Anyone given up on the DSLR for event?

[Michael Plunkett]

So far my canon G9 produces better videos than my D7- and its focuses.

[Dan Asseff]

I was wondering if any of the FS100 doubters has actually has seen any footage? I paid $30.00 for a nikon 50 1.8 lens and let me tell you this camera is more sensitive than my own eyes. I have a NX5 camera to for the more run and gun work. So in my opinion I have two video cameras with all the things a video camera should have plus the large sensor look for the creative work. I always crack up when DSL shooter complain about the FS100 not having nd filters, when none of the DSL have them. Gabe and I have the FS100 so we now how beautiful the image of the FS100 is.
Dan

[Gabe Strong]

I sure do like the footage.....it used to be that shooting video was just
'work'. I mean I liked shooting and all, but now I actually and go shoot
for fun in the very limited free time I have.....random things around town like this:

Juneau By Gabe Strong On ExposureRoom

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Dan Asseff

I always crack up when DSL shooter complain about the FS100 not having nd filters, when none of the DSL have them.

Lack of ND filters is a very valid criticism of the FS100. All the other camcorders that I own or have owned (including an AF101) have built-in ND filters. The advantage of a large sensor camcorder like the FS100 is that it is a regular camcorder with regular camcorder functions like XLR audio so lack of ND filters is a very big & rather strange omission.

[Corey Graham]

Originally Posted by Gabe Strong

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.

Too expensive, and still in their infancy stage at this level. The way I see it, they rushed the large sensor camcorders out, and there are a lot of usability issues. I can get footage that looks just as good from my $400 GH1. I am comfortable with either DSLR's or camcorders, it doesn't matter to me.

So, until they come WAY down in price, correct their myriad issues, and really blow me away with highly noticeable, superior image quality (to the consumer, not just camera geeks) over the GH1/GH2, I am in no way interested in them. I know this is offensive to some, but it makes sense to me and the market I'm in.

[Gabe Strong]

Corey,

That makes perfect sense to me. I always say, when looking for a camera,
figure out your budget first, then look at the cameras in your budget and
start comparing them. I got an FS100 and not an F3. Why? Budget. Some
people buy an F3, and not a Alexa. Why? Again budget. You always pay
quite a bit to get that last 5 or 10%, and in many cases it doesn't make
any fiscal sense, if your clients can't tell the difference. I think you
probably have one of the best DSLR's there is for shooting video, especially
since you can apply a 'hack' and get even higher bitrates. Now I'm
curious, where in the world did you find a GH1 for $400? That's an awesome
deal!

[Corey Graham]

Originally Posted by Gabe Strong

Now I'm curious, where in the world did you find a GH1 for $400? That's an awesome deal!

Gabe,

I bought 2 GH1's for around $400 apiece (body only, no lens) toward the beginning of the year on eBay. Panasonic still had them in stock for $500, and the GH2 wasn't out yet. I'm glad I got them when I did!

[Monday Isa]

Originally Posted by Scott Hayes

just curious if anyone here has gone back to a traditional video camera for most of the run and gun work during events? I am using a 7D alongside an EX1, and more and more I tend to grab the EX lately.
Maybe I'm just not that thrilled with the 7Ds low light capability. Yes, I may need a 5D2, but I shoot stills also and the 5d2's AF is horrid.

Hey Scott,
You know I purchased the AF100 back in April and I gave you my thoughts. When I had the Canon XHA1 I was using a T2i and liked the mix. I went all DSLR and was frustrated with how harder it was to run the events with the DSLR only. I then went back to XHA1 and waited it out a bit. Then I saw an opportunity to switch to the AF100 and jumped on it. Since jumping to the AF100 I will never go back to filming with DSLRs only, for my events. I will only use proper Larger Sensor Camcorders. Being a single shooter there is far less to worry about through out the day. I love it. If you can get a really good deal on one jump on it. If you can get a great deal on a FS100 jump on that. Once you go large sensor camcorder it's hard to go back as a single shooter. For posters who feel DSLR's are sufficient, great! Enjoy it. No need to degrade the large sensor camcorders. What have they done to deserve such negativity?

[Philip Howells]

One characteristic which seems from postings in this forum to be considered normal by DSLR users is that they typically go out with a "bagful of lenses". Presumably this means that they change lenses often during a shoot. Because I can remember the days when you checked the gate for dirt and hairs after every shot if you could, do none of the DSLR fans recognise this as a drawback when changing lenses in the field?

Back in the days when all professional cameras had interchangeable lenses we only did so to accommodate a special lens (usually rented in) for a particular purpose. For example our "normal" lens was a short superwide zoom, ideal for our regular work. When we did concert recordings and needed one of the two cameras in the front of the balcony to get the super-closeups we rented in a long zoom for the job. Admittedly we also had to check/reset the back focus which DSLRs don't allow for/need but we certainly never considered making the lens change in the field.

Has the dust and dirt changed over the years or is this another drawback DSLR fans just have to live with?

[Michael Simons]

Originally Posted by Philip Howells

One characteristic which seems from postings in this forum to be considered normal by DSLR users is that they typically go out with a "bagful of lenses". Presumably this means that they change lenses often during a shoot. Because I can remember the days when you checked the gate for dirt and hairs after every shot if you could, do none of the DSLR fans recognise this as a drawback when changing lenses in the field?

Back in the days when all professional cameras had interchangeable lenses we only did so to accommodate a special lens (usually rented in) for a particular purpose. For example our "normal" lens was a short superwide zoom, ideal for our regular work. When we did concert recordings and needed one of the two cameras in the front of the balcony to get the super-closeups we rented in a long zoom for the job. Admittedly we also had to check/reset the back focus which DSLRs don't allow for/need but we certainly never considered making the lens change in the field.

Has the dust and dirt changed over the years or is this another drawback DSLR fans just have to live with?

I've shot about 100 DSLR weddings and never had a problem with dust or dirt. I change lenses on the beach and not a problem. Nice try though.

[Michael Simons]

Originally Posted by Michael Simons

I've shot about 100 DSLR weddings and never had a problem with dust or dirt. I change lenses on the beach and not a problem. Nice try though.

Come to think of it, any smudge on my "proper" video camera lens and the image would be ruined. I remember working with photographers and I'd see their dirty lenses and they'd have no problem. I was jealous of them and now I am one of them..just shooting video instead with their cameras and smudge free.

[Corey Graham]

Originally Posted by Philip Howells

Has the dust and dirt changed over the years or is this another drawback DSLR fans just have to live with?

The dust and dirt have apparently changed their behavior over the years, because I've shot a massive amount of footage outdoors this summer, lots of times at the beach and in foliage, and have never had a dust/dirt problem. And I switch lenses like crazy.

[David Schmaus]

I have not read all the threads but would like to gibe my experience. I am a newer shooter I have been shooting photographer (weddings) for 5 years. I started filming weddings this year because there was a need for a cinematic style edit in my market.

I would say except for the ceremony the 5dII really fits my needs. Now the ceremony is a whole different issue. It is extremely hard to cover the ceremony for me with DLSRs only. Mainly because of the 12 minute recording time. Partly because I am shooting with primes only. I am going to have to make a decision soon about what I want to do going forward.

A. Going have a trade in some primes for 70-200's and pickup a couple t3is for the sides. (The t3i's will restart the recording after the 12 minute mark with firmware hack).

B. Not sure yet. I think things are going to change a lot in the next 12 months

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Philip Howells

One characteristic which seems from postings in this forum to be considered normal by DSLR users is that they typically go out with a "bagful of lenses". Presumably this means that they change lenses often during a shoot. Because I can remember the days when you checked the gate for dirt and hairs after every shot if you could, do none of the DSLR fans recognise this as a drawback when changing lenses in the field?

It's no more of a problem than it is for photographers. You just use sensible hygiene when changing lenses.

[Michael Simons]

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

It's no more of a problem than it is for photographers. You just use sensible hygiene when changing lenses.

Nigel, that was just Phillip's way of putting down DSLR users. There is alot of "camera envy" that occurs on these boards.