Are the GH2 and other DSLRs practical for weddings

[Brian Luce]

There is no reason in the world a GH2 is bad for concerts. In fact, because of the large light gathering sensor relative to dedicated video cams, it's actually an excellent choice. Not to mention the availability of unlimited choices of glass.

There is nothing particularly difficult about focus, if the AF bothers you, go full manual. If you're doing this for money, you should able to manually focus. It's not THAT hard. Set you ISO and that little thumbwheel jogs between exposure and shutter. What's so hard about that? It just takes a little getting used to. Don't let the idiotic owners manual fluster you.

The Canons are a different story, they overheat and some have a record limit, they are bad for events, but the GH2? Piece of cake.

[Corey Graham]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

I've noticed moire Corey, but only once, only on a striped tie. But as it turned out, it was only on the LCD, it did not show up on the clip later.

It wasn't moire, but compression artifacts. I have noticed moire on the LCD that didn't end up in the recorded clip. The only time I did get recorded moire is when I was shooting my cat through a screen door. Shooting my cat? That sounds terrible.

I'm thinking the compression artifacts may have been due to the low light in those areas. On the floor and the wall where I noticed the artifacts, the light was not spilling into them as much. So, there's not as much visual information going to the sensor, thus it's having a hard time rendering them properly. Does this make sense?

[Jim Greene]

Originally Posted by William Hohauser

And I never said it was the wrong camera for a wedding,

OK, but it did seem like that's what you were saying:

Originally Posted by William Hohauser

I told them flat out, this is the WRONG camera for this. A video camera is the way to go. In such a situation the GH2 is b-roll and inserts at best. The same goes for weddings.

It's just a tool, not every camera is best for a given situation, and it's also a personal preference.

[Jeff Harper]

I completely understand William's seemingly conflicting statements, as I feel the same way. It is the wrong camera and it is the right camera. It is also exasperating. HDMI out but only when shooting 24p in a 60i wrapper? Cannot adjust iso when recording, the list goes on.

The event and shooting style dictates what is best of course. For a continous performance, the GH2 is not ideal, not even close but we are using it as an inexpensive means to beef up our images.

When we see events on television such as the royal wedding, or a football game, they are not using fixed lenses or DSLR cameras. They have an huge budget and can shoot with whatever they need. They choose video cameras with powerful zoom lenses and automatic focus.

That would be the ideal for any event, really.

The GH2 is being used by primarily hobbyists and gadget lovers. That is who is is geared for. It is not user friendly for the purposes of live event shooting, period. That cannot be denied or argued, it is the reality.

For me the camera has been close to a curse, with it's accompanying difficulties, adapters, etc. On the other hand, I shot last night with it, and things went relatively well, and I'm pretty excited about my next wedding, which is tomorrow.

It can do the job we need but learning how to use it is not an overnight process. If I had the money I would be using an EX1 as Jim S does, with my GH2 as a 2nd camera, and third even.

As I get better using it, I will master it enough I'll be fine, and I will be a much better shooter for the experience.

[Jeff Harper]

Corey, were you possibly shooting at a very slow frame rate, I wonder? I had some hinky footage last night in very low light conditions and was running in Aperture priority, and suspect the shutter slowed down too much. I would prefer to run in manual, but I really like auto iso, and dislike the hunting in shutter priority.

[Colin Rowe]

DSLRs make the hard work of a wedding shoot even harder. Fine for infill and cutaway shots, if you want to spend the time matching colour in post. I used a 550D as B cam to my EX1 for a while, fine camera, particularly with ML on board. But as a wedding tool, well no, not for me anyway. It was soon replaced with a Panasonic TM900. There are just to many issues with the DSLR for wedding/event use. 12 min recording limit, moire and aliasing, lousy line skipping in camera conversion to HD, low resolution compared to a video camera, ergonomics etc, etc. I agree you can get some excellent images out of a DSLR. In a controlled environment, they are fine, anywhere you can check your shot, and retake it if neccesary. You dont have that luxury on a wedding shoot, well not during the ceremony and speeches. This is of course very subjective, and as others have said, many are using DSLRs succesfully in the wedding production industry. They are a very handy tool to have in the kit bag, but as a main wedding tool, no.

[Jeff Harper]

Not arguing with you Colin, but just for clarification, many of the problems you list with DSLRs are not issues with the GH2. (It is not a DSLR, which is an important point in this conversation because it's being a Hybrid is part of why it has overcome some of the issue you mention).

Moire and such are totoal non-issues, conversion of this footage is phenomenal, for me so far. No 12 minute limt. Images, when you get them right, are VERY good and convertible with no issues.

I'm finding the biggest problem is for the most part manual focusing is required, but I'm learning to get better at it.

Of course, overall, you are correct, even with the GH2 having overcome many of the the traditional DSLR issues, traditional video cameras are simply more efficient!

[Jeff Harper]

Colin, the Panasonic has a 1/4" sensor. I find many cams with 1/3" too weak in low light. That sounds like a real challenge.

[Corey Graham]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Corey, were you possibly shooting at a very slow frame rate, I wonder? I had some hinky footage last night in very low light conditions and was running in Aperture priority, and suspect the shutter slowed down too much. I would prefer to run in manual, but I really like auto iso, and dislike the hunting in shutter priority.

I'm sure that wasn't it, as I was shooting 720/60p at 1/60 . . . I'll have to try to recreate the problem and see exactly what settings I was on.

[William Hohauser]

Nothing that I say is 100% true for every situation or person, it's just my experience from years of event videography and other projects for filmmakers and broadcast.

As a single camera the stock GH2 with a tripod is great for:
- Interview filming, especially if you record the audio separately.
- Insert shots at weddings, events, concerts, possibly sporting events with the zoom lens.
- For independent film-makers.
- Any filming that has ample set-up time; commercials, promos, music videos, etc.

In my experience you need to start considering additional equipment for other uses: quality monitors for focus, shoulder rigs for hand-held, special lens, etc. The expenses start to add up. Not to discourage anyone from purchasing the camera but the question is practicality. In my opinion the GH2 (which I'm about to go on a job with now) is not practical for many types of filming unless certain criteria are met. These being: are multiple cameras being used? Is one willing to go for the expense of additional equipment? Is impeded function access acceptable?

For information sake, there are regular video cameras that produce excellent images for around the same price and are a lot easier to use. They just don't produce the same quality of image as the GH2. That's the choice we make with this camera. I made it and don't regret it.

[Colin Rowe]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Colin, the Panasonic has a 1/4" sensor. I find many cams with 1/3" too weak in low light. That sounds like a real challenge.

Not so Jeff. The TM900 has 3 1/4 inch sensors, for its size it is an amazing camera. I have never had an issue with low light, everyone seems to be obsessed with it these days. I come from the days of 3/4 inch tape, and tube cameras with a 30 lux rating were considered state of the art. My son got married a couple of weeks ago, I used the TM900 for most of the day, only using my EX1 as A cam for the service and speeches. The little camera performed flawelessly in lighting conditions that went from clear skies to thunder storms, dark church and reception venue. Example of the day here http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasoni...0-wedding.html

[Jeff Harper]

I understand it has three sensors. Your footage was great, and for purposes of having auto focus during the ceremony I would use it during the processional, but that would be the extent of it's usefullness for me.

[Jeff Harper]

Actually, than Panasonic would be very useful during reception events that are well lit, as it would maintain focus on it's own and would make for a great wide shot. If it shot 720p, it would be a great choice for me as an extra camera.

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by Colin Rowe

Not so Jeff. The TM900 has 3 1/4 inch sensors, for its size it is an amazing camera. I have never had an issue with low light, everyone seems to be obsessed with it these days.

three 1/4" chips means you have 1/4" sensor, and no matter how you slice it, it won't have the light gathering ability of the GH2's m43 sensor. Some dedicated small chips cams might seem equivalent to the gh2 in low light because they have very fast lenses and then they compare it to the stock GH2 kit lens. But try putting the F0.95 Voightlander and the do a comparison. There is no comparison really.

I'm not sure why you guys say it's bad for events, someone listed Moire, short record times, aliasing, low resolution, well this is the Panasonic forum, not Canon. GH2 resolves well over 700 lines.
The VF is easy for focusing, sharper than my EX3. So far the only valid point I've read is that Jeff said it's kind too tiny and not that ergonomic. That's fair, but I think you can used to anything.

[Colin Rowe]

To be honest, I find it a very usefull, all round camera. I add again, this is very subjective. The final edit of the wedding will include about 60% of TM900 footage