Dear forum members,

I have a question and any thoughts would be very helpful.

Basically I do mostly wedding videos and my current 2 camera setup for all portions of wedding except ceremony is Canon 5D IV on Zhiyun Crane 2 with Sigma 35mm Art and C100 mkii with a tighter lens (70-200 f2.8 or 85 1.2) on Monopod/Tripod.

Question is regarding the best possible setup for gimbal use.
Right now using Sigma 35mm ART on 5D4 on gimbal.

Last wedding I used my Canon 24-70 f2.8 on 5D IV at 24mm focal length and really liked the extra wide focal length. For video, I found wider angle made the footage look more epic/cinematic and also made the sense of motion on gimbal more pro-nounced.

Now I have a few options for gimbal work.
1) Continue using my 35mm Art on 5D4.
2) Use my 24-70 f2.8L at 24mm on gimbal.
3) Buy 24mm f1.4 lens. I am leaning towards this the most as I think f1.4 will make a big difference vs f2.8. The problem with this setup is I might have to use ND filters all the time considering how bright the lens is.
4) There is one more option, and that is to get a C200 for gimbal use. I get all the advantages of having a Cinema camera but downside is I can handhold it with gimbal only if using it with 24mm STM pancake lens. That lens is only f2.8 and also on crop will be almost 40mm, so kind of tight?

What do you guys think?

I'm glad that your business is going so well that you can afford to buy such lovely kit but a C200 just for gimbal use would be complete overkill (so would a 24mm F1.4L lens). If you want to get a C200 (& who wouldn't?:-) then surely that should be your main camera & use another cheaper camera for the gimbal?

Back in the day before gimbals deskilled Steadicam usage the trick for inexpereinced operators was to use a wide lens e.g. 16mm on full frame so that any swaying motion was minimised but also importantly that the wider the lens the deeper the depth of field so it's easier to keep the subject in focus. I used to use a 16-35mm F/2.8L on a Canon 5D3 on a Glidecam & as I gained experience adjust the lens from 16mm up to 24mm.

Presumably you are shooting HD on the 5D4 as the crop factor is so brutal for 4K but unless you want the C200 for 4K then another C100 MKII is less than half the price so wouldn't you be better off replacing the 5D4 with a C100 MKII? A 24mm lens would be 36mm FF equivalent on the C100 but on paper a Samyang 16mm F/2 manual lens could be just right (I have no idea what the quality on this lens is like but the focal length & aperture is right).

I'm glad that your business is going so well that you can afford to buy such lovely kit but a C200 just for gimbal use would be complete overkill (so would a 24mm F1.4L lens). If you want to get a C200 (& who wouldn't?:-) then surely that should be your main camera & use another cheaper camera for the gimbal?

Back in the day before gimbals deskilled Steadicam usage the trick for inexpereinced operators was to use a wide lens e.g. 16mm on full frame so that any swaying motion was minimised but also importantly that the wider the lens the deeper the depth of field so it's easier to keep the subject in focus. I used to use a 16-35mm F/2.8L on a Canon 5D3 on a Glidecam & as I gained experience adjust the lens from 16mm up to 24mm.

Presumably you are shooting HD on the 5D4 as the crop factor is so brutal for 4K but unless you want the C200 for 4K then another C100 MKII is less than half the price so wouldn't you be better off replacing the 5D4 with a C100 MKII? A 24mm lens would be 36mm FF equivalent on the C100 but on paper a Samyang 16mm F/2 manual lens could be just right (I have no idea what the quality on this lens is like but the focal length & aperture is right).


HI Nigel,

Thanks for feedback.
The main reason I want to replace the 5D4 with Cinema camera for gimbal work is because I use the gimbal a lot for weddings (I would say over 70% of footage from the day is from gimbal shots) and the fact that it doesn't have dual card video recording bothers me (in case of card failure, whereas cinema cameras can do dual card recording).

But the problem with just getting a cinema camera and sticking it on gimbal is it becomes too heavy for handheld use with anything other than just a small pancake lens (like 24mm STM). This limits my ability to get wider shots and also thin depth of field shots that I can with something like 35mm prime.

If I continue using 5D4 for gimbal work, why do you think the 24mm f1.4 would be overkill? I am not a big fan of having everything in focus, having thin depth of field looks more cinematic. Now I use 35mm f1.4 lens and really like it but with a 24mm f1.4 I will also be able to create thin DEF shots while being wider, which I think creates more epic shots when there is gimbal motion.

Only if there was a wide angle (16-24mm) and bright f stop (f2.0 or f1.4) lens that was also less than 500 grams I would put it on C200 and that would be my ideal setup, but I don't know of such lens...

If I continue using 5D4 for gimbal work, why do you think the 24mm f1.4 would be overkill?
The Canon 24mm F1.4L is a great lens but it costs over $1500 & weighs 650gms.

There is a Sigma 20mm F/1,4 but that weighs 950gms!

It would be very tiring to use the standard Zhiyun Crane 2 with one hand & a C200 plus 24mm F1.4L but how about using it with two handles or a ring? If that's not possible then they are available with other gimbals. The C200 is also a lot heavier than a C100 MKII.

I am not a big fan of having everything in focus, having thin depth of field looks more cinematic. Now I use 35mm f1.4 lens and really like it but with a 24mm f1.4 I will also be able to create thin DEF shots while being wider, which I think creates more epic shots when there is gimbal motion.



Whilst I love a shallow depth of field myself, is it more cinematic.... It's amazing watching movies and TV with excellent cinematography that have a deeper depth of field and yet still look cinematic. The overly shallow, paper thin depth of field is more seen in Wedding videos than in the cinema and on TV. It's a nice look for sure and I'm guilty as the next Video but for using it and over using it.

Personally I'd go for option 2. That way you can zoom in and get more shallower depth of field when needed and still come out wider for some shots. I think 1.4 is too shallow on a fullframe camera for gimbal work.

Whilst I love a shallow depth of field myself, is it more cinematic.... It's amazing watching movies and TV with excellent cinematography that have a deeper depth of field and yet still look cinematic. The overly shallow, paper thin depth of field is more seen in Wedding videos than in the cinema and on TV. It's a nice look for sure and I'm guilty as the next Video but for using it and over using it.

Personally I'd go for option 2. That way you can zoom in and get more shallower depth of field when needed and still come out wider for some shots. I think 1.4 is too shallow on a fullframe camera for gimbal work.

Yep, I totally get what you mean, I am kind of getting sick of this super-thin DEF shots everywhere, kind of makes my head spin haha.
I personally always felt like f2.8 was the best look on full-frame camera. Thin DEF, but also not too thin and can see some of the background, a more natural aesthetic to the image/video. It feels like the perfect balance for me.
After reading all this, there is a very high chance I will just stick with my 5D4 with my 24-70 f2.8 for gimbal work.
P.S. Still drooling for the C200 though, and looking for any possible excude to buy it lol!