|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 30th, 2008, 08:41 PM | #31 |
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 689
|
For me not using on-camera lights is a big selling point. A lot of people won't hire a videographer because they specifically don't want a bright light changing the ambiance they've designed. I also like the fact that because I don't use a light no attention is on me and I don't affect what anyone is doing by making them aware of the camera. As Noa said you're also much more free to shoot when, how and what you want if your subject doesn't have to be within range of your light. There are clients that expect camera lights and those that don't want them. There is plenty of work to go around if both styles are available.
|
October 1st, 2008, 12:19 AM | #32 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Billericay, England UK
Posts: 4,711
|
You got me there Bill - brain fade this end.
Noa - the anamorphic is a cylindrical wide-angle converter as against the more common spherical wide-angle converter, so there's nothing special about it in reality. Sony added four Steady Shot settings from the FX1 onwards because of these problems Panasonic talk about, one of which is the wide converter setting. I'm pretty sure the DVX doesn't have these alternative OIS settings, which is probably why they think it safer to recommend switching it off entirely. Auto focus is a different matter, and the differing planes of focus you get when using an anamorphic make switching that off good advice. Kevin - low light performance is just so important for wedding videographers as there's no way you can light the typical church even if you were allowed to and had the time and equipment available. Same with the reception, and couples propensity for 'romantic' lighting means that very often you simply can't go round splashing on-camera light about and destroying their wants. The beauty of the VX2100 was not only it's low-light supremacy but that it had a fast f/2.4 full telephoto - a good half-stop faster than the FX1 and a stop faster than the XH-A1. Of course both these cameras use 1080 chips of the same size as the VX, so they start out with a huge disadvantage light-gathering wise. tom. |
October 1st, 2008, 03:15 PM | #33 | |
New Boot
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 8
|
Quote:
From what I hear, the NR2 is much more friendly for moving subjects. I'd verify that info first however ;-) |
|
October 1st, 2008, 03:21 PM | #34 |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 959
|
If you look closely, all of the three NR1 settings have ghosting to varying degrees.
|
October 1st, 2008, 03:25 PM | #35 | |
New Boot
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 8
|
Quote:
|
|
| ||||||
|
|