Are the GH2 and other DSLRs practical for weddings

[Jeff Harper]

Well, the footage from your sample looks nice, but there was something missing in it, but I can't put my finger on what I didn't care for. It seem flat looking, I think, lacking in saturation, maybe it was the lighting conditions, maybe it was the encoding for the web, I don't know.

The reviews of the camera on B&H are quite good overall, and people say it's great in low light.

This is my assesment: for a 1/4" sensor, it looks excellent, even amazing, but it is still a 1/4" sensor.

It's kind of like my old Canon HV30. In many situations the footage was outstanding, but there were times, quite often, that it was painfully obvious it had a small sensor.

The physical size of a 1/4" chip just limits it too much in ways that it cannot possibly allow as much information in as a 1/2" or greater chip will do.

[Colin Rowe]

I agree on your comments re 1/4 sensors Jeff. Of course there is a vast difference between the two.The church in the clip is our local church. It is 13th century and sits on the cliffs overlooking the Atlantic. It is without a doubt, the darkest church I have worked in, in the last 30 years. To give you an idea of the light levels, the EX1 was wide open + 9db of gain. I toyed with taking it up to 12, but decided against it, all worked out well. As for saturation on the TM900, I have actually reduced it to get it close to my EX1. I guess we have to remember, one camera costs £750, the other £5,000. But to get back to the thread title, I would rather use the TM900 than a DSLR for any kind of event shooting. It just makes life easier, and the end results, for me, are more than acceptable.

[Evan Lloyd]

This thread is kind of silly. Most of the top wedding videographers are using DSLRs to shoot weddings. Those that have dedicated themselves to the medium are getting stunning results. I remember when guys first started using the 5D Mark II. They were brutalized on this site. Now, they are common place.

The GH2 does everything a DSLR can do, but with less limitations. If you can shoot a wedding with a DSRL, you can shoot one with the GH2. If you don't like using "photo cameras" to shoot weddings, then don't use them. Stick to what you like.

We are artists and as such, we can use any brush we like to paint a picture. If you don't like a certain tool, that is fine, use something you do like. But don't waist your time knocking someone else's choice in tools. Do something productive like learn to edit better or work on your marketing. Four pages of back and forth is silly.

Respect
Evan

[Martyn Hull]

Expensive but an EX3 for me, less work, I will stick to fun locations with mine, all the best to you gluttons for punishment [joking].

[Corey Graham]

Originally Posted by Evan Lloyd

This thread is kind of silly.
...
Do something productive like learn to edit better or work on your marketing. Four pages of back and forth is silly.

I have to respectfully disagree. I'm loving the discussion, and am learning a lot about the cameras, their capabilities, and people's experiences/impressions with them.

Discussion about editing and marketing can be done on other threads, there are plenty out there.

Keep it going!

[Jim Greene]

I have no problem with keeping the discussion going, but to Evan's point, there seems to be an awful lot passion against the use of DSLRs to shoot events, especially weddings. They are just tools. Either you can live with the bad technical aspects, such as moire, and the difficult ergonomics, or you simply like to use a dedicated video camera because it is a more comfortable tool. For most DSLR shooters, it's the image quality and extreme low light capability that makes us love to shoot with it. And like I said previously, it's also the challenge that keeps us in the game. To each his/her own.

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by Jim Greene

. Either you can live with the bad technical aspects, such as moire, and the difficult ergonomics, or you simply like to use a dedicated video camera because it is a more comfortable tool..

I don't think the GH2 has technical issues. The canons are plagued by moire and aliasing, not the panasonics.

[Corey Graham]

I am enjoying the differences in opinion. I get frustrated as well when people get so dismissive of one of the tools in the videographer's arsenal. But all in all, I think this kind of debate is profitable.

[Jeff Harper]

Brian, a couple of your recent posts just showed up late again for me, is it a fourm issue? Strange. Anyway, I just shot my first "nice" wedding with four cameras, and while I have a lot to learn, overall the footage came out fantastic and I'm so pumped. Learning the cameras is the key, of course.

Also, I had control over lighing, which is a rare, but made for SO much difference in the footage. As we all know, lighting is key to everything.

[William Hohauser]

I think Jeff's description of his recent wedding shoot really supplements this discussion:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasoni...h2-lenses.html

His method is excellent.

[Jeff Harper]

William, still learning as I go along. My method so far from perfect, of course, and is still largely "by the seat of my pants", but shooting continuously and trying to focus has forced some improvisations that seemed to work. Focusing ahead of the bride as she comes down the aisle, while using a wide lens adjancent to the zoom lens on a double headed tripod is effective, but a lot of work, and requires a level of focus I never thought I had.

I didn't choose this format of camera, my budget did. It seemed the least expensive way to get into a camera with stunning images.

Prior to my wedding Saturday I nearly had a nervous breakdown, I was seriously wondering what the hell had I gotten into? But with four cameras and some decent lenses, it can work.