I've thought about this for the last couple months. I don't have any friends who have knowledge or experience in this area, so I wanted to bring the question here.

What matters to you when you when you are selecting what camera you are going to use?

To elaborate; for me it is more than just "picture quality" because "picture quality" is too vague. For me, personally, I would rank it this way:

1) Interchangeable Lenses
2) Color Reproduction
3) Sensor Noise (at my most commonly used ISO's; 100, 400, 800, 1600, 6400)
4) Sharpness (with equivalent lens choices)
5) Codec (and the way it relates to grading, color information, compression artifcats, etc.)
6) Ergonomics
7) Neutral Density Filters
8) Price
9) Other Features (such as XLR inputs, HD-SDI, native lens options, auto focus, image stabilization, 4k etc.)

So I'm curious, what is important to you when picking a camera? Do you have loyalty to any specific brands?

PS: Let's keep it clean. I don't want to start a "Camera A is better than Camera B" thread. I'm simply interested in how you decide on which camera you choose.

My experience was quite simple that led me to my current cameras. I started out with a standard camcorder, then seeing how good the low light footage was from a Canon 7D used by another guy, went out and purchased the Canon 60D. However I obviously needed to expand, and it was a choice between the 5d Mark iii or the GH2; there wasn't so much around 4 years back and the 5d Mark iii didn't get great early reviews, so I went for the GH2 as it was also considerably cheaper. This led me to the GH3 and then onto the GH4. Having now heavily invested in micro 4/3's lenses, I am somewhat tied to the brand. Whilst Sony have made great strides, I can't justify the switch and the GH4 delivers great results as long as its weaknesses, more in low light are considered in the use of fast primes.

So my choice of camera is determined by the 4/3's format. There's strong rumours of a GH5 by the years end. If released, I would expect to buy 1 before the year is out. I prefer to stick to 1 brand as the camera matches better with minimum fuss in the edit. I'm hoping to phase out the GH2 and GH3 I have by the end of the year, but that is as much as my plans and thoughts extend to camera purchase.

I don't care what brand I shoot with, I just need an easy to use camera that gives me a bit of shallow dof (m4/3 sensor size is what I prefer as it's easier to nail focus), is small and light enough to carry around, has very good IS and good autofocus if needed and ofcourse lots of manual control as well without having to dive into menu systems.

For me, there are two primary considerations-

First, will the camera do the job you need it to do? Nothing else about the camera matters if it won't do the job you are buying it for. Maybe you routinely shoot in low light, so only a camera with excellent low light performance will do. Or, perhaps you are required to provide a live SDI feed from the camera. In that case purchasing a camera without SDI out isn't an option.

After knowing the camera is capable of doing the job, the next consideration is ergonomics. Hopefully when people hire you, they aren't hiring you for what gear you own, but for your skill as a shooter. It is important to have a camera that fits your working style. For me, having a camera that I can work with, not work against, is of tremendous importance.

It is my opinion that almost any prosumer or pro camera that has come out in the last few years is capable of producing great results. Sure, there are differences between them, and in side by side comparisons some cameras might just look plain better. However, none of that is probably going to matter to your clients. As long as it looks good, your clients probably aren't going to care that the blue channel on your camera has a bit more noise than some other camera. And there is so much more that goes into making a video look good, there is lighting, how well you are building visual sequences, your editing and pacing, not to mention color grading.

My list is easy:

Good enough low light performance
Touch screen focusing
...
Price

That's about it. Shooting only weddings, I probably have 1-3 years before 4K is needed, and by the looks of how things are going with Canon, I'll have to change kits entirely, but not yet.

How one chooses a camera will depend on the job it's required for. Run n' gun wedding filmmakers have different needs than say, a high-end corporate videographer.

So, Matthias, if you get three responses from three shooters that do completely different types of work, their answers will likely all be different.

If you are shooting for a high-end ad company, you might need the image quality that a $118K Phantom Gold provides, whereas if you shoot primarily dance recitals then your budget and needs will be radically different.

It's much like buying a car ..so many models and so many choices and also so many different reasons to buy what you buy so it's hard to give advice because it's a personal choice.

I have always loved big shoulder mount camcorders but as the years drag on, hoisting a 5kg camera onto your shoulder becomes an issue and you look for something lighter.

Probably the cameras you use or buy are not your ideal but the closest compromise you can find to satisfy the main purchase reasons. I needed lighter cameras but they had no XLR inputs which means already a compromise and lugging along an XLR adapter for my main camera. So I think the answer here is get what you like and then work on sorting out the extras you need to make it work as there are no specific critical factors you need to consider, there are probably many which makes choosing a specific model tough!!

Adam summed it up pretty well, the only thing that matters is getting a camera that does the job well for you.

Nobody can really tell you what camera you need, only what works for them. If you buy a camera based on the recommendations of other users, it may be great on paper but not suitable for your own style of working. I shoot weddings as my main business and cover video and photography. I work very quickly and don't want to be lugging heavy cameras and lenses around. Picture quality is important of course, but if you are mainly a solo shooter like me, then using a camera and appropriate lens to get the highest quality achievable shot is not always the best choice if you miss the shot tinkering with the setup. Having another camera that can take quick shots when no time is available can be a very useful backup.

I need manual control for when time allows but I also need excellent auto focus, follow focus, exposure and white balance for the frequent fast moving scenes. and changing light conditions that are part and parcel of just about every wedding. I want to know that if something happens unexpectedly at the other end of the room, that I can get an instant well balanced shot on auto without frantically trying to change manual settings.

I also find that although my delivery is always HD on usb, or SD on dvd, 4k gives me very useful shooting options that can be advantageous at the editing stage. I can also lift very usable quality stills from 4k footage to add to those stills taken conventionally.

Roger

I think my question is getting misunderstood a bit here. I chose a camera a couple months ago, (Canon C100 with Atomos Ninja 2) and was wondering how you all decide on the camera you want to use for a given gig. It seems people find ergonomics to be much more important than I do, typically. So I just wanted to know what matters to you in camera decisions.

That being said, a lot of people seem to have the "if the client doesn't notice, it doesn't matter" attitude. After the very complicated summer I had, I decided to shoot all my weddings this year in C-Log with ProRes and take some extra time for color correction and grading because I don't want to compromise simply because they wouldn't notice the difference if I shot with a 5D mkiii with a neutral or even portrait profile. That's just my opinion though. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

That backs up what I said though, that it doesn't matter what others do as everybody has different priorities. If it works for you then it's right.

Working solo, I usually use 2 and sometimes 3 cameras plus sound recorders at different parts of the day. I would find it restrictive using 3 camera setups like yours, but you almost certainly work differently to me so I'm sure it works fine for you.

Roger

My choice of camera has been dictated by my service of offering a 4 camera setup, so each camera needs to be small and light to fit in 1 bag along with lenses. Specialising in Weddings I have favoured interchangeable lenses for their lowlight benefits and also because I'm aiming for a more cinematic style of video rather than documentary. However I prefer the micro 4/3s for the small and light lenses they offer that allow some dof, without going quite so overboard with it.

I did purchase an af101a for Corporate work. Feeling a more all in 1 camera was needed with xlr inputs and better battery life and manual controls. However I've phased it out as I never was happy with the image I got from it and I have found my 2 GH4s, 1 of which offers continuous recording to be more than equal to such jobs that I have been getting.

So for me size, interchangeable lenses, image quality outweighs other considerations like better manual controls, xlr inputs and how professional the camera may look. I don't subscribe to the notion that if the client doesn't notice, it doesn't matter. The fact is I always get a few clients a year who do notice. Such an attitude only excuses poor work in my opinion.

I don't subscribe to the notion that if the client doesn't notice, it doesn't matter. The fact is I always get a few clients a year who do notice. Such an attitude only excuses poor work in my opinion.

Much depends on how you mix your camera's, if I would mix a cx730 with my gh4 all day long you will see a difference in how the image looks when you switch between camera's, you just can't say "the client won't notice" in this case, some will, because it is so obvious.

I could however shoot an entire wedding on a couple of cx730's and then the client won't notice, if it would get too dark I would just use a cameralight, like in the old days. If that is the image you promote on your website and if you have shown them a longer version shot with those camera's when they visited you your client will be happy, regardless on what camera you use.

I got myself that jvc gy ls300 a while back, not for the clients sake, but because I wanted a all-round easier to operate camera (much like your af101) that could produce a more dslr kind of look, and that was only because I wanted that, I like the look this camera produces and that is how I sell it to my clients.

Matthias,
I use a Canon C100 as well. In general it's great, I love being able to control most things with the joystick in the grip. The only downsides are the VF, LCD screen and no 50p although I like shooting in 25p anyway.
I use WDR recorded in camera because it seems to work well in most situations and requires very little tweaking if it's exposed well and leaves room for a light grade. How do you find shooting with C-Log? Doesn't it and a level of complication in a run 'n' gun situation?
I found the C100 was the best balance between all the options available at the time I bought it, picture quality and ergonomics being most important to me. I essentially use 1 camera with a DSLR as back up or wide shot if necessary so I also love 2 slot recording.

How do you find shooting with C-Log

My JVC has also a log mode but would not never use it for a wedding, I think the little advantage it would give me over a in camera look is not worth the extra time I would be spending in colorcorrecting, I can't charge more to my client for the extra time it will cost to grade and it's not like it's night and day difference, my client (if we are talking about weddingclients) will never know or care what mode their film was shot in, I can understand that as a videographer you would see the difference and find it important enough not to compromise and deliver only the best a camera is capable off but you always should question if it's worth the extra time if you can't charge a premium for it. Also as I understand a log mode is mainly to preserve highlights but becomes a less obvious choice when shooting in low light.

I think shooting in 8 bit 4:2:0, I find vLog on my GH4 to be an option only when dynamic range clearly exceeds the other profiles. So I employ it on a case by case merit and never indoors. I think if using an external recorder, then a Log profile can be useful. Obviously you have to look at time you spend grading and feel you're charging enough to warrant it. I had one client this year ask me if I colour graded my footage, so interest can be there.

I had one client this year ask me if I colour graded my footage, so interest can be there

What is that client expecting, that you otherwise shoot in b/w? ;)

It's like buying a tv that has a Triple XD Engine and TruMotion 120Hz, no-one knows what it means but it sounds important, it's more expensive so it must be good so clients that have seen that in advertisements when they where comparing tv's will go up to a counter at a store asking if a certain tv has that.

The same applies for weddings, the reason why they ask this is because they have seen a competitor offering "special cinematic colorcorrection" and charging a premium for it, as I see it it is just a way to make the client feel they get something special so extra money can be asked for it.

If you would shoot in a standard preset, do no colorcorrection and tell your client your are doing special cine colorcorrection any client would buy that, so why would having slog or 4:2:2 10 bit be so important? Is it not more to satisfy our own needs? Is it not because we are a victim of our own search of perfection? If your client does not understand the technical part of camera's, like 99% of weddingclients, then it doesn't matter in what preset we shoot in or if we do extra colorcorrection or not.

Come to think of it the perfect camera for me is one that doesn't need any additional work in post, so it looks perfect straight out of the camera so that I can spend my time where it actually matters; the editing without loosing time colorcorrecting. And also one that would be really easy to work with, so I could concentrate on content the day of the wedding.

If your client does not understand the technical part of camera's, like 99% of weddingclients, then it doesn't matter in what preset we shoot in or if we do extra colorcorrection or not.

Would you be happy if you hired a builder, plumber or car mechanic, who because they knew you were ignorant on their chosen profession, feel they could get away with doing a less than professional job. Oh this client doesn't know a thing about cars, we can cut a few corners, as long as it's good enough to satisfy them. I had a builder who fixed a leaky roof of mine. To my eyes it looked a great job. It was a different matter when I came to sell the house and had a surveyor tell me otherwise. You're being hired as a Professional, not to work to the standards of your clients, but to the standards of professionals, otherwise why would they hire a professional in the first place.

That said, budget plays a factor here. If the client isn't paying you to spend 3 weeks editing their video, you can't justify the time spent. I have different packages, and colour grading is there to give my top package more value for money. I use film convert to colour grade along with Looks, but it's reserved mostly for Highlights and the Shortform videos rather than the longer edits. Personally I like to keep my hand in with colour grading. It's another skill that needs practise to perfect and its amazing how much the image can be improved with just a little bit of extra work. I do though shoot with a colour profile that can deliver a good image out of the camera. Colour grading is just fine tuning for me and not the massive slog of using log. That way I can get away with no grading for my longer edits.

Matthias,
I use a Canon C100 as well. In general it's great, I love being able to control most things with the joystick in the grip. The only downsides are the VF, LCD screen and no 50p although I like shooting in 25p anyway.
I use WDR recorded in camera because it seems to work well in most situations and requires very little tweaking if it's exposed well and leaves room for a light grade. How do you find shooting with C-Log? Doesn't it and a level of complication in a run 'n' gun situation?
I found the C100 was the best balance between all the options available at the time I bought it, picture quality and ergonomics being most important to me. I essentially use 1 camera with a DSLR as back up or wide shot if necessary so I also love 2 slot recording.

I love C-Log but I also love color grading. If I could, I'd shoot everything in a raw format. I find myself shooting around my backyard with my dog on the weekends just so I can color correct and grade some footage. So that being said, if you don't like color grading, C-Log isn't for you. It takes a decent amount of color grading to look good. I use Premiere Pro CC 2015 with the Lumetri Color tool to do all my grading and love it. I am in the process of learning speedgrade and trying to decide if DaVinci would be worth the time/effort. If you don't want to spend an hour or so per minute of video color grading (I only offer short form videos 3-12 minutes depending) than I wouldn't recommend C-log.

That being said I have to agree with Steve. I think we all know that "most" clients will not be able to tell the difference between a video shot on a APS-C DSLR and a Cinema Camera (be it the C100/300/500 or even the Sony FS5/7) unless you show it to them side by side. For this reason I think it is important for me to shoot with what I KNOW to give me the best result within reason (typically the budget). If I could shoot every wedding with a couple of Canon C300 mkii cameras in 4k and C-Log, have them professionally color corrected/graded and have the sound mixed by a professional sound engineer, I would. We all know that isn't possible, so I do everything I can to get as close to that ideal as possible. I could very easily shoot every wedding with my good ol' Canon T3i and Canon HF G10, but I know that the quality is not worth the rates I'm going to charge. The T3i claims to shoot 1080p but in reality it looks terrible at any resolution higher than 720p and the HF G10 is maybe worse in low light than the HV20 I had years ago. (The digital noise caused by the sensor and the compression to h.264 just ruins most low light shots for me, compared to the more natural looking noise of the HV20 but that's another discussion for another time). I suppose my point is I personally hold myself to a higher standard. You don't have to. You are entitled to your opinion, but for me, ethically, I can't charge the prices that I do (which aren't even that expensive in my market) and not use every ounce of filmmaking knowledge I have to create the best final product I can.

I started this topic because we all know that when someone asks about a camera suggestion, the first question we all ask is "what are you using it for?" But I want to go beyond that. Of course if you need SDI output, you are going to eliminate all cameras that don't have SDI output, but then what? Then how do you choose? If you need a camera to shoot 4k, of course you eliminate all those who don't shoot 4k, but how do you decide between the GH4 and the Sony A7sII? My point is, I think we all know that what camera you choose is dictated by the job, but with the market flooded with cameras there are 20 different cameras for any job, so what I want to know is what comes next on your list? After the things you NEED, what do you want in a camera?

You're being hired as a Professional, not to work to the standards of your clients, but to the standards of professionals, otherwise why would they hire a professional in the first place.

So your definition of a wedding professional is one that shoots in slog and/or colorcorrects his footage? :) I have seen plenty of colorcorrected (slog) footage that looks worse then incamera standard presets if not done right, you might say those people are amateurs but they do sell it as being "cinematic" and their clients think they are paying extra for something special. I"m sure if you would ask them they also would say they are "professionals" and they don't want to compromise.
It's just a way to make your work look more important and to charge a premium for it, it doesn't have anything to do with being a professional. That one client that has asked you if you are colorcorrecting your footage has no idea what he/she is talking about, it's just something they have seen offered by a competitor or they have seen a photographer mentioning they color correct all photos so they assume the same applies for video, it's a perfect way to make them pay more which is excellent way of doing business.

So your definition of a wedding professional is one that shoots in slog and colorcorrects his footage? :) I have seen plenty of colorcorrected (slog) footage that looks worse then incamera standard presets if not done right, you might say those people are amateurs but they do sell it as being "cinematic" and their clients think they are paying extra for something special.
It's just a way to make your work look more important and to charge a premium for it, it doesn't have anything to do with being a professional.

I can't say I've bothered to define exactly what being a professional is; but I do know its not one who uses clients ignorance as an excuse to lower the quality of their work. I'm not saying, nor did I say in my earlier post that colour grading is essential either to be a professional wedding videographer or even to deliver a professional wedding video, but neither should it be dismissed entirely simply because clients may not notice it. Else you could apply this principle to other areas.
Say I spent 8 hours editing a trailer, but clients have been perfectly happy when I've spent just 2 hours, do I say its wasted then to spend 8 hours on my top Trailers, or does the time have value even if the extra work wouldn't be picked up on by my client. I film with 4 cameras, but when 1 goes wrong and I'm editing with 3 and the client doesn't notice, do I carry on with 3 cameras instead of 4. I've had a few occasions where the Groom's lapel mic didn't deliver audio, so I had to use my backup audio; the client doesn't notice, so I should forego using the lapel mic...

You can make disparaging remarks about colour grading all you like and drawing on those doing it badly is a poor argument against it. If some wish to take pride in their work and offer something more, then I say good luck to them. A great video relies on many ingredients; I don't expect my clients to be aware of every ingredient I put in, just appreciate the end product.

Just thought of something, what do you understand under colorgrading? I do colorcorrection but for me colorcorrecting is about creating consistency throughout my footage by adjusting exposure, whitebalance but it's not the same as colorgrading which is to create a certain look what you can achieve shooting with a flat log preset.

If a client would ask you "do you colorgrade your footage" and you say you do, do you explain to them what you mean? Do you have a sample you can show them what colorgraded footage looks like and do you show them a sample of only colorcorrected footage? Because the client might have something completely different in mind, maybe a certain look they have seen and want you to emulate or maybe they just want to know if you colorcorrect your footage for consistency?

I do agree that colorcorrecting your footage is a part of being a professional and not just use raw footage without any further correction with wrong whitebalance etc, creating a colorgraded look however is a personal preference and that's the part I don't agree about that it would differentiate amateurs from professionals or that you would compromise in any way but not doing so.

My point is, I think we all know that what camera you choose is dictated by the job, but with the market flooded with cameras there are 20 different cameras for any job, so what I want to know is what comes next on your list? After the things you NEED, what do you want in a camera?

Problem is each camera system has its strengths and weaknesses. In an ideal world, I would like to take the low light of Sony A7s, the colour science of Canon, the smaller lenses of Panasonic and Olympus and create my perfect camera. Most top Production studios hire in cameras and this is done for good reasons. There's no perfect camera for every job. So if you're out on location, making a film, documentary or TV drama, you select the best camera for the job.
As a Wedding Videographer, I have to buy into a lens system. Am I tempted by other systems like Sony, yes, but I have to balance the cost and the fact is there are aspects of Sony I don't like even as some parts of it I do.

As I primary shoot Weddings with multiple cameras, my prime consideration is the small form factor of my cameras and lenses. I have to carry this gear; 4 C100's and 5 lenses would be too much for a lone shooter. So a camera has to be practical to use. The advantage of smaller cameras are that other gear can be smaller too; tripods, jobs, gimbals.

In the end, choosing a camera is as much about familiarity, and how you feel working with it. I've worked with some cameras that were technically better than others, but I've hated using it. I just love using the GH4 and that can't be defined so easily.

Just thought of something, what do you understand under colorgrading?

If a client would ask you "do you colorgrade your footage" and you say you do, do you explain to them what you mean? Do you have a sample you can show them what colorgraded footage looks like and do you show them a sample of not colorgraded footage?

I use Looks to colour correct my footage and filmconvert to colour grade my footage. Okay its not quite that simple as the 2 work in tandem, so I may adjust filmconvert to colour correct cool footage and use Looks to add something that's more in line with colour grading, like a vignette.

In the case where I was asked, I did explain the difference and that I colour corrected for my longer edits and colour graded for my shorter videos. I didn't show examples as the other questions suggested that the client was simply checking to see the level of service I offered rather than because they wanted a particular look. I agree that clients can see colour grading as a fancy word that makes a video seem better even if its not. However colour grading if done well can do great things for a video too. The time I have taken on those videos where I have applied it were not wasted.

I started this topic because we all know that when someone asks about a camera suggestion, the first question we all ask is "what are you using it for?" But I want to go beyond that.

What does "beyond that" even mean? I mean think about it. Go shopping for drill bit. Ask clerk for help. First thing he should ask you is what are you drilling? Wood or metal? If metal, what kind of metal. Same with a hammer, what are you nailing? Carpet tacks or carpentry nails? You have to know the end purpose of a tool in order to choose prudently.

However, I could choose to shop for a videocamera based on the sole criteria that it looks cool. It's my privilige to buy whatever I want for whatever reason I choose. But to a pro that would be idiotic. At least it would be to me.

To a consumer (not a pro) you could have all kinds of goofy and stupid ways of choosing a camera. For a pro the question should always be what will get the job I have to do at a price I can afford. Just my 2 cents.

After the things you NEED, what do you want in a camera?

I want in a camera what I need to get the job done :) You make a list of what your "needs" are for a particular job you are hired for to do and select the camera's that are able to provide that, then you can choose what you "want" like specific abilities that you find important, like the grading part or it can be that you want a camera to be shoulder mount, or maybe small and light, maybe you have a collection of sony glass so you stick with sony etc.

For weddings the "need" list is quite small and we videographers make the "want" list often much bigger then it needs to be.

What does "beyond that" even mean? I mean think about it. Go shopping for drill bit. Ask clerk for help. First thing he should ask you is what are you drilling? Wood or metal? If metal, what kind of metal. Same with a hammer, what are you nailing? Carpet tacks or carpentry nails? You have to know the end purpose of a tool in order to choose prudently.

I'll be honest but I don't know anything about tools. I know I recently bought a ryobi drill because the guy at home deopot told me that black and decker drills are crap. Do they do the same thing? Yes. Was the ryobi drill about $30 more (cost me $60 instead of $30)? Yes. Do they do the same thing? Yep. Same with cameras. Look at the C100 vs 5d mkiii vs Sony A7sii vs Sony A7rii. They all range between $2500 and $3200. I would consider them all big contenders in the wedding video world, if you are looking to spend that kind of cash on a primary camera. They all shoot 1080p video but some do it differently than others. With the C100 you get the best battery life in the bunch. You also get XLR inputs and some manual features you won't see on any of the others. The 5d mkiii also takes great stills. It shoots more than adequate video and is a bit cheaper than the A7sii or A7rii. That being said the A7sii offers 4k video, stunning low light but has terrible battery life and so on. (I don't personally know much about the A7rii, so I'll leave that one alone.) My point is that all of these do the job for different people. I know wedding professionals who use all of these. But we are all doing the same job, no? Sure everyone has their own style and every wedding is a little different, but none of them are different enough to where I Would say one wedding requires a A7rii and the other a GH4, so what I'm trying to say is all the cameras I've listed in this post will do the job. Hell, my T3i will do the job. They are more than capable, so what do you look at after you get past the "it will do the job" part?

I personally chose the C100 for a number of reasons. If you go back to the original post I said that interchangeable lenses is a must, so I go C100 over maybe a Canon XF200 or even the XC10. Next was color reproduction and this is where I phase out anything but Canon. I don't like the green twinge I've seen in the Panasonic cameras color and I hate the way the A7 series produces red tones. Then sensor noise, and Canon C100 fits the bill. Continuing down my list, with the same exact lens, the C100 is (in my experience) sharper than the GH4 (and at least as good when the 4k is downscaled in post). I would say it matches or beats the sharpness of the A7 series, so I continue to pick the C100. To get back to the point, I'm not saying the C100 is the best for everyone, just for me. I want the best image quality for the price and in my opinion the C100 is it. The image quality on any or all the cameras I've mentioned, including the T3i, is more than adequate for wedding video (especially if you are going to go to DVD or online). My point is that I don't just choose the C100 because it is a camera that can do the job, but because it fits my style and my standards for what an image should look like and what I want from the ergonomics of a video camera.

Now maybe you don't have the same method. Maybe you don't care that much, you just punch in the features you want and sort by lowest price. Each job is a bit different, but at the end of the day they are all weddings and there are literally hundreds of cameras that can do the job. If that were my only criteria, I'd buy a couple old Canon GL2's on ebay and as long as I'm going to DVD, no one will notice, right?


For weddings the "need" list is quite small and we videographers make the "want" list often much bigger then it needs to be.

What's on your want list?

What's on your want list?
Everything that I don't really need but always wanted to have. :)

Look at the C100 vs 5d mkiii vs Sony A7sii vs Sony A7rii.

I thought you didn't want this to be a "Camera A is better than Camera B" thread yet you just made a extensive list where you think your c100 is a better camera compared to the others, do you want us to make a list why we think our camera is better then, say your c100? I'm a bit confused now.

so what I'm trying to say is all the cameras I've listed in this post will do the job. Hell, my T3i will do the job. They are more than capable, so what do you look at after you get past the "it will do the job" part?



Matthias, there's a danger of over analysing. I never feel my GH4 is the only camera that can film Weddings; it's the camera I have chosen for its size, its 4K, focus peaking and other useful functions. Its reliable and in the right conditions produces great footage that grades well.

If there's one thing that stopped me from getting the C100 mark ii, it was the lack of 4K. I just didn't feel like spending over 3k on a camera that didn't have that feature. Lack of XLR and some manual controls was easily lost; if like my AF101a, I find it better to record audio separately anyway and manual controls can be limited. Plus no touch screen, another bonus to the GH4 I welcome.

So basically, to answer your question, small form factor, 4K and touch screen are what I look for beyond the 'it'll do the job' part. Focus peaking, good screen resolution, slow mo and easily selectable custom settings perhaps also being on the list.

Price
Low Light Ability
Features (XLR, Internal ND Filters)
Prefer fixed lens, tho it seems the market headed towards interchangeable.
Longevity. (If I bought now I would likely look for something 4K, even an starter pkg. In 2009 I bought an HDV tape cam, Z5U, which allowed for the MRC1 CF card adaptor. Extended the cameras life about 3 extra years by shooting to card, just mentally, to me. As hooking up & capturing via firewire was a pain. Gosh that sounds so long ago)

I'll likely need to upgrade my main cam at the end of this year, so yeah I'll be looking. I may look to buy 2 similar mid range cams, I don't like the A-cam B-cam and matching up cameras.

What's on your want list?

My want list? A 20x zoom fixed lens with F/2.0 constant aperture under $2K. Oh, yes, with XLR inputs :-)

Tapeless..... once you go tapeless, you never go back.

Free would be nice, but I'm not sure that's possible.

I thought you didn't want this to be a "Camera A is better than Camera B" thread yet you just made a extensive list where you think your c100 is a better camera compared to the others, do you want us to make a list why we think our camera is better then, say your c100? I'm a bit confused now.
First I'd like to say that I never said the C100 was the best or rather was any better or more legitimate a choice than any other camera. I simply explained, using a real world example, why I chose a specific camera for the basis of showing my process and why I think all of us have some sort of process for selecting a camera. I used this example only because it has been said repeatedly throughout this thread that "any camera" will do and that isn't true. It also isn't true that there is only one camera for the job. Noa, as I'm sure you know, you are fully capable of using many different cameras on the market to shoot any given wedding. You have the ones you choose and you have your reasons. I started this thread to find out those reasons.

It turns out I can't have a discussion like that on here without people making posts saying "it doesn't matter what gear you use" or saying "whatever gear does the job" but in reality we have a variety of cameras that can do the job. I just wanted to know why you choose the camera you did without bad mouthing any cameras in the process.

I just wanted to know why you choose the camera you did without bad mouthing any cameras in the process.

You mean not bad mouth like this?:

-The T3i claims to shoot 1080p but in reality it looks terrible at any resolution higher than 720p
-With the C100 you get the best battery life in the bunch.
-You also get XLR inputs and some manual features you won't see on any of the others.
- I don't like the green twinge I've seen in the Panasonic cameras color and I hate the way the A7 series produces red tones
the C100 is (in my experience) sharper than the GH4 (and at least as good when the 4k is downscaled in post). I would say it matches or beats the sharpness of the A7 series

I mean, you have asked to keep it clean so do you understand why I was confused? I can provide a list why I did buy my jvc over a c100 or where my camera would beat certain functions the c100 doesn't have.

[QUOTE=Matthias Claflin;
I started this topic because we all know that when someone asks about a camera suggestion, the first question we all ask is "what are you using it for?" But I want to go beyond that. [/QUOTE]


I have shot a wedding, for free. But I was committed to doing a good job. It was a ton of work. Three cameras, a wireless mic and two portable sound recorders. Editing nightmare. It turned out better than I expected. That was a long time ago and now I'm about ready to try again.

But to your "beyond that" statement, I suggest you think about your typical wedding shoot day and pick out the things that cause you frustration. Then, as it applies to the camera itself, take this into consideration and look for features in a camera that will help eliminate the source of frustration.

For example: with weddings, I'd think low-light performance would be at the top of everyone's list. Trying to eliminate that grain by using a slower shutter speed than you want or in post by applying Neat Video to lots of clips could be a source of frustration. Buying a camera with great low-light performance helps eliminate it.

Some things I look for in a camera: more buttons and switches, less menu-diving, built in ND filters, long battery life, Lanc terminal.

HTH,
Mark

Noa, I bad mouthed the T3i. I will admit as much but I didn't bad mouth any other cameras. The T3i is over 5 years old, can anyone blame it for not holding up to newer cameras, or cameras dedicated to video? No. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything at all.

I assume you know that each sensor handles color a little differently and for the most part each brand has a slightly different way of approaching it. Canon has a bit more yellow, Panasonic normally has a bit more green, and I can't say for Sony other than the A7 series has something off in the red side of things. None of these things are "bad mouthing" a camera, but rather pointing out in one aspect that they differ.

Same with battery life. The GH4 and the A7 series by Sony have relatively poor battery life in comparison to a more traditional video camera. This is because they use DSLR style batteries. The A7 series being notorious for lasting an hour or less per battery. The C100 goes for about 3 hours with the standard battery. This is not an opinion. This is a fact and as I believe I accurately presented it as a fact without speaking poorly of the other cameras. I didn't say that the battery life on the other cameras were crap, or terrible, or even bad. For the most part I believe I was objective in what I had to say about the cameras, (once again, the exception being the T3i. I acknowledge that I did indeed bad mouth the picture quality from the T3i.)

As for the GH4, I mentioned that it isn't as sharp as the C100, which it isn't. I never said the GH4 was unacceptably soft. I never said it had poor picture quality, in fact I later stated that it is about as sharp as the C100 when the 4k is downscaled to HD (in post but not in camera).

The C100 is not perfect. I wouldn't use it in every situation. I already stated that it wasn't right for everyone, but it is for me. I'm not here to argue about cameras. I'm not here to argue anything. You seem to want to twist what I've said so far by taking everything out of context as if to continue a pointless argument. I personally don't care what camera you pick, but I'm curious about why. I'm done defending this thread and my intentions.



Mark, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

You are not getting the point, you ask us not to make this a "camera a is better then camera b thread" or not to "bad mouth" other models but to me it appears you are the only one that is not "keeping it clean", just saying.

Same with battery life. The GH4 and the A7 series by Sony have relatively poor battery life in comparison to a more traditional video camera. The C100 goes for about 3 hours with the standard battery. This is not an opinion. This is a fact and as I believe I accurately presented it as a fact without speaking poorly of the other cameras.


My GH2 batteries have been tested by me at 1 hours 55 mins maximum in many situations. The GH4's battery is longer lasting than they are, though I've rarely pushed it to its limits, never recording anything continuous for more than 2 hours. As long as IS on the lens isn't being used, I could feasibly get 2 hours 20 mins. Use the battery grip with dual batteries and you could get 4.5 hours at least.


As for the GH4, I mentioned that it isn't as sharp as the C100, which it isn't. I never said the GH4 was unacceptably soft. I never said it had poor picture quality, in fact I later stated that it is about as sharp as the C100 when the 4k is downscaled to HD (in post but not in camera).



The C100 uses a 4K sensor which it downconverts to deliver the HD image. Little wonder its sharpness matches the 4K image of the GH4 when similarly downconverted in post. The GH4's internal HD recordings use line skipping I understand, so understandably not as sharp and more prone to moire.

Budget does play a strong factor in choosing cameras. Plus ROI too. If you're buying 4 cameras as I had to, compared to just the 1, that same money has got to be spread more thinly. I like the look of the FS5 and have heard of a few owners of the C100 planning to jump ship to that camera, especially now they've fixed a few of the niggling issues. It's a tempting camera and so far the only camera I would consider if I wished to invest that amount of money on a camera.

The GH4's internal HD recordings use line skipping I understand, so understandably not as sharp and more prone to moire.

I also think it should be compared in another way and would be interesting to see the difference, if any, like on a big 4K tv screen, one shot in 4k on the gh4 and one shot in hd on the c100 to see how both match up.
Also, one bigger advantage of shooting 4k is the cropping ability in post, zoom in 50% on 4k gh4 footage on a 1080p time line and do the same with c100 HD footage, the difference in detail will become very obvious in such a case in favor of the GH4. And anyone saying they don't need 4K for weddings are usually the ones that don't have a 4K camera. As long as you don't have to supply a 4K master the cropping ability advantages you gain give you so much more possibilities in post from one and the same camera angle where you can go from wide to medium close up without ever touching the camera on location, perfect as second unmanned camera.

Also can confirm what batterylife is concerned, don't know where Matthias got that experience that the gh4 has a poor battery life, the gh3/4 are known for it's long batterylife, I never had to use my spare batteries at a wedding on my GH's, they seem to last forever.

Question for those who shoot DSLR/Interchangeable lens... Do you have a power zoom lens? (Aren't they typically really expensive). Otherwise, did you adjust you style of shooting and basically do away with it?

TBH, I'm not sure how much I use it, outside of the bridal entrance & 1st dance. But I love having it, like a teddy bear or security blanket, not sure I'd want to shoot without it, or using manual zoom.

Question for those who shoot DSLR/Interchangeable lens... Do you have a power zoom lens?

No I don't own any power zoom and yes I have altered my shooting style to reflect this. With practise, I can pull back a zoom manually, but aside from bridal entrance and the bride/groom exit, I've never missed the zoom option. Plus with 4K you can replicate it in software.

Question for those who shoot DSLR/Interchangeable lens... Do you have a power zoom lens? (Aren't they typically really expensive). Otherwise, did you adjust you style of shooting and basically do away with it?

Panasonic has 2 powerzoom lenses that I know of that can be controlled with the zoomrocker from the jvc gy ls300 but they are quite slow lenses, it is however possible to zoom with any prime lens on that same camera which gives you about double the focal length.

Otherwise I also zoom manually on the lens, I only use the zoom to reframe, 99% of the time I will cut the zoommotion out in post.

Whilst there there is only the best camera you can afford for your needs at any given time...I'll repeat that one of the most important aspects in choosing a C100 over say a GH4 was the dual slot recording. I'd imagine Noa's JVC has the same function. I've had 2 corrupt cards. I'd hate that on a 1 slot camera.

Dual slot recording becomes essential if filming with 1 camera or 1 camera with another as a wide angle backup. As the Panasonic cameras are cheaper and smaller, I film with 4, manning 2 cameras, 1 on wide and 1 on closeup at the front. I've yet to have a case of corrupt card, and that's shooting 50 Weddings a year. If I do, I have 3 other cameras to fill out the edit.

Even a dualslot is not failsafe, I had a "rebuild media" error on both cards simultaneously during my last wedding shoot, there was no dataloss as the camera did rebuild the data for whatever reason but when this message appears you cannot shoot anymore until you do the rebuild which requires going into the menu and select that option. I had 2 fast cards in use at that moment and shot in a 50mbs codec so speed was not the bottleneck but they where 2 different brands (kingston and sandisc) and 2 different sizes (64gb en 128gb) which might have caused the problem, I continued to shoot with one card the rest of the day without any issues. Will most likely get me 2 identical jvc approved cards for a next weddingshoot.

Even a dualslot is not failsafe, .

Yes, that's true, I wouldn't like to depend on it for backup. I use a Nanoflash as backup, how much more reliable this method is, I don't know, but I just feel it is, compared to in camera dual slots:)

Noa, that must have been scary!
I usually shoot with 1 camera. Maybe a 700d as a wide back up if possible. I always use the same brand and card when using dual slot recording. I won't mix a 16gb with a 32gb nor one that records 95mb/s and one that records 60mb/s.
I once had a problem on a 7D with a CF card. costly to fix.
With the dual slot cards FCPX once went haywire and erased the card rather than importing it. Luckily I had the other card!
Anyway, I'm just trying to contribute to the discussion although I guess we've all gone through this before!

Noa, that must have been scary!

Well, I was about 3 hours into the wedding and all went fine until then and luckily I was not shooting anything that really mattered at that moment because it took me about 5 minutes to find out how to rebuild the data on the card. I then rebuild the data on one card but took the second card out and didn't use it anymore that day. After that rebuild all was fine again and nothing lost but that moment made me age a few years :)

Has anyone got a preferred brand of card, I generally use sandisk extreme pro, the thought of card failure worries me.

Phil