) of the footage using "aspect ratio" script, and you're good to go. And the DVD footage is progressive, which is always nice. So if you choose to crop the footage, which is not really necessary, for SD widescreen, the crop is so minor that it looks fantastic on DVD.

Regarding 1080, it might work out just fine the same way, I don't know, I've only done it once and never saw the final product, but I do know 720 footage works great when converted to SD!

Technically I guess there is some resizing going on (can you tell I'm not technically inclined?) but it is minimal at worst.

Good analogy George. The more things change, the more they stay the same. As the years and my experience accumulate, this becomes truer with each passing day. There really is "nothing new under the sun", espeically regarding people and our patterns.

Hi George

I've heard too that a 1280x 720 images resizes better to SD BUT no-one has ever said whether it's an NSTC or PAL resize ... We are talking here about a progressive image of 1280 x 720 and a theoretical image (due to the non square pixels) of 1024x576 (PAL) Both have an aspect of 1.7777 so they should resize without any distortion BUT 1920x1080 also has an aspect of 1.7777 so I'm lost!!!

The actual PAL image is only 720x576 but the PAR is different (pixels are not square) Since both 720 and 1080 both have the same aspect I have never fathomed how it makes a difference.

An explanation why 720 downsizes better would be nice from someone who knows????

I actually posted a topic on the Sony Vegas forum to see if anyone knows there...what I do know is that HDV interlaced (1440x1080) and SD have closer aspect ratios (1.333 and 1.365) so they might resize "cleaner" but that doesn't explain why 720 does a better resize!!!

Chris

George, many of us thought we would give the whole dslr "trend" a try a year or two ago, were completely blown away, and haven't looked back since.

Too many of the other posters who are middle aged and don't want to deal with the hassles of a dslr, I'm younger and absolutely love having to work more to use my canon. I feel as if manual focus has made me such a better videographer and if I ever pick up a traditional camera again I will, one, be that much better, and two, likely still use manual focus. Also, I'm a gear junkie, when I had my vx2100's I pretty much ran out of accessories to get. With the dslr's, its really never ending.
I'm sure there is some truth to what you say, but I'm 42 (I guess that counts as middle age), and I'm a complete gear junkie. I love new equipment and was very eager to test out the DSLR revolution. But I found that, for me, there are severe limitations to audio especially. I do hold to the adage that good audio is more important than good video, and DSLRs don't hold a candle to traditional camcorders (at this point). Sure,you can add a Beachtek XLR adapter (not crazy about the sound quality of those). I like to zoom and focus simultaneously. I appreciate the benefits of auto exposure on occasion. I like manual audio control. I like a nice smooth servo zoom. I am eager for the day that DSLRs catch up in that respect (I'm sure they will), but until then I don't see them as being right for me.

Chris.
I too can't workout the downsizing conundrum. I had been shooting 720x50p as it's the native format of my camera chip and had heard that it was better for resizing for DVD, however I had (and still do have) a problem with progressive DVD and have changed to interlaced MPEGs for DVD. I now shoot at 1080x1920 50i and I can't see a great deal of difference on a 42" screen. I had shot some 720p on my GH2 and whilst I see the difference in the original files, I don't see that much in the DVD. I guess that everything should stay in HD. I'm tempted not to offer DVD any more just Blu-ray or a HD media file on a drive.

Bill, you can always run a videocamera strictly for the audio. Or a GH2. The GH2 has adjustable levels, and I use it for excellent sound for my wireless. You cannot monitor live, but I don't care. I never monitored my audio anyway, never had to. If the sound levels indicate a stong signal that is not red-lining, I'm happy.


For the reception you lower the levels to 2, adjust the gain on the shotgun. With the GH2 I put on a mini shotgun like a Rode or Sennheiser (I have both) and audio is acceptable. For the best sound, I use a HV30 with a shotgun, and all is well, and I run it continuously.


If you're running multiple cameras, the sound issue is spurious, non-existent, except in our minds. A bit inconvenient perhaps. As to audio being more important, that may or may not be true, and is open to debate. If I were to have to choose the loss of either audio or video I'm sure I would choose to lose audio, I can at least set video to music. With no video I have nothing. And since I'm hired as a videographer, I'm thinkiing video is of the highest priority for me.

No matter how many raves I read about using DSLRs for weddings, I'm just not seeing enough advantages over traditional video cameras. Am I just being an old fogey? Here's what worries me:
- no servo zoom, resulting in stiff on-camera zooming
- dismal audio capabilities. No XLRs, no headphone jack on many models, use of wireless audio recorders means you can't monitor audio
- simultaneous manual focus and zooming a real bitch

Are these legitimate concerns? The audio part alone makes me want to never go near a DSLR.Many will see the lack of zoom as a positive advantage nothing screams 'cheesy amateur video' like live zooming. Just use the zoom lens as a variable prime. Generally decent DSLR zoom lenses only have a 3X range in any case.

Of course you can monitor audio just plug your headphones into the digital audio recorder that has the XLR inputs (Zoom H4n, Tascam DR-100 etc)

Interesting that even when we used 'proper' video cameras we never relied on those cameras for our audio, yet that does seem to be a major hangup for many concerning DSLRs. Also, we never incorporated zoom movements into our shots when we shot with 'proper' video cameras, so again this hasn't been an issue for us with DSLRs. Each to their own, though.

I miss the zoom of a videocamera. There is nothing to equal a creeping, steady zoom from a balcony, especially a zoom out, as it exposes the entire sanctuary of a cathedral.

Zoom shots are a hallmark of shooting large and important events. Zooms were used in the royal wedding, for god's sake, and they were stunning, I might add. They were actually almost beyond belief, what powerful cameras they had.

If zoom cameras are good enough for a zillion dollar shoot produced by the most talented of crews, they are good enough for me, especially when done right.

The ability to frame shots from a distance with a 20x zoom was fantastic. I don't how anyone could not miss a zoom like that.

I had pretty much mastered slow zooms and they made for the closest thing I could acheive to a breathtaking shot similar to the big boys.

I understand that cheesy zooms as exhibited by amateurs and even some pros are tacky, but zooms are not bad just because they are misused by some. Just my two cents.

Interesting that even when we used 'proper' video cameras we never relied on those cameras for our audio,

That is one of the reasons why I don't use a dslr for an important event like the church, I"m very happy with my "proper" videocamera 2 xlr inputs and I always use them both for my audio and always monitor it during recording. Eventough I work with unmonitored devices like a zoom h1, h4 and 2 irivers as well I hate the fact that I don't know what is happening, that's why the audio from the most important persons are connected to my xlr inputs.

A real amateur question here: do you put on a protective UV filter when you use a DSLR? Whenever I've looked at photogs, they never seem to use one.

Also, I seem to recall a few people mentioning an add-on for traditional video cameras that lend a shallower DOF? True?

Let me add that I've been filming with DSLRs since the 5DII came out, it's a great tool but I recently bought another Sony EX1 over additional DSLRs & lenses. Although I still almost exclusively use DSLRs for the make-up and pre-ceremony preparations I now opt to film the ceremony and reception with traditional cameras like the EX1 for their ease of use and reliability. I'm tired of out of focus moments and noisy images, the general idea that DSLRs ars better in low light to say an EX1 is relative, I get much cleaner images out of my EX1 than I do with DSLRs. The up side to DSLRs is that they do the colour grading in camera so your footages looks great out of the box while the EX1 needs to be setup and graded in post to get the same results. Shooting 720P on the DSLRs produces rather embarrassing results sometimes that looks like a webcam, the current line of Canons really suck when you compare HD resolutions. So why do I still use DSLRs? Cost - its one of the cheapest HD solutions, Depth of Field, skin tones are brilliant and of course it's a tiny little camera, you can get away with filming in restricted areas if you have to. It's been said content is king and different situations call for different tools, at the end of the day you have to ask yourself if the amount of work going into a production is worth the price you're getting paid.

A real amateur question here: do you put on a protective UV filter when you use a DSLR? Whenever I've looked at photogs, they never seem to use one.

Also, I seem to recall a few people mentioning an add-on for traditional video cameras that lend a shallower DOF? True?

I've abandoned UV filters, as they're really not as important as vendors would have you believe. The big push is that they help protect the front element of the lens, but in reality they don't make that much difference. Their "real" function is to reduce UV haze, but I've never noticed any difference. And in theory, anything you put in front of your lens is modifying the original image.

DOF adapters aren't worth it either, IMO. They're a hassle to use, and usually affect image quality dramatically.

Back to George's question

Sorry if this is going a bit off topic on the 720/1080 but I posted on the Sony Vegas forum and it seems it's more what the NLE can handle rather than the image size that you are rendering down to SD!!

The older NLE's seem to struggle with resizing but most are coming up to speed so the general consensus seems to be it doesn't matter whether you shoot in 1080 i or p or at 720 p only. Any good NLE should handle the downsizing adequately. Admittedly I shoot in 1080i cos I'm shooting documentary style and it seems that most DSLR's only shoot 720P which is understandable as the last thing you need is for your DSLR footage to look like video!! If you wanted that you would use a video camera.

I'm not sure if any DSLR's do shoot at 1080 but to get the "look" I would be biased towards 720 anyway. Even with my "old fashioned" cameras I still set my scene profiles to be more "cinelike" and the result is good.

Chris

A real amateur question here: do you put on a protective UV filter when you use a DSLR? Whenever I've looked at photogs, they never seem to use one.

Also, I seem to recall a few people mentioning an add-on for traditional video cameras that lend a shallower DOF? True?

We no longer use UV filters as we don't see the benefit in putting a cheap piece of glass in front of an expensive piece of glass .. as in, we don't want to lose the benefit of our good glass by putting mediocre glass in front of it. d;-) Plus, in 6 or 7 years of using UV filters we've never had one 'save' a lens. It's possible one could, but just not worth it for us.

I notice that there's more ghost flare when I use UV filter. I tend to leave it off my cheaper lenses.

I use UV filters, it's my experience that cutting between a lens with a UV filter and without gives different results in direct sunlight when is comes to colour saturation. I've also scratched a $1300 lens that didn't have a filter which could have been easily avoided. As for "pro's" not using them? Many pro's do, every man has his preference. If you have great insurance I guess you don't have to worry. Personally I find it easier to clean the UV filter over my expensive glass.

"Video cameras are sensitive to both visible light and ultra violet (UV) light. UV is invisible to humans but it can create a blue tinge and/or washed-out effect on video, especially outside. A UV filter removes UV light while leaving visible light intact. UV filters are also commonly used as a protective filter for the lens." Media College