Wedding setup

Jeff Harper · October 12th, 2011, 12:13 PM

Thomas, you'll love the 14mm f/2.5 compared to what you have. But then after you get the 20mm you will then never use much else in low light when you can avoid it, unless you get the 12mm F/2.0.

14mm is a great lens overall for sure.

You know, I'm not a fan of manual focus lenses, but the new 12mm f/1.6 manual focus lens looks very nice. It's cheap too. It's mentioned around here somewhere. Have you looked at that one?

Khoi Pham · October 12th, 2011, 01:12 PM

Hey I have a H4N in perfect condition if you are interested.
khoi@proeditproductions.com

Thomas E. Smith · October 12th, 2011, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khoi Pham

Hey I have a H4N in perfect condition if you are interested.
khoi@proeditproductions.com

I might buy it when I get more funds, assuming you still have it by then.

Thomas Smet · October 12th, 2011, 02:13 PM

While the GH2 is a more sensitive camera you have to keep in mind f3.5 or f5.6 vs f1.8 or f2.8 on a video camera. If you can use F1.8 lenses then yes the GH2 will beat the pants off a video camera also shooting at F1.8. As soon as you use F3.5 or F5.6 at the typical telephoto end for most DSLR lenses then most video cameras at F2.8 on the telephoto end will beat the GH2. Also remember zooming on a DSLR is a PITA. A video camera is still a darn good option for those long shots.

I second old Canon FD lenses. I have a Canon FD 50mm F1.8 and love it. It is so fun to work with. I also just purchased a FD mount Vivitar 75mm to 210mm zoom lens at F3.5. Yeah it is a bit slow but it is contant so even at 210mm it is still F3.5 which blows away any MFT lens at 200mm. FD Primes are a good option for fast lenses but you pretty much must use a tripod. I believe you can get a FD F1.8 at 85mm which may get you a bit closer and still be plenty fast. Above 85mm you are going to have a hard time finding a lens at lower then F2.5 for a decent price.

Personally my plan of action is to use a traditional video camera at the service and move to a DSLR for the reception where you can get by with fast wide lenses.

Thomas Smet · October 13th, 2011, 08:21 PM

Ok maybe the Canon FD 75 - 210mm was a bad choice. lol

I received the lens today and it weighs a ton compared to my dinky GH1. The thing is massive. I'm also having trouble getting it to work on the FD adapter. I guess it uses a breech lock FD mount and my adapter just will not turn and lock. Looks like it may have been a waste of $30.00. oh well. While I hate how slow the Panasonic telephoto lenses are I'm thinking they may be the best option for M43. Due to the size and weight of other telephoto lenses they seem so odd when used on a M43 camera. Now to save up for the Panasonic 45 - 200.

Thomas E. Smith · October 13th, 2011, 08:28 PM

Yeah, I think the micro 4/3 lenses are ideal unless you have no other option.

I'm considering buying a c-stand instead of a tripod for the stationary camera, mainly because I can't find a tall enough tripod.
Obviously they're designed for lighting, but with enough sandbags I would think they could double as camera stands, no?

Jeff Harper · October 13th, 2011, 08:40 PM

How high do you want to go? My Bogen goes up to about 7.5 feet. I have to use a stepladder to operate my camera from it.

Thomas E. Smith · October 13th, 2011, 08:44 PM

At least 7 feet (this is for the stationary cam).
The issue is finding a tripod heavy enough to be stable, but cheap enough to stay in my price range.

I could always get a cheapo aluminum tripod and use sandbags, but it would be a pain for me to have to move that to the reception when time is an issue.

Jeff Harper · October 13th, 2011, 08:50 PM

This is the one I have, it's not as high as I thought, but it's high enough for me.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554068-REG/Manfrotto_028B_028B_Studio_Pro_Triman.html

Jeff Harper · October 13th, 2011, 09:01 PM

That is a lot of tripod for a tiny camera. But it is also very stable. If you need to put a larger camcorder on it you'd be set. It is a very nice piece of gear. For reception work I always put it up all the way and put a WA lens on it, or my main camera. You get everything from that height, it's great. You can zoom in on anything, and when you have a light on your camera at that height, it's lights up a much larger area and is not in peoples eyes. So it is in effect a light stand and tripod. I do take a black metal stepladder with me, can't use it otherwise fully extended. You will get very nice images with a cam and light from the high position.

Jeff Harper · October 13th, 2011, 10:29 PM

Thomas, for zoom you'd be better to forget long lenses, IMO, at least for weddings and get a videocamera. If you're running muliple cameras by yourself. I've done been there, done that, but maybe you'll do better at it than I did. When you get a long enough zoom to shoot from the rear of a church, as soon as the people move 5 inches they are out of the frame, and nailing focus when live is next to impossible with a long lens without a monitor, because there is no focus assist while running. I have a wedding I'm working on now, and my FD 50mm (the one you bought) was out of focus the whole time, and I didn't know it, it was near impossible to tell at the time. I used it for a long shot it was a gorgeous shot, just out of focus. During a wedding I don't have time to fool with that crap. That's why I have run up to 5 cameras, so I can be sure to at least have one or two good shots at all time. Now that I've switched to select Olympus, Zuiko and two Panasonics (20mm and 12mm) everything looks near perfect all the time. I had to go through a lot of lenses to figure it out, at least in a way that worked for me.

On the other hand if you have an assistant running your primary camera, you can go crazy with the GH2 and do anything, but I work alone, so therein lies my problem. I do use an assistant sometimes, just not that often.

Thomas E. Smith · October 14th, 2011, 07:18 AM

Thanks for the link. That tripod would probably work well for what I need.

I work alone as well (at this point).
I plan to use the 14mm or 20mm on the wide camera, and to eventually buy a 45mm Olympus for the main camera.
That would leave the wide camera unattended, but at least I could be closer to the subject.
I have yet to see how the AF performs on that lens on the GH2, but hopefully it would be adequate.

Or, I could buy the 20mm for the main camera, but that would make it imperative to be much closer, so I don't know if it's a good idea.

Thomas Smet · October 14th, 2011, 12:18 PM

I kind of have to agree with Jeff on the video camera. Even if you did manage to find a decent long lens focusing is a major PITA with long lenses. Keep in mind these things are designed first and foremost as stills cameras. Being able to do an electronic zoom keep it fast (f2.8 or faster) and work with a zoom that is always in focus is worth gold after you have worked with DSLRs for awhile.

I have a Panasonic HMC40 which I use with my GH1 and I love it. It is about as bad as you can get in low light for this class of camera but as soon as you switch to telephoto situations it is at least equal or even better then DSLR telephoto shooting. The M43 lens top out at f5.6 at their longest reach. That is very dark and my HMC40 can beat it considering the lens as its longest range is at f2.8. I don't care how large of a chip you have f2.8 is a lot more open then f5.6 no matter how you look at it. This was why I was looking at fast FD telephoto lenses. They are really the only option if you want fast. Of course like Jeff points out the tighter you are on DSLRs the closer to next to impossible it becomes to actually hold focus on them.

The only way now I would consider a long M43 lens to be a better option then a video camera is if somebody made one at f2.8 or better at the longest range with electronic zoom and stabilization. Oh and it has to be under $2,000.00. That is not going to happen anytime soon. Leave the creative shots to the DSLR and keep the tele shots to a video camera on a balcony.

One other thing I should point out. Most video cameras only reach about what the 200 mm M43 does. My Panasonic manages to reach 490mm or what would be 245mm if there was a M43 that did that. The 300mm lens is actually insanely tight compared to almost every video camera with a built in lens that is out there. Even the new Panasonic video cameras coming out next month with a 22x zoom just gets over 600mm or equal to the 300mm M43 lens. The Canon XA10 only gets about 150mm in terms of M43 range. So keep that in mind when you look for a video camera for your tele shots. B&H usually lists the 35mm range for a lot of the cameras. Just double the M43 range to get the 35mm range and you will know how a particular video camera will compare for reach.

Jeff Harper · October 14th, 2011, 02:15 PM

Good point Thomas, to get the equivalent zoom of a video camera you need a WAY powerful zoom.

The zoom most of the better shooters use, I think, is the Canon 70-200mm F/2.8. It was the first zoom I looked at for the GH2, and it would certainly work, but again at an effective 140mm to 400mm it's useless for everything but the ceremony, IMO. The non-IS model is around $900 to $1200, but it is too freaking large, and for that price you can buy a videocamera.

Thomas E. Smith · October 14th, 2011, 02:20 PM

I'm throwing around the idea of picking up a Panny TM700 or TM900 and using that instead of the second GH2.....not sure if I need it though.
Pros:
F2.8 at 420mm end :wow:
Greater focal range

Cons:
Smaller sensor, so large DoF (could be a Pro in certain situations)
Worse in low light

I just don't really know if I need anything past 45mm, especially considering the ex-tele mode on the GH2.

October 12th, 2011, 12:13 PM	#16
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: Wedding setup Thomas, you'll love the 14mm f/2.5 compared to what you have. But then after you get the 20mm you will then never use much else in low light when you can avoid it, unless you get the 12mm F/2.0. 14mm is a great lens overall for sure. You know, I'm not a fan of manual focus lenses, but the new 12mm f/1.6 manual focus lens looks very nice. It's cheap too. It's mentioned around here somewhere. Have you looked at that one? __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

October 12th, 2011, 01:12 PM	#17
Khoi Pham Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Posts: 747	Re: Wedding setup Hey I have a H4N in perfect condition if you are interested. khoi@proeditproductions.com __________________ Khoi Pham www.proeditproductions.com

October 12th, 2011, 02:13 PM	#19
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	Re: Wedding setup While the GH2 is a more sensitive camera you have to keep in mind f3.5 or f5.6 vs f1.8 or f2.8 on a video camera. If you can use F1.8 lenses then yes the GH2 will beat the pants off a video camera also shooting at F1.8. As soon as you use F3.5 or F5.6 at the typical telephoto end for most DSLR lenses then most video cameras at F2.8 on the telephoto end will beat the GH2. Also remember zooming on a DSLR is a PITA. A video camera is still a darn good option for those long shots. I second old Canon FD lenses. I have a Canon FD 50mm F1.8 and love it. It is so fun to work with. I also just purchased a FD mount Vivitar 75mm to 210mm zoom lens at F3.5. Yeah it is a bit slow but it is contant so even at 210mm it is still F3.5 which blows away any MFT lens at 200mm. FD Primes are a good option for fast lenses but you pretty much must use a tripod. I believe you can get a FD F1.8 at 85mm which may get you a bit closer and still be plenty fast. Above 85mm you are going to have a hard time finding a lens at lower then F2.5 for a decent price. Personally my plan of action is to use a traditional video camera at the service and move to a DSLR for the reception where you can get by with fast wide lenses.

October 13th, 2011, 08:21 PM	#20
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	Re: Wedding setup Ok maybe the Canon FD 75 - 210mm was a bad choice. lol I received the lens today and it weighs a ton compared to my dinky GH1. The thing is massive. I'm also having trouble getting it to work on the FD adapter. I guess it uses a breech lock FD mount and my adapter just will not turn and lock. Looks like it may have been a waste of $30.00. oh well. While I hate how slow the Panasonic telephoto lenses are I'm thinking they may be the best option for M43. Due to the size and weight of other telephoto lenses they seem so odd when used on a M43 camera. Now to save up for the Panasonic 45 - 200.

October 13th, 2011, 08:28 PM	#21
Thomas E. Smith Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: GA Posts: 41	Re: Wedding setup Yeah, I think the micro 4/3 lenses are ideal unless you have no other option. I'm considering buying a c-stand instead of a tripod for the stationary camera, mainly because I can't find a tall enough tripod. Obviously they're designed for lighting, but with enough sandbags I would think they could double as camera stands, no?

October 13th, 2011, 08:40 PM	#22
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: Wedding setup How high do you want to go? My Bogen goes up to about 7.5 feet. I have to use a stepladder to operate my camera from it. __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

October 13th, 2011, 08:44 PM	#23
Thomas E. Smith Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: GA Posts: 41	Re: Wedding setup At least 7 feet (this is for the stationary cam). The issue is finding a tripod heavy enough to be stable, but cheap enough to stay in my price range. I could always get a cheapo aluminum tripod and use sandbags, but it would be a pain for me to have to move that to the reception when time is an issue.

October 13th, 2011, 08:50 PM	#24
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: Wedding setup This is the one I have, it's not as high as I thought, but it's high enough for me. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554068-REG/Manfrotto_028B_028B_Studio_Pro_Triman.html __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

October 13th, 2011, 09:01 PM	#25
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: Wedding setup That is a lot of tripod for a tiny camera. But it is also very stable. If you need to put a larger camcorder on it you'd be set. It is a very nice piece of gear. For reception work I always put it up all the way and put a WA lens on it, or my main camera. You get everything from that height, it's great. You can zoom in on anything, and when you have a light on your camera at that height, it's lights up a much larger area and is not in peoples eyes. So it is in effect a light stand and tripod. I do take a black metal stepladder with me, can't use it otherwise fully extended. You will get very nice images with a cam and light from the high position. __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

October 13th, 2011, 10:29 PM	#26
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: Wedding setup Thomas, for zoom you'd be better to forget long lenses, IMO, at least for weddings and get a videocamera. If you're running muliple cameras by yourself. I've done been there, done that, but maybe you'll do better at it than I did. When you get a long enough zoom to shoot from the rear of a church, as soon as the people move 5 inches they are out of the frame, and nailing focus when live is next to impossible with a long lens without a monitor, because there is no focus assist while running. I have a wedding I'm working on now, and my FD 50mm (the one you bought) was out of focus the whole time, and I didn't know it, it was near impossible to tell at the time. I used it for a long shot it was a gorgeous shot, just out of focus. During a wedding I don't have time to fool with that crap. That's why I have run up to 5 cameras, so I can be sure to at least have one or two good shots at all time. Now that I've switched to select Olympus, Zuiko and two Panasonics (20mm and 12mm) everything looks near perfect all the time. I had to go through a lot of lenses to figure it out, at least in a way that worked for me. On the other hand if you have an assistant running your primary camera, you can go crazy with the GH2 and do anything, but I work alone, so therein lies my problem. I do use an assistant sometimes, just not that often. __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

October 14th, 2011, 07:18 AM	#27
Thomas E. Smith Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: GA Posts: 41	Re: Wedding setup Thanks for the link. That tripod would probably work well for what I need. I work alone as well (at this point). I plan to use the 14mm or 20mm on the wide camera, and to eventually buy a 45mm Olympus for the main camera. That would leave the wide camera unattended, but at least I could be closer to the subject. I have yet to see how the AF performs on that lens on the GH2, but hopefully it would be adequate. Or, I could buy the 20mm for the main camera, but that would make it imperative to be much closer, so I don't know if it's a good idea.

October 14th, 2011, 12:18 PM	#28
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	Re: Wedding setup I kind of have to agree with Jeff on the video camera. Even if you did manage to find a decent long lens focusing is a major PITA with long lenses. Keep in mind these things are designed first and foremost as stills cameras. Being able to do an electronic zoom keep it fast (f2.8 or faster) and work with a zoom that is always in focus is worth gold after you have worked with DSLRs for awhile. I have a Panasonic HMC40 which I use with my GH1 and I love it. It is about as bad as you can get in low light for this class of camera but as soon as you switch to telephoto situations it is at least equal or even better then DSLR telephoto shooting. The M43 lens top out at f5.6 at their longest reach. That is very dark and my HMC40 can beat it considering the lens as its longest range is at f2.8. I don't care how large of a chip you have f2.8 is a lot more open then f5.6 no matter how you look at it. This was why I was looking at fast FD telephoto lenses. They are really the only option if you want fast. Of course like Jeff points out the tighter you are on DSLRs the closer to next to impossible it becomes to actually hold focus on them. The only way now I would consider a long M43 lens to be a better option then a video camera is if somebody made one at f2.8 or better at the longest range with electronic zoom and stabilization. Oh and it has to be under $2,000.00. That is not going to happen anytime soon. Leave the creative shots to the DSLR and keep the tele shots to a video camera on a balcony. One other thing I should point out. Most video cameras only reach about what the 200 mm M43 does. My Panasonic manages to reach 490mm or what would be 245mm if there was a M43 that did that. The 300mm lens is actually insanely tight compared to almost every video camera with a built in lens that is out there. Even the new Panasonic video cameras coming out next month with a 22x zoom just gets over 600mm or equal to the 300mm M43 lens. The Canon XA10 only gets about 150mm in terms of M43 range. So keep that in mind when you look for a video camera for your tele shots. B&H usually lists the 35mm range for a lot of the cameras. Just double the M43 range to get the 35mm range and you will know how a particular video camera will compare for reach.

October 14th, 2011, 02:15 PM	#29
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: Wedding setup Good point Thomas, to get the equivalent zoom of a video camera you need a WAY powerful zoom. The zoom most of the better shooters use, I think, is the Canon 70-200mm F/2.8. It was the first zoom I looked at for the GH2, and it would certainly work, but again at an effective 140mm to 400mm it's useless for everything but the ceremony, IMO. The non-IS model is around $900 to $1200, but it is too freaking large, and for that price you can buy a videocamera. __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

October 14th, 2011, 02:20 PM	#30
Thomas E. Smith Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: GA Posts: 41	Re: Wedding setup I'm throwing around the idea of picking up a Panny TM700 or TM900 and using that instead of the second GH2.....not sure if I need it though. Pros: F2.8 at 420mm end :wow: Greater focal range Cons: Smaller sensor, so large DoF (could be a Pro in certain situations) Worse in low light I just don't really know if I need anything past 45mm, especially considering the ex-tele mode on the GH2.