Anyone given up on the DSLR for event?

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Scott Hayes

look to the Sony FS100, F3 and Panny AF100. 4-13K plus lenses and adapters.

Yes, a specialist video camera is going to cost more that a DSLR, although by the time you buy accessories the difference may not be that huge. However, that should be qualified in that they give better video image quality than the 7D, without the disadvantages. Although, the AF100 may not match up in image terms to the Sony cameras.

You can use your stills lenses on these cameras, so that can remain a fixed cost for both the video and DSLR cameras. Downside is that the DSLRs are better that doing stills than the video cameras.

[Michael Simons]

[QUOTE=Michael Johnston;1675617]I had the "luxury" of attending a wedding recently that I was not shooting. Refreshing to say the least. They did hire a videographer and sat there and watched 4 guys running around shooting with DSLR's and was just very thankful I never made that switch. One thing I noticed was how they were all scrambling around during the ceremony for different shots. Not a single camera stayed in place and rolled for the duration. That told me this couple was not going to have their complete ceremony as part of their video. Very sad. I consider that the most important part of any wedding video.

Funny thing was watching how frustrated these guys were getting at missing unexpected moments during the reception. Bride was getting frustrated at them because they kept asking the couple to re-enact what they should have caught in the first place. My wife at one point asked "why aren't they just shooting it when it happens?". My response was "because those cameras are a POS and not meant for this face paced shooting".

The bride was my wife's cousin and she came over to talk to us later that evening and said she was getting fed up with them. She said as long as they got the ceremony she'd let it go. When I told her they were all moving around and no way they shot the full ceremony she was pissed to say the least. I think it really ruined her night. I just had to sit back and laugh.


This post has more to do with the people she hired than the camera's they used.

[Michael Simons]

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

Hi Denny

I'm with you too!!! I do like the look and the DOF capabilities but on an "anything can happen next" event like a wedding there are plenty of times where I only have seconds to spring into action.

I do like the idea of using something like a 5DII where the scenes are staged and you have no time restraints. I was considering using a DSLR during the photoshoot but I do 99% on steadicam so I couldn't see any advantage with investing in complicated follow focus gear!!

Seriously during the more hectic moments you just don't have any time to play with focussing and being able to grab the camera that's on auto focus and just shoot is a huge advantage and far less stress!!

Chris

Again, it's not the camera, its the camera operator. I dont think any DSLR shooter is following focusing on a steadicam and they are getting wonderful results. All this negative feedback on DSLR by people who have no experience with them is getting tiresome.

[Denny Kyser]

Don't get me wrong guys I love the look of DSLR video, and if I were doing a fun project it would include it.

My worst enemy on wedding day is time, we may get to the reception and have the bride and dj asking if we are ready when we walk in the door, even after we explained we need time to set up.

Nothing is as easy as opening a bag pulling out the camera and recording getting great audio on the fly.

I had all the toys with dslr, zacuto rigs with follow focus etc. I know there are work arounds for most everything but to me they were just that WORK arounds. I am very busy during wedding season and have never had a customer comment on the use of DSLR or non use. They want good stable video with good audio.

This is a personal preference and for some may be what they sell, but for me I need the stress level to be as low as possible on a wedding day.

[David Schmaus]

If you have done any research at all you know that it can be done with DSLR only. Is it more work than traditional video? Yes of course it is.

That is the reason I got into this. There is a market out there that wants the film look that a DSLR gives and that MOST video cameras can not.

Would I switch to a video camera that provided a DSLR look? Of course, as long as it met my price point.

[Denny Kyser]

Originally Posted by David Schmaus

If you have done any research at all you know that it can be done with DSLR only. Is it more work than traditional video? Yes of course it is.

That is the reason I got into this. There is a market out there that wants the film look that a DSLR gives and that MOST video cameras can not.

Would I switch to a video camera that provided a DSLR look? Of course, as long as it met my price point.

Not going to disagree at all, but something to think about.
The look is different and unique right now. I am willing to bet as the dslr capable of doing vide get less and less expensive there will be more people shooting dslr video than anything else.

I can not imagine someone getting into video going with anything other than dslr because of the price point.

So this look will not be different and unique for long.

Yes we all know its the person behind that camera, not the camera. This also goes for traditional vs dslr.
A fantastic film maker will make a fantastic film regardless of what camera he uses.

[Chris Harding]

Hi Michael

No-one is giving you any negative feedback at all!!! My point was simply that I prefer to shoot with a video camera and it's not a slur on DSLR shooters as you seem to think. I love the look and they are amazing cameras but they are just not for me!!

If I decide to not have cheese and ham on a sandwich it doesn't mean that both products are bad news!!! It's simply means I have a choice and my choice is my decision. No I wouldn't shoot a wedding on a DSLR but you do it and many others and make a great job from it. It doesn't mean I hate people that use DSLR's or the cameras themselves.

Just because one person uses DSLR's and one uses video cameras doesn't make either of them a better or worse person.

Chris

[David Schmaus]

Originally Posted by Denny Kyser

Not going to disagree at all, but something to think about.
The look is different and unique right now. I am willing to bet as the dslr capable of doing vide get less and less expensive there will be more people shooting dslr video than anything else.

I can not imagine someone getting into video going with anything other than dslr because of the price point.

So this look will not be different and unique for long.

Yes we all know its the person behind that camera, not the camera. This also goes for traditional vs dslr.
A fantastic film maker will make a fantastic film regardless of what camera he uses.

I don't even think its about being different or unique. I just think it looks more what a movie looks like which is pleasing to the eye. My personal belief is that the look is not a fad. The hardware might be a fad. Time will tell.

"Yes we all know its the person behind that camera, not the camera. This also goes for traditional vs dslr.
A fantastic film maker will make a fantastic film regardless of what camera he uses"

So true....

I have been working with a photographer for this past year. One thing she taught me was how good you are is only half of it. Being able to network and connect with people is just as important.

[Danny O'Neill]

DSLR's are not for everyone. And neither is Chris's cheese and ham sandwitch. Mmmmm, sandwich <drools>

DSLR or regular cam is the same argument as Sony or Panny. Each to their own. It all depends on your style, how you use the gear and how you work. Solo shooting with a DSLR can be hard work. Not impossible, just harder.

We believe we are better with our DSLR's but some people, their work is actually better when they use a regular cam. The great thing is were all different.

Ever walked out of a movie and thought "That film was crap" yet someone else is saying "Best movie ever!!!". Are they wrong? Or is it just their opinion.

BTW, chicken and bacon toastie FTW!

[Dave Partington]

We have and use both. We used all DSLR for a few weddings but there are some things that simply more suited to real video cameras with better DOF and timecode. It's all about what you are trying to delivery.

[Vincent Oliver]

Funny, history repeats itself in so many ways.

Medium format users snubbed the 35mm photographers
Film shooters snubbed the digital shooter
Video camera users snub or have mixed feeling about HDSLR users

What next?

I am an early adopter of the HDSLR camera, I both love it and hate it at the same time. The whole concept of using a very portable camera to shoot video or stills is great. The only trouble is that in order to produce anything of professional quality you will need to add so many extras to the camera, finder, shoulder mount, focus/zoom ring, eternal mike and recorder, etc. This now defeats the whole idea of convenient shooting.

I use the HDSLR for extra wide shots or shallow depth of field work, but my main camera is still the EX3 or XF305.

As a footnote. I am now using the Nikon D7000 together with some very old manual focus Nikkors, the results are outstanding and I get full aperture and focus control to boot. I didn't get on well with the Canon 7D for video, but it was great with stills.

[Michael Simons]

Originally Posted by Vincent Oliver

Funny, history repeats itself in so many ways.

Medium format users snubbed the 35mm photographers
Film shooters snubbed the digital shooter
Video camera users snub or have mixed feeling about HDSLR users

What next?

I am an early adopter of the HDSLR camera, I both love it and hate it at the same time. The whole concept of using a very portable camera to shoot video or stills is great. The only trouble is that in order to produce anything of professional quality you will need to add so many extras to the camera, finder, shoulder mount, focus/zoom ring, eternal mike and recorder, etc. This now defeats the whole idea of convenient shooting.

I use the HDSLR for extra wide shots or shallow depth of field work, but my main camera is still the EX3 or XF305.

As a footnote. I am now using the Nikon D7000 together with some very old manual focus Nikkors, the results are outstanding and I get full aperture and focus control to boot. I didn't get on well with the Canon 7D for video, but it was great with stills.

You don't need a "finder, shoulder mount and focus control". I'm not sure where you are getting your information.

[Vincent Oliver]

No, of course you don't need them, just like you don't need shoes to walk - but they help.

My information comes from shooting video on a bright sunny day trying to use the LCD screen to compose video. The shoulder brace comes in when trying to keep the hand held shot steady. The external mike information comes from hearing my handling noises. T

[John Knight]

Originally Posted by Vincent Oliver

Funny, history repeats itself in so many ways.

Medium format users snubbed the 35mm photographers
Film shooters snubbed the digital shooter
Video camera users snub or have mixed feeling about HDSLR users

What next?

I'm going to create a filter adaptor so that DSLR users can get that coverted Mini-DV look! It's the next big thing!

[Scott Hayes]

ill post an update to my own thread. I just watched part of a blu ray prior to delivery, shot mostly with 7D and HMC150. on my 50" Samsung plasma, man o man, the 7D video looks fuggin spectacular! Some of it looks oversharpened (daylight shots of grass, trees, etc..) but I see the same with my EX1 when it comes to landscape shots. So, if thou can make it work, then that's what thou should do. the reception footage with all natural lighting is where it really shines.