Anyone given up on the DSLR for event?

Gabe Strong · August 1st, 2011, 04:39 PM

Jeff,

I'm just wondering, which of the drawbacks of a DSLR do you think the new 'large sensor' video cameras have? They actually have a sensor made for MOTION not stills, so they don't line skip. That gets rid of most of the main drawbacks of the DSLR set right there. Skipping 3 out of every 4 lines is not a good way to make a motion picture in my opinion, and I don't want to worry about if there is a brick
wall or fence in my shot, so the answer to 'who cares' is ME!...but that's just me.

As for the features of the camera being hidden in a menu, I wonder if we are even talking about the same camera? The FS-100 has the following as buttons on the body, NOT in the menus.

'Zebra, histogram, peaking, marker, (safe zones, aspect ratios and such) gain, white balance, shutter speed, slow and quick mode (under and overcranking) smooth slow record, last shot.'

Are those all on the body of your GH2 or in menus? Not to mention clean 4:4:4 HDMI output. All DSLR's do not have all these functions at least not easily accessible. Many DSLR's have a limit on how long they can record (not your GH2, but many others). Many have overheating issues. With many, you cannot adjust exposure without seeing visible 'steps'. I mean they are set up for stills shooters, and I am a motion shooter, I don't care about '21 megapixel' and '185 point autofocus zones' and 'face detection' or 'aperture or shutter priority mode'.

I like having everything set to manual and able to be controlled through switches and buttons on the camera body instead of being buried in menus! This is one of the reasons these cameras are BETTER than DSLR's because they DON'T have things buried in menus, not sure if you saw a pre production model or what, but trust me, it has MUCH more control of everything on the body of the camera than a DSLR.

As for lenses, yes, the kit lens is slow. And yes, you will have to spend more money on lenses, but you have to do that with DSLR's as well, so that's kind of a strange argument against a large sensor video camera in favor of a DSLR.....it costs too much to get a f2.8 lens for a AF 100 or FS 100? It costs the EXACT same as it costs to outfit a DSLR with that lens.....cause they can use the SAME lenses you use on a DSLR!

Now I will say this, you seem to have picked the best DSLR there is for shooting video, the GH2. However, I am curious, what advantages do you think a DSLR has over the AF 100 or the FS 100? I can think of exactly two. First is that a DSLR can shoot better stills. Second is that it is cheaper. Maybe it can be put in a smaller space, although the FS-100 can be stripped down to a size almost as small as a DSLR.

But I can think of a lot of advantages to a proper video camera like the AF 100 and FS 100. No aliasing, no moire, no line skipping proper audio inputs, and in camera audio monitoring, clean uncompressed video out before any compression via HDMI or HD/SDI for higher quality video, less compressed codecs, a sensor built for video not stills, means better low light performance....there are all kinds of advantages. But of course, that one disadvantage is HUGE....and that is price. There are a LOT more people willing to spend 1-2K on a camera than 4-5K. Which is fine, but I don't get the attitude that the DSLR's are the same as the big sensor video cameras. They are not, if they were, they'd cost about 3K more.

Nigel Barker · August 2nd, 2011, 12:34 PM

We have an AG-AF101 but prefer using the 5DIIs for weddings & similar events because they are small, portable, simple to use etc. The Panasonic is an awkward ugly brute that does shoot lovely video but needs to sit on a tripod or proper shoulder rig. The DSLRs just need a loupe & a monopod. We have no need for 4:4:4 video via HD/SDI.

BTW The Sony FS100 bizarrely lacks built-in ND filters & only has one card slot.

Steve Kalle · August 2nd, 2011, 01:17 PM

I totally agree with Gabe and find Jeff to be in denial.

A DSLR will ALIAS on hair, skin (close up), suits, dresses and any piece of clothing with tight patterns, leather jackets....should I go on? And to say that moire and aliasing are NOT a big deal must mean your standards are pretty low.

And the FS100 and even the AF100 are better than every DSLR for VIDEO.

Buba Kastorski · August 2nd, 2011, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Kalle

FS100 and even the AF100 are better than every DSLR for VIDEO.

you might as well add VG10 to the list :)
anything more or less comparable/better quality than DSLR video starts from F3 and up, and that's completely different budget we're talking about. Don't get me wrong I WANT to use a 'real' video camera, and that's why i still run EX1 along with all DSLRs i use, it has power zoom, which i like as an event videographer, and it's not 21mbs

Michael Simons · August 2nd, 2011, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Kalle

I totally agree with Gabe and find Jeff to be in denial.

A DSLR will ALIAS on hair, skin (close up), suits, dresses and any piece of clothing with tight patterns, leather jackets....should I go on? And to say that moire and aliasing are NOT a big deal must mean your standards are pretty low.

I've been shooting DSLR since the end of 2009 and never had a bride mention any of this. Since I've started DSLR, my business has greatly increased. I shoot closeups all day.

Gabe Strong · August 2nd, 2011, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buba Kastorski

you might as well add VG10 to the list :)
anything more or less comparable/better quality than DSLR video starts from F3 and up, and that's completely different budget we're talking about. Don't get me wrong I WANT to use a 'real' video camera, and that's why i still run EX1 along with all DSLRs i use, it has power zoom, which i like as an event videographer, and it's not 21mbs

I'm pretty sure the VG10 has a still chip in it and will give you the
aliasing/moire/line skipping problems that you get with a DSLR.

Also, the AF 100 / FS 100 uses 24mbs, and it is a form of H.264....which is a better compression method than the 35 MPEG-2 that the EX-1 uses.
A straight 'numbers' comparison will give you the wrong idea here, there is a comparison between the two formats over at the 'other' forum,
showing a comparison between the two. I mean, if you and your clients can't tell the difference, more power to you. I certainly can, but
DSLR's are sure a lot cheaper, and I was tempted to buy 3 of them instead of a FS100, that would give me multi camera everywhere.

Nigel Barker · August 3rd, 2011, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe Strong

Also, the AF 100 / FS 100 uses 24mbs, and it is a form of H.264....which is a better compression method than the 35 MPEG-2 that the EX-1 uses.
A straight 'numbers' comparison will give you the wrong idea here,

It certainly will. The Canon DSLRs also use MPEG4 H.264 but at over 40Mbps however that doesn't mean that the image is better than that from an AF100 or an EX-1.

Chris Bryan · August 3rd, 2011, 11:04 AM

I don't know why anyone has to choose one over the other, I'm currently using a blend of dslr's and a video camera for my event work and it's great! I use the GH2 for all of my creative stuff, getting ready, photo session, details shots etc. My HMC150 is my "A" camera for the ceremony and the reception. They blend beautifully together and I get the best of both worlds!

Corey Graham · August 3rd, 2011, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Bryan

I don't know why anyone has to choose one over the other, I'm currently using a blend of dslr's and a video camera for my event work and it's great! I use the GH2 for all of my creative stuff, getting ready, photo session, details shots etc. My HMC150 is my "A" camera for the ceremony and the reception. They blend beautifully together and I get the best of both worlds!

I'm the same way. I blend the GH1's and HMC40's, and use each according to what kind of shot is needed and how much light is available. Going back and forth about which is superior is pointless.

Gabe Strong · August 3rd, 2011, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Bryan

I don't know why anyone has to choose one over the other, I'm currently using a blend of dslr's and a video camera for my event work and it's great! I use the GH2 for all of my creative stuff, getting ready, photo session, details shots etc. My HMC150 is my "A" camera for the ceremony and the reception. They blend beautifully together and I get the best of both worlds!

Here is the difference. You are using a DSLR (the GH2 is probably one of the BEST DSLR's
for video) and a video camera. Your 'big chip' camera is your DSLR, and your 'little chip'
camera is your HMC150. The only thing I was saying, was that I feel the FS100 and AF100
'big chip' cameras are (in my opinion) better than the DSLR's for VIDEO. I would not say
a person should get rid of their 'events/little chip' camera!

In other words, I would think that in your particular case, I would personally rather be
using an AF100 for creative stuff, getting ready, photo sessions, details shots etc....and
keep using the HMC150 as the 'A' camera for the ceremony and reception. The big drawback
to this idea, is that the AF100 costs significantly more than the GH2! (especially when you
consider that it is being used as a 'B' camera!) Again, I think the big attraction of the
DSLR's is they are a lot cheaper and although not quite as good for video, they are at least
'fairly close'. With client budgets being what they are these days, for many people that will
be the determining factor. I'm just saying given a choice, I'd rather use a AF100 or FS100 over
any DSLR.....being able to pay for them is another issue entirely :-)

Gabe Strong · August 3rd, 2011, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corey Graham

I'm the same way. I blend the GH1's and HMC40's, and use each according to what kind of shot is needed and how much light is available. Going back and forth about which is superior is pointless.

Just to be clear, when I was talking about video cameras, I was talking
about large chip video cameras like the AF100/FS100. They are VERY
different than your HMC40s. I was not comparing a small chip video
camera to a DSLR. I was comparing a large sensor video camera, (which is
made for video not stills) to a DSLR......a totally different comparison
whatsoever!

Corey Graham · August 3rd, 2011, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe Strong

Just to be clear, when I was talking about video cameras, I was talking
about large chip video cameras like the AF100/FS100. They are VERY
different than your HMC40s. I was not comparing a small chip video
camera to a DSLR. I was comparing a large sensor video camera, (which is
made for video not stills) to a DSLR......a totally different comparison
whatsoever!

I already knew exactly what you were saying. I was responding to Chris' comment about using GH2's and HMC150's together. And the topic of the thread is giving up on DSLR's for event work in favor of "traditional" video cameras.

Gabe Strong · August 3rd, 2011, 02:34 PM

Hmmm....I read the topic of this thread as being

'Anyone given up on the DSLR for event?'

NOT as being

'Giving up on DSLR's for event work in favor of 'traditional' video
cameras.'

So to me, if a thread for discussion is taking about giving up on a
DSLR for event work, I'd think that discussions of large sensor video
cameras, and their advantages over a DSLR would be very appropriate.
However, since the OP DID talk about traditional video cameras in his
opening statement, maybe that IS what he is looking at. The large
sensor video camera ARE kind of a 'compromise' as they are not quite
traditional video cameras with servo zooms and such, but they are
made for motion pictures, while still giving the shallow depth of field
of a DSLR. However, they probably make less sense to a small 1 person
producer who wants both a 'traditional video camera' and a 'shallow depth
of field' camera,.....because they expensive compared to a DSLR. You can
have a DSLR, and a cheap 1/3 traditional camera for almost the same price
as one large sensor video camera.

Anyways, after posting on several of these threads, it appears that it also
kind of 'disturbs the waters' so maybe I should just leave these
threads alone.

Corey Graham · August 3rd, 2011, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe Strong

Hmmm....I read the topic of this thread as being

'Anyone given up on the DSLR for event?'

NOT as being

'Giving up on DSLR's for event work in favor of 'traditional' video
cameras.'

So to me, if a thread for discussion is taking about giving up on a
DSLR for event work, I'd think that discussions of large sensor video
cameras, and their advantages over a DSLR would be very appropriate.
After posting on several of these threads, it appears that it also
kind of 'disturbs the waters' so maybe I should just leave these
threads alone.

I'm sorry you're feeling argumentative about this, but please read the original post. He's favoring a camcorder over the DSLR. I never had a problem with your large-sensor posts, but you felt the need to quote and respond to my camcorder/DSLR post directly.

I wasn't responding to your large sensor camcorder posts, as they don't concern me and I'm not interested in large sensor camcorders in the least bit. Please continue to discuss them though, as others have found it helpful, I'm sure.

Gabe Strong · August 3rd, 2011, 07:37 PM

I'm just curious, you use DSLR's but are not interested in large sensor
camcorders in the least? Are you a former still shooter that is used
to DSLR's and not camcorders? Are the large sensor camcorders just
too freakin expensive? Another reason?

I would have guessed that DSLR shooters would be MORE interested
in large sensor video cameras than people like me who are primarily
from the video world.

August 1st, 2011, 04:39 PM	#31
Gabe Strong Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Juneau, AK Posts: 814	Re: Anyone given up on the DSLR for event? Jeff, I'm just wondering, which of the drawbacks of a DSLR do you think the new 'large sensor' video cameras have? They actually have a sensor made for MOTION not stills, so they don't line skip. That gets rid of most of the main drawbacks of the DSLR set right there. Skipping 3 out of every 4 lines is not a good way to make a motion picture in my opinion, and I don't want to worry about if there is a brick wall or fence in my shot, so the answer to 'who cares' is ME!...but that's just me. As for the features of the camera being hidden in a menu, I wonder if we are even talking about the same camera? The FS-100 has the following as buttons on the body, NOT in the menus. 'Zebra, histogram, peaking, marker, (safe zones, aspect ratios and such) gain, white balance, shutter speed, slow and quick mode (under and overcranking) smooth slow record, last shot.' Are those all on the body of your GH2 or in menus? Not to mention clean 4:4:4 HDMI output. All DSLR's do not have all these functions at least not easily accessible. Many DSLR's have a limit on how long they can record (not your GH2, but many others). Many have overheating issues. With many, you cannot adjust exposure without seeing visible 'steps'. I mean they are set up for stills shooters, and I am a motion shooter, I don't care about '21 megapixel' and '185 point autofocus zones' and 'face detection' or 'aperture or shutter priority mode'. I like having everything set to manual and able to be controlled through switches and buttons on the camera body instead of being buried in menus! This is one of the reasons these cameras are BETTER than DSLR's because they DON'T have things buried in menus, not sure if you saw a pre production model or what, but trust me, it has MUCH more control of everything on the body of the camera than a DSLR. As for lenses, yes, the kit lens is slow. And yes, you will have to spend more money on lenses, but you have to do that with DSLR's as well, so that's kind of a strange argument against a large sensor video camera in favor of a DSLR.....it costs too much to get a f2.8 lens for a AF 100 or FS 100? It costs the EXACT same as it costs to outfit a DSLR with that lens.....cause they can use the SAME lenses you use on a DSLR! Now I will say this, you seem to have picked the best DSLR there is for shooting video, the GH2. However, I am curious, what advantages do you think a DSLR has over the AF 100 or the FS 100? I can think of exactly two. First is that a DSLR can shoot better stills. Second is that it is cheaper. Maybe it can be put in a smaller space, although the FS-100 can be stripped down to a size almost as small as a DSLR. But I can think of a lot of advantages to a proper video camera like the AF 100 and FS 100. No aliasing, no moire, no line skipping proper audio inputs, and in camera audio monitoring, clean uncompressed video out before any compression via HDMI or HD/SDI for higher quality video, less compressed codecs, a sensor built for video not stills, means better low light performance....there are all kinds of advantages. But of course, that one disadvantage is HUGE....and that is price. There are a LOT more people willing to spend 1-2K on a camera than 4-5K. Which is fine, but I don't get the attitude that the DSLR's are the same as the big sensor video cameras. They are not, if they were, they'd cost about 3K more.

August 2nd, 2011, 12:34 PM	#32
Nigel Barker Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK Posts: 3,531	Re: Anyone given up on the DSLR for event? We have an AG-AF101 but prefer using the 5DIIs for weddings & similar events because they are small, portable, simple to use etc. The Panasonic is an awkward ugly brute that does shoot lovely video but needs to sit on a tripod or proper shoulder rig. The DSLRs just need a loupe & a monopod. We have no need for 4:4:4 video via HD/SDI. BTW The Sony FS100 bizarrely lacks built-in ND filters & only has one card slot.

August 2nd, 2011, 01:17 PM	#33
Steve Kalle Trustee Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 1,554	Re: Anyone given up on the DSLR for event? I totally agree with Gabe and find Jeff to be in denial. A DSLR will ALIAS on hair, skin (close up), suits, dresses and any piece of clothing with tight patterns, leather jackets....should I go on? And to say that moire and aliasing are NOT a big deal must mean your standards are pretty low. And the FS100 and even the AF100 are better than every DSLR for VIDEO.

August 3rd, 2011, 11:04 AM	#38
Chris Bryan Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: New York, NY Posts: 78	Re: Anyone given up on the DSLR for event? I don't know why anyone has to choose one over the other, I'm currently using a blend of dslr's and a video camera for my event work and it's great! I use the GH2 for all of my creative stuff, getting ready, photo session, details shots etc. My HMC150 is my "A" camera for the ceremony and the reception. They blend beautifully together and I get the best of both worlds!

August 3rd, 2011, 02:34 PM	#43
Gabe Strong Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Juneau, AK Posts: 814	Re: Anyone given up on the DSLR for event? Hmmm....I read the topic of this thread as being 'Anyone given up on the DSLR for event?' NOT as being 'Giving up on DSLR's for event work in favor of 'traditional' video cameras.' So to me, if a thread for discussion is taking about giving up on a DSLR for event work, I'd think that discussions of large sensor video cameras, and their advantages over a DSLR would be very appropriate. However, since the OP DID talk about traditional video cameras in his opening statement, maybe that IS what he is looking at. The large sensor video camera ARE kind of a 'compromise' as they are not quite traditional video cameras with servo zooms and such, but they are made for motion pictures, while still giving the shallow depth of field of a DSLR. However, they probably make less sense to a small 1 person producer who wants both a 'traditional video camera' and a 'shallow depth of field' camera,.....because they expensive compared to a DSLR. You can have a DSLR, and a cheap 1/3 traditional camera for almost the same price as one large sensor video camera. Anyways, after posting on several of these threads, it appears that it also kind of 'disturbs the waters' so maybe I should just leave these threads alone.

August 3rd, 2011, 07:37 PM	#45
Gabe Strong Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Juneau, AK Posts: 814	Re: Anyone given up on the DSLR for event? I'm just curious, you use DSLR's but are not interested in large sensor camcorders in the least? Are you a former still shooter that is used to DSLR's and not camcorders? Are the large sensor camcorders just too freakin expensive? Another reason? I would have guessed that DSLR shooters would be MORE interested in large sensor video cameras than people like me who are primarily from the video world.