Hey folks,

Have been reading with interest comments on rolling shutter. I bought the Z5 in December after months of research where a lot of wedding videographers had said it wasn't a massive issue and thought it was the one to go for. I went out to South Africa for new years and most of the footage I got was fantastic. Low level light filming was exceptional and 80% of the footage looked amazing! However, there was few focus problems (although this could be down more to my camera skills than anything else), but a few shots inside clubs and in general around cape town were ruined due to flash photography. Really annoying....

I've done some experiments with using flash and it is a real pain in the backside. I have to do a few weddings this year and so quite worried. Most of my work is short experimental films and I thought this would be a perfect cam to combine my corporate work with my short films. Although I have enjoyed using the Z5, with the amount of digital cameras about nowadays this issue I forsee will have more probs for me. In the past I have ended up with some of my best freeze frames when a camera has gone off in the background and lit the subject.

So I'm a bit stuck on the subject too, I won't pretend to be a professional cameraman I just went for what i thought was the best in my price range at the time. The downside is that if I sell it I'm stuck back again where I started......

(fantastic forum by the way - much respect to all contributors - Matty)

It's a very good reason to choose from the new CCD cameras put out by JVC, Canon and Panasonic.

is there any one in particular that stands out for you Tom?

Matty, just go in to it knowing your low-light will not be as good as it is with the Z5. I'm not sure if you've used the Compact Flash Recorder with your Z5, but that too won't be as convenient as it is in the Z5 since it won't fit directly on the camera, feeding off of the camera's battery. Also be aware that the smaller JVC (consumer-sized HM-100) uses 1/4" chips and for that reason I'd stay away from it. The next larger JVC, which uses 1/3" chips, does not record 1080i video and is pricier.

I'd prefer the Canons if I were dissatisfied with the Sony (which I most certainly am not). So shop carefully before pushing the panic button.

I agree with Ken - don't let the CMOS chips one and only failing (as far as I can see) blind you to its other attributes. But the Panasonic 150 is receiving good reviews.

On the other hand (just to reassure myself that I'm not overstating the case against CMOS and the electronic flash banding) I've been going back through my films. Many's the time I've held a shot on the flash frame, even using it for the DVD printing. And some of my couples walking back down the aisle have 30 or 40 flashes go off, and as I bring this to a gentle slow-down and stop in the church doorway I'd prefer not to have banding because it looks so unnatural. It's just me - don't worry.

EventDV.net: In the Field: Panasonic AG-HMC150

tom.

The 150 looks nice, but does record in the AVCHD format which is much tougher to edit. So you'll need a high power computer, and even then, if you do multiple video layers, filters etc., you'll more than likely have a slower editing experience.

The side by side comparisions he did were really interesting, but I always find it odd how some reviewers compare two cameras at similar gain settings as they check for image brightness. This tells you nothing about how the cameras compare in real-world situations. Camera A may look much cleaner at 9db (and brighter) than Camera B which may have looked brighter at 0 gain, so who cares how the cams compare at the SAME gain setting? One of the great things about the new Sonys is that they handle higher gains so well.

So keep in mind this comparison was done with the Z1 and not the Z5. I owned the FX1 (stripped down Z1) and I can attest to the fact that the Z5 is a decidedly better camera on many fronts. The lens is much better and wider than the lens on the Z1, the color is better, the exposure latitude is better, the low light is better and the camera is sharper and more detailed. Another consideration which may or may not be significant depending on your shooting situations, the 150 does not record in SD.

So I guess what I'm saying is that if the comparison was made with the Z5, it would have looked quite different in my opinion. The one thing that I would definitely appreciate and where the comparison would still be valid, is the lighter weight of the 150.

There are many complaints about the HMC150. Mostly audio related. Either screwed up mic glitches or noisy servos. That sucks, because I was all set to get it over the FX1000.

So THEN, I was starting to drift back to the FX1000, but after looking at some more wedding clips on Vimeo, there's really no way I want to deal with rolling shutter.

I think those that say it's no big deal are simply trying to justify their purchases. Sort of like parents with ugly kids. In their eyes, they're perfect.

On the other hand, if you do lots of night-shoots, you might want infra-red imaging but if you only shoot in daylight, it's a non-issue.

Same goes for the "rolling shutter issue" - if you never shoot in situations where it might occur, then, likewise, it becomes a non-issue.

I wholeheartedly agree Steve. If I did video work where there wasn't a flash going off beside me all the time, then the Sony is a fine choice.

But since my main source of income is weddings, RS is a big issue for me.

Just to throw in a big smile:

Will shooting at funerals be no problem with the RS?

It's an interesting debate for sure and if most of your work invloves situations where it is most likely to be an issue, it makes sense to avoid it.

I recently shot a stage production where there were quite a few camera flashes going off at various times in the audience but I haven't seen any instances of RS in the footage yet (from capture). However, as I progress through editing, who knows what I might find. More of an issue for me is balancing the sound from the different performances for editing in from different angles (that's the main problem with "live" performances - no multiple takes possible other than from multiple performances. Can be a real PITA when you don't have total control over the sound and lighting as well. Obviously, it's all controlled by the backstage crew, so even when you take a sound feed from their mixer - it can still fluctuate as they tweak it for their purposes (at the end of the day, they are trying to produce the best for their stage performance - not for your recording of the event!).

If I do any more of these, I think I'm going to have to invest in a seperate field recorder for audio (as I recall someone suggesting on here some time back) :-)

The field recored might be a good idea. Of course with plays, they're usually all over the stage, so I wonder how much a single recorder will benefit you. But at the very least, it will be better audio than what your camera can achieve.

I think a 4 channel recorder would cover it reasonably well - with the option that one could also add a mixer into the equation. I think I could have covered the stage reasonably well with 4 mics. One area that's difficult to cover though, is continuity - the actors tend not to give exactly the same performance from one night to the next - or hit the same spots on stage! Still, it makes for an interesting editing experience! ;-)

It would be great to be able to mic up each individual but it's not really practical with a cast of a dozen or so. However, it could still be an option for those actors that I know don't have very powerful voices that need gaining up in post. It could introduce problems of matching ambience though...

I have taken an extra camera, hooked up a wireless receiver to it and placed the mic front and center near the stage and it worked beautifully, at least for a play. No sync issue, which I hate. I have a zoom h2 but don't use it.