Guys, after shooting about 20 events using all GH2s and GH1s, I'm giving up the ghost, and I'm buying a videocamera. I need a real zoom with autofocus. I'll still be using several GH cams, and especially the 12-60mm for outdoor stuff, it is absolutely stunning lens. I shot with it in the park for a bridal shoot Saturday, and my images were so good I couldn't believe I shot them myself.

On the other hand, I was out of focus for some critical shots during a ceremony, and I didn't know it, and I was highly perturbed, of course when I saw the footage later. I cannot let that happen again.

Bottom line, I'm selling some gear to help fund my new videocamera, so check out the classifieds and see if there is anything you need!

Hi Jeff

I really don't know how you managed to wrestle 4 x GH1's at a wedding...there are plenty of times at weddings when I just HAVE to snap back to auto because so much is happening and thankfully my Panasonics have an awesome autofocus....actually I often check even exposure (I can slip in and out of manual iris just by pushing the iris wheel) and most times my manual setting and the camera's setting are exactly the same.

I think you still need a camera where you can, if necessary, go into full auto if things get really chaotic and know you will still get a good result!!! As our banished Philip would say "Jeff is getting a real camera"

I really like the idea of shooting video and using the DSLR's when you have the time to get creative!!!

Chris

Greetings Jeff,

Good luck with your new video camera adventure. We'll be looking forward to a full report.

I'm just so relieved at the prospect of having the ability to film toasts from further away, getting closeups in perfect focus during the vows, etc. and not being restricted with the constrains I have been.

It's been a very difficult summer, filled with anxiety and running around and tending to 4-5 cameras at a time.

I will now use two GH2s with Oympus/Panasonic primes and my primary cam will give the the zoom I need. I briefly flirted with the idea of the expensive olympus zooms, and it was easy to see my problems would be the same, no matter how much money I threw at the GH2s.

The real issue is that running multiple DSLR style cams for live event work is not feasible in many cases for one person; at least for me. If I had a crew, it would be different, and I could've pulled it off more effectively, but at my price point it's not feasible to hire decent shooters most the time.

I think adding a video camera is going to make your wedding day shoot so much easier and maybe even enjoyable again. But I’m afraid the editing might not be. I have not shot a wedding yet with the GH2, but I have done quite a bit of comparison test with the FX1000 and I kinda dread trying to use footage from both. Most clients will not be able to tell the difference, but I sure can. When using clips from both cameras with the same type of shot, the FX footage looks poor compared to the GH2. To please myself I will probably have to dumb down the GH2 footage, then what’s the point.

I am curious as to how you plan on deciding which camera to use throughout the day because I too will be crossing this bridge soon. I have a feeling knowing how much better the GH will look when I’m editing, I will be trying to use it as much as possible, as long as it is in focus of course. I’m sure this will be my biggest challenge.

It's been a very difficult summer, filled with anxiety and running around and tending to 4-5 cameras at a time.
The real issue is as a one man band it is too much doing things as I've been doing them.
that's a very brave idea to shoot a wedding alone, and with DSLRs!? I shoot with two guys and still, my A cam is EX1;
way to go Jeff, you won't regret it,
all the best!

Excellent points all, Tim, and I have given it much thought also. The specifics of what must be done in post will vary with the camera one uses, I would guess.

In my case, I am getting a XF-100, and it will present it's own set of challenges as it's files are 4:2:2 color space. I should add I cannot even pretend to know what that means, other than some vague understanding that it's superior, with more depth, etc. But the GH2 clips are 4:2:0, and the Canon XA-10 might have been a better choice for this reason as it's the same, but I wanted a "real" videocamera, something with some real controls on it, and I also wanted 720 60p, and I REALLY want 1080 60p badly. I won't be able to use 1080 60p much since my gh2s don't have it, but it will be nice to have the option.

But I digress. I think how we use the cameras will affect how they match as much as anything. I'm planning on using the Canon for primary, and using my GH2s as second and third cams. For getting ready, etc., it will depend on how much room I have to work with as to the choice I make for that segment.

The videocamera will certainly introduce a whole new set of challenges, with mixing footage, but I'm so physically worn out after weddings now, I almost don't care at this point. Now I can set a couple of primes up for wide shots, go crazy with the Canon, and as you say, possibly enjoy shooting again. I just hope it's not to brutal in post, as you say.

Buba, thanks for the good wishes. I started shooting alone when my girlfriend quit helping me, and I became decent at it with video cameras. I would get the processional from down front, situate the camera, discreetly run around the side to the rear, adjust the rear cam, then run up to the balcony, adust that camera, and then "sneak" back to the front, and on two knees get the vows, some killer closeups, then zoom out when that was done, and run to the back again, etc. It was hectic, but easy to do, and the results were excellent.

How I'll work things now I don't know, but I suspect I'll switch cameras down front after the vows from a Canon to GH2 with the 12mm F/2.0, and then shoot with the Canon from the rear. Or instead I'll follow the processional with a prime lens, and just leave it down front, and shoot with the Canon from the rear of the sanctuary the whole time afterward. Heck, I don't know. I have about ten days to figure it out, unless you guys want to offer suggestions!

I'm sure you will get it figured out and it will turn out great.

Jeff, if you're hazy about 4:2:2, you should watch this short excellent tutorial: Ask Alex - The 411 on 4:4:4 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JYZDnenaGc)

Cutting my XHA1 with my GH2 is a mess...the GH2's picture flat out destroys the XHA1. I've thought about maybe getting an HMC-150 to replace the XHA1. Haven't decided yet.

Patrick, thanks a ton for the link!

I don't know, it's scary to be spending $4K on a cam, cards, batteries to be facing these issues, I only hope the newer codec and sensor will help lessen the impact.

Some of the modes of the XF100, I have learned are actually 4:2:0, and I don't know how this will affect things, using one mode over the other. 4:2:2 will, from my limited understanding maybe allow for better CC, hence maybe easier to match up? I don't have clue.

Edit, the color space depends on the frame rate, etc you choose I have learned.

I currently use a Panasonic HMC40 video camera along with my GH1. The HMC40 in good lighting will equal the Sony EX series of cameras and blows away even the DSRL's.

That is in good lighting.

Once the light goes down you better run away fast.

Kidding of course. Seriously it suffers badly in low light. I have considered selling it and buying more gear for my GH1 but I just cannot seem to put all my faith into a DSLR yet for the same reasons as you Jeff. They are great for creative shooting but they really are not the best when it comes to weddings or similar type of live events. Sometimes you need a zoom, powered and do not have the option of swapping the lens during a live shoot.

The XF100 is a nice camera. Much better in low light then my HMC40 but still nowhere near what you might hope compared to a DSLR with a fast lens. Just be prepared for that.

I still stand by my formula of use the video camera at the ceremony and switch to the DSLR at the reception. Hopefully the church will be bright enough to handle the video camera.

You may also want to check out some of the new cameras coming out from Panasonic. I believe one is the ag130 or something like that. They use 1/3" instead of 1/4" like my HMC40. The have a killer 20x lens from what I have read which might be a nice thing for you to have again. One heck of a camera for the back of the church. I'm hoping the low light will be as good as the Canon XF100.

Patrick, thanks a ton for the link!

I don't know, it's scary to be spending $4K on a cam, cards, batteries to be facing these issues, I only hope the newer codec and sensor will help lessen the impact.

Some of the modes of the XF100, I have learned are actually 4:2:0, and I don't know how this will affect things, using one mode over the other. 4:2:2 will, from my limited understanding maybe allow for better CC, hence maybe easier to match up? I don't have clue.

Edit, the color space depends on the frame rate, etc you choose I have learned.

Jeff,

I think you would be hard pressed to really notice a difference with 4:2:2 color. Especially since you typically shoot 720p 60p. Progressive 4:2:0 looks much much better then interlaced 4:2:0. Unless you plan on doing a lot of greenscreen work or shooting footage with the color way off then I doubt you will really notice the advantage. There is no night and day difference between progressive 4:2:0 and 4:2:2. Don't get me wrong there is an advantage but one of the smallest advantages compared to other quality factors. Shoot for as bright of a camera as you can get or you will find yourself reaching for that DSLR instead.

Thomas, great input, appreciate your sharing, that's comforting to hear about the minimal diff between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2.

The biggest shortcomings for the GH2 or any DSLR for me is in focusing on moving subjects (processional) and a powerful zoom and autofocus for vows, toasts and first dances. And your're right, a videocamera will be challenged in a dark church. However, I also tend to shoot vows from down front, and a videocamera will lose less light using less zoom, so I "should" get a decent image most times, at least of the vows, which I find most difficult using the limited 12-60mm zoom I have.

I use lights religiously for all reception work, and have recently actually found I've been using too much. But with that in mind, I'm hopeful (maybe wrongly!) that my reception footage will be decent with the videocamera.

I'm also hoping a higher bit rate might help reduce noise in low light, helping dark footage to at least to be cleaner than with the older cameras.

Just watched a well-shot video in 1080 24p shot with the Canon. It is sad how much less detail the video has in comparison to the GH2. Really is a dramatic difference, at least from what I'm used to seeing, but of course with re-compression by youtube it may not be all that bad, but still it was sobering. On the other hand his shots were perfectly exposed, in focus, and he made great use of the zoom, reminding me of why I am going this route!

Videos claiming to be "Low light tests of camera XYZ" or whatever that don't A/B it with other cameras or use industry standard charts and lighting are no tests at all. Unless they put the GH2 in the same conditions, and post process it the same way, I wouldn't conclude much if anything.

The XF100 supported formats includes a 50MBS 4:2:2 recording. Beyond the 4:2:2, the higher data rate should give you advantages over the GH2's AVCHD format when you start manipulating the image in post (grading, zooming, etc). If all you do is look at original footage and cut it, then you probably won't experience that advantage of the XF100.

This is what I've experienced from a practical shooting viewpoint. DSLRs with their large format chips produce stunning images but lack the overall flexibility of your average video camera, even a cheap one. I've stopped using my GH2 at most shoots except interviews or very controlled situations. It's a great camera, just got a 7" LCD for it, but it just doesn't work for many traditional video situations. Don't only look at Canon equipment, Panasonic and JVC both make low end pro cameras that can fill your needs. The trick is in placing the mixed up equipment in the right places at your shoots and you can mask the difference between chip sizes and image characteristics. I find that it's the difference in camera sensors that make for the biggest aesthetic problems in editing rather than the bit rate or color space or even the form of HD used.

Hi Jeff

It's probably also quite important to realise that your brides have no interest whatever in what format you shoot and what bitrate you use. We do tend to get caught up in our own webs when it comes to technical perfection and then after hours of painstaking work all the bride is really worried about is whether her dress and the bridesmaids look good!!! With weddings content is still absolutely king!!

Look at our friend Don Bloom who still shoots in SD and has bride's scrambling for his services... I very much doubt whether they choose Don because of the technical specs of his cameras!!! He just provides magnificent content!!

Hope you find something that complements the GH2's well!! I use a matched pair of HMC's so I don't have the issue (besides, I'm not brave enough to fight with manual controls when things get busy which is probably your main reason getting a video camera again!!!

I would also seriously look at Panny's new ENG cam the AG160 and it should be about the same price as the Canon.

Chris

Jeff, in your opinion, what kind of zoom lens would it take to make the GH2 work for you, for wedding work?

I'm sure it would have to be Olympus or Pany. Are any of the rumored Panasonic lenses coming out worth waiting for?

Chris, I googled the Panasonic you mentioned and I think you might have the model # wrong, I'd like to see it. Edit: My salesman recommended the same camera this morning Chris, and you are right on the money, my friend, outstanding camera, blows the Canon away, and it's AVCHD. I never thought I see the day when I would think AVCHD to be preferable to anything! The sensor in the Panasonic is apparently the same used in their $9K camera or some such thing, and is phenomenal. It's $2K out of my price range, not available yet, and I've only got 6 weeks of weddings left, so I'm in a pickle.

Tim, in my opinion, there is nothing even close that will work for me. The news ones included. But the closest would be this: ED 35-100mm f2.0 (http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1335)

I personally do not want to spend that much money on a zoom and not have autofoucs that I can rely on.

See this is the thing. A videocamera like the XF100 with a modest 10x zoom has an equivalent range of 30mm to 300mm and autofocus that works as close to perfect as one could ask.

This is what we give up with a DSLR, or hybrid. Ever since I got the GH2, despite how much I liked it, I only then fully appreciated the power of the lenses in "proper" videocameras", such as your FX1000. Despite the age of your camera, it is still a remarkably powerful tool. Now I understand why when someone has to replace a lens in a videocamera, why it costs the same as a new camera almost. The lens is everything.

Your question is a good one and one that has bugged the hell out of me for months, and is why I'm adding a videocamera to my toolkit. It won't be perfect, and will bring in a host of new issues, but I hope the advantages will outweigh the cons.

I'm sure when you start shooting with something like the XF100, your going to think "how did I ever shoot weddings without a video camera"

Most HD cameras with replaceable lenses, the lens can cost way more then the camera itself. Easy to find a $4000 HD video camera that comes with a working decent lens and the next step up in lens models costs $8000.

Tim, you are right I'm sure!

I wanted a "real" videocamera, something with some real controls on it, and I also wanted 720 60p, and I REALLY want 1080 60p badly. I won't be able to use 1080 60p much since my gh2s don't have it, but it will be nice to have the option.The XF100 does not have 1080 60p neither does its big brother the XF300.

Just watched a well-shot video in 1080 24p shot with the Canon. It is sad how much less detail the video has in comparison to the GH2. Really is a dramatic difference, at least from what I'm used to seeing, but of course with re-compression by youtube it may not be all that bad, but still it was sobering. On the other hand his shots were perfectly exposed, in focus, and he made great use of the zoom, reminding me of why I am going this route!The image quality of the XF100 is great, it's all but indistinguishable from its big brother the XF300. It has very nice natural colour too & the footage will cut together well. I would suspect this video is not a fair comparison as you have no idea what has happened to the footage between being shot & playing on YouTube. Trust me the XF footage straight off the camera is at least as good as the GH2.

Nigel, you are right about the 60pm and I realized it minutes after I posted that comment. Disappointed, to be sure, but not a deal breaker. thanks for you reassurance about the images.

Nigel, how are you dealing with the multiple files from the camera? Shooting multicam events I am concerned about the large number of files to deal with in post, particularly since I use Cineform for edtiting and will have to deal with dozens more individual clips. Syncing is already not fun with my current workflow.

Chris, I googled the Panasonic you mentioned and I think you might have the model # wrong, I'd like to see it. Edit: My salesman recommended the same camera this morning Chris, and you are right on the money, my friend, outstanding camera, blows the Canon away, and it's AVCHD. I never thought I see the day when I would think AVCHD to be preferable to anything! The sensor in the Panasonic is apparently the same used in their $9K camera or some such thing, and is phenomenal. It's $2K out of my price range, not available yet, and I've only got 6 weeks of weddings left, so I'm in a pickle.
.

Jeff, did you look at the Panny AG AC130? It's similar to the 160, only lacking a few features, like HD SDI out: Panasonic AG-AC130 AVCCAM HD Handheld Camcorder AG-AC130PJ B&H

Costs a good bit less too.

Like you, I generally work solo on weddings and have been using the GH2/GH1 with my HMC150 for a while now, and I love both. Good luck with your new cam.

John, your recommendation is an excellent one, and I would like the camera very much, I'm sure. The 160 isn't available till November, FWIW, but appears to be one of the best potential cameras at it's price point.

Unfortunately I desire a camera sooner to finish off the season, and may reluctantly go through with the Canon. It is a great camera, I'm not at all thrilled with the codec however, at least for my workflow, but such is life.

This looks like a good deal:
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/private-classifieds/500881-pmw-ex1r-118-hours.html

The soon to be released ag-ac130 is actually the next step up from the hmc150.
It's price is under $4000 and has many improvements over the150.
Too bad it's not out yet. I've been looking at the Canon xf100 also but
The thing that I really don't care for is the 10x lens. I still shoot with PD170s and there are times
Evev the 12x isn't long enough for me. I'm going to wait until the 130
Comes out too make a decision.

Nigel, how are you dealing with the multiple files from the camera? Shooting multicam events I am concerned about the large number of files to deal with in post, particularly since I use Cineform for edtiting and will have to deal with dozens more individual clips. Syncing is already not fun with my current workflow.I am normally shooting with Canon DSLRs so to my mind the XF100 produces many fewer files:-) Whatever the length of the clip it is split up into 2GB chunks (about 5 minutes of video). How these are imported depends on your NLE. With FCP7 Log & Transfer you can mark in & out points & import as a single logical clip. With Premiere Pro 5.5 I just grab the .MXF files & drop them on the timeline & PP makes sure that they butt up together & don't drop or add frames over the junction.

As far as synchronisation goes Singular Software - PluralEyes (http://www.singularsoftware.com/pluraleyes.html) works like magic for any audio & video files. If you are not using PluralEyes then you are really missing a trick. There is a 30-day free trial so you can evaluate it.

Nigel, thanks much for the explanation of how you deal with your XF100 files, very helpful.

As a result of the information that's come in on this subject, especially from Cineform support, I'm skipping the purchase of the XF100. Files converted using Cineform would be exponentially larger than they are now, and a wedding converted currently takes up about 700GB. MXF files would likely take me way beyond a TB, and that is too much.

From all indications the mfx files do not need converted so much, but I do want to stick with the same codec for consistency sake, it just seems to make sense to me.

Despite the downside, I'm going to keep the XA10 that I received yesterday and make do with it. It is not the camera I ultimately want, but should turn the trick to fill in the gaps for me now.

I'll try Plural Eyes on the next project, thanks for the recommendation. I've been hearing about it so much, I must try it!

Nigel, you are right about the 60pm and I realized it minutes after I posted that comment. Disappointed, to be sure, but not a deal breaker. thanks for you reassurance about the images.

Nigel, how are you dealing with the multiple files from the camera? Shooting multicam events I am concerned about the large number of files to deal with in post, particularly since I use Cineform for edtiting and will have to deal with dozens more individual clips. Syncing is already not fun with my current workflow.I don't know what NLE you are using but we edit the MXF files natively both in FCP 7 & Premiere Pro 5.5 they are basically a variant of MPEG2 in a wrapper so should edit easily in most NLEs (but not FCP X at present).

I second PluralEyes, it's a must have. One, if not the best software tools I use.

Thanks Tim, for the recommendation, and Nigel for the further explanation. The huge file sizes of the higher bit rates, I'm not feeling it at all. We're talking 20 clips, give or take, per hour. Now for corporate shoots, and other short project, who cares. But for wedding work, no. In addition, my customers want raw footage, more often than ever lately, and even some corporate customers. Just send some raw footage off last week for a corporate client.

The more I think about it, the more glad I am to skip the cam. I would love the quality, but will be happy to wait for something else that fits in with my workflow better!

You also have to consider the Canon XF100 shoots 50mbits but that is mpeg2. AVCHD can give typically twice the visual quality for the same bitrate. There have been tests that show Panasonic's 21-24mbit AVCHD equalling or beating Sony's 50 mbit mpeg2. 50 mbit mpeg2 can look very good but so can 24 mbit AVCHD. Again you will notice very little difference and I personally would say the AVCHD looks much better. Totally different compression technologies and it is impossible to compare the two by just talking about bitrates.

The main advantage to 50 mbit mpeg2 is the 4:2:2 if you actually need it and it tends to be a bit easier to edit with or at least it used to be. These days it is getting much easier to edit native AVCHD. I actually consider 50 mbits to be the minimum level for great looking mpeg2.

AVCHD will have less macro blocking since it uses adaptable macro blocks. Mpeg2 can only use 8x8 pixel blocks which is why you see macro blocking with mpeg2. This is why blu-ray movies typically use much higher bitrates for mpeg2 compared to H264. Mpeg2 must use 25mbits + for a decent quality blu-ray movie. AVCHD on the other hand has been known to go as low as 12 mbits and still maintain amazing quality.

Just something to think about. In the end they are about equal give or take small advantages to each. AVCHD slightly better picture quality and less artifacts. 50 mbit mpeg2 slightly better color.

The GH2, at 17mbps produces high quality images, as we all know. (I shoot 720 60p which is 17mbps I think). While it is not fair to compare a 1/3" chip camera to a nearly 1" chip DSLR, another way to view this could be why deal with 30-50mbps files for what would in the end be at best similar quality, if not inferior quality? And if what you say is true, the higher bit rates/files sizes do not give the bang for the buck of AVCHD anyway.

Based on your comments Thomas, and on what we all know, there is an upside to the files from the XA100, and who can dispute that 4:2:2 is superior and certainly desirable when it can be had? No one. On the other hand the format and bit rate are not something to jump on for the sake it alone. The downsides, at least for my particular situation with the multiple files, 2gb clip limit, etc., are enough to cancel out any benefits.

So for me, it will be easier to take 1080i footage from the xa10, resize and deinterlace (since I transcode everything anyway) and incoroporate it into my existing workflow, than to deal with the potential hassles of MXF files. Another upside for me is that I may be tempted to begin shooting in 24p with my cameras, so as to have all matching footage. The XA10 that I now have does not shoot 720p, but shoots 1080 60i or 1080 24p. And while I've always traditionally dismissed 24p for wedding work, there are too many videographers producing excellent products with it for me to continue my bias against it, at least without giving it a try.

I recently got an AF100 and am astounded by how much better the autofocus is with all the Lumix lenses I have (14-140, 7-14, 20) as well as the signal-to-noise in low light, not to mention peaking, waveforms, and all the other goodies to make it work like a real video camera... unfortunately there's still no smooth zoom rocker or fast wide-range zooms, YET.

The AC130/160 seem about perfect for events, but they're still not available... YET.

And of course, once all those things are available, we'll get them and decide there's something else vital that isn't available... YET.

...and so goes the never-ending cycle of "the best thing for you will be available in two or three months."

Bravo for just getting something that works OK for now.

Kevin, congrats. There is a fast Olympus f/2.0 zoom, it reportedly works well with the GH2, but it is expensive. Your autofocus would likely work quite well with it. As a wedding shooter I have given up on finding a better zoom lens with fast accurate auto focus, I'll use my 12-60mm Olympus lens and my XA10 video cam for now.

You might consider the Olympus 14-54 F/2.8-3.5, it is highly recommended. I love my 12-60, which is very similar, but slower. The Olympus lenses are highly compatible with the GH2s, don't discount them. I'm a believer in Olympus lenses. I have two now, and I'm hooked on Olympus lenses. The only Panasonic I have left is the 20mm.

I know there are a lot of options... but I'm also trying to make do with what I have and can afford right now instead of wasting time pining for the temporarily unattainable.

Another upside for me is that I may be tempted to begin shooting in 24p with my cameras, so as to have all matching footage. The XA10 that I now have does not shoot 720p, but shoots 1080 60i or 1080 24p. And while I've always traditionally dismissed 24p for wedding work, there are too many videographers producing excellent products with it for me to continue my bias against it, at least without giving it a try.

Man Jeff, I'm glad to here you say that. From seeing your work, I think 24p will take it to a different level.

I have been shooting 30p since getting the FX's (wanted to shoot 24p but as you know, no native 24p in the FX's) and now that I'll be using the GH2 some, I for sure will be going all glorious 24p and using cineform to unwrap the FX footage. It will take a little different shooting style I know but I'm ready.

The GH2, at 17mbps produces high quality images, as we all know. (I shoot 720 60p which is 17mbps I think). While it is not fair to compare a 1/3" chip camera to a nearly 1" chip DSLR, another way to view this could be why deal with 30-50mbps files for what would in the end be at best similar quality, if not inferior quality? And if what you say is true, the higher bit rates/files sizes do not give the bang for the buck of AVCHD anyway.

Based on your comments Thomas, and on what we all know, there is an upside to the files from the XA100, and who can dispute that 4:2:2 is superior and certainly desirable when it can be had? No one. On the other hand the format and bit rate are not something to jump on for the sake it alone. The downsides, at least for my particular situation with the multiple files, 2gb clip limit, etc., are enough to cancel out any benefits.

So for me, it will be easier to take 1080i footage from the xa10, resize and deinterlace (since I transcode everything anyway) and incoroporate it into my existing workflow, than to deal with the potential hassles of MXF files. Another upside for me is that I may be tempted to begin shooting in 24p with my cameras, so as to have all matching footage. The XA10 that I now have does not shoot 720p, but shoots 1080 60i or 1080 24p. And while I've always traditionally dismissed 24p for wedding work, there are too many videographers producing excellent products with it for me to continue my bias against it, at least without giving it a try.

If you went the direction of the new Panasonic ag130 however it does use 24mbits in the 720p modes. My hmc40 is basically the same camera with 1/4" chips instead of 1/3" and a lens that doesn't reach as far. I can shoot 720p 60p at beautiful 24 mbits/s in AVCHD that I really do feel blows away mpeg2 at 50 mbits/s. Thats why it is so hard for me to sell it due to it's low light limitation. The 720p 60p and 1080p 24p are such a great match for my GH1. They compliment each other so well as long as I have enough light. I would consider selling my HMC40 and buying the new ag130 but I just don't do enough live type stuff to justify the extra cost. I teach video production at a woman's college and we focus on more creative shooting so these days I do prefer shooting with my GH1. If I did more live work I would do it in a heart beat.

Which ever camera you choose remember to look at audio as well. Audio is something any DSLR really struggles with. Any video camera is going to launch your audio to whole new levels.

Tim, I don't have any Panasonic video on my website, so you if you've been to my site, you're looking at videos that are generally two years old, and on my older site which is linked to cincinnativideo.com the videos are four and five years old!

Anyway, I am not interested in 24p in and of itself, it is of no interest to me in a general way. But my new camera shoots in 24p or 60i (I know I've already said that) and I would prefer to have matching footage.

But as you say, 24p is can be nice, but it also requires a specific technique which I know nothing about!

I feel I need to study the 24p question before going that route. I am increasingly a documentary shooter. I appreciate pretty, cinematic video, but have strayed further and further from it. I view the cinematic style as somewhat too vain for my taste, and I feel it is too feminine of a thing for my sensibiliteis. But that is not meant to disparage the talented guys that do it so effectively everyday, and I do admire those that do it well. I am striving to provide clean, straightforward, high quality video to brides, and a short highlight clip.

But as you say, the 24p might really take things to a new level, I don't know, I've never shot in it, so I don't even know what it would look like.

Do you shoot in 24p? What kind of caveats would you share with me regarding it? I know only that pans must be made very slowly, etc, but what else? Maybe I'll bring this up in the wedding video forum.

Thomas, I find that with the GH2 and even the GH1, my audio is really not too awfully bad. With the GH2, I set the gain to lowest for receptions, put a rode videomic pro on it set a -10 db and all is well. I have a tiny Sennheiser (very cool little shotgun) and I set it to a minus setting also, and get great results.

For interviews and well wishes, I have to raise the level on the mic to 0 gain, but it works fine, as long as I remember to reset it to minus as soon if I reuse the camera for dancing stuff.

With all of that in mind, I'm looking forward to using the XA10 with it's XLR and volume controls. I just ordered a short Azden shotgun, and since it is phantom powered I don't have to keep wondering if the battery is fine, since there is no battery! So you are right, even though I am reasonably happy with my current audio, the XA10 should be very nice for giving me more control, and the circuitry should also handle distorted and "too loud" environments much better than the GH cameras.

The Panasonic Ag AC160 looks to be a very nice camera, and for lack of knowing much as to what is out there at the moment, I would grab one in a heartbeat if it was available, and I could afford it. If the 130 is comparable, that would be even better.

Jeff, the rumor of a Panasonic GX1 camcorder with m4/3rds mount like the Sony NEX-VG20H with E mount looks interesting. If Panasonic comes out with the fast X lenses with power zoom then that will be a hot seller.
43 Rumors | Blog | (FT5) Panasonic will launch a GX1 by end of this year!!! (http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-panasonic-will-launch-a-gx1-by-end-of-this-year/)
http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-hot-panasonic-x-12-35-and-35-100mm-fast-zooms/

Joe

24p and 30p are not that far apart in look. The GH2 does not have a true 24f 1/48th shutter speed as a mechanical film camera would have but 1/50 is close enough and 1/40 doesn't look too smudgy. As for panning, there are a few pan speeds that don't work well and you'll probably learn to avoid them but that's usually for environmental shots where you are not following a subject. As long as the subject commands a decent part of the frame, image stutter becomes less noticeable on pan speeds where it might be an issue.

24p and 30p are not that far apart in look. The GH2 does not have a true 24f 1/48th shutter speed as a mechanical film camera would have but 1/50 is close enough and 1/40 doesn't look too smudgy. As for panning, there are a few pan speeds that don't work well and you'll probably learn to avoid them but that's usually for environmental shots where you are not following a subject. As long as the subject commands a decent part of the frame, image stutter becomes less noticeable on pan speeds where it might be an issue.Here in PAL-land we normally shoot 25fps if we are shooting progressive anyway.

So William, Nigel, could I safely shoot in 24p at about 50fps then without much experience at it?

My main concern I suppose would be when I go handheld with my 12mm F/2.0 lens, which I do an awful lot. As it is, the footage is so smooth and silky, it's like I'm on a steady cam, I swear. Anway there is still movement of course, but I love the look I have now with 720p.

I'm wondering how 1080i on my other cam will look deinterlaced and resized. Because I tend to like to stick with things that work, my instinct tells me to just stick with 720p and run the other cam at 1080i, but as mentioned the 1080 24p sounds cool, I'm just afraid of it.

Stick with 60p for paying jobs and play around with 24p in the off-hours to see how it works for you.

Quote frankly I would also suggest sticking with 30p. There no real need to shoot weddings at 24p or anything else besides cinematic fare. It's the DOF that's giving your work that touch of class not the frame rate. At least that's my opinion.