Wedding Short w/ GH2 and 12-35mm

[Gary Hanna]

GH2 12-35mm wedding

Thoughts?

[Chris Harding]

Hi Gary

That looks like a really useful lens!! The flash banding on the GH2 is really bad isn't it!!! That's the only thing that puts me off. CCD chips or smaller camera sensors handle the flash (which is always going to happen) a lot better.

Nice footage though....Did you use the GH2 on something like a Blackbird about a minute or so in ?? Look like it's sitting on a rig or you have very steady hands!!

Chris

[Gary Hanna]

Thanks, yes I used a glidecam hd1000

[Chris Harding]

Hi Gary

OUCH!! those 13-35 zooms cost more than the camera!! I saw them on Amazon for $1299!!! For that price I would have expected at least an F1.8 or faster!!!

I only use my GH's for backup and the odd reverse shot as a static camera as I still prefer video cams..Chip hacked a US model for me so I can use it in PAL land but it's only got a moderate bitrate (I think he was talking around 28 mbps average which is more than enough)

Chris

[Noa Put]

Really inspirational piece Gary, loved every single part of it. The sound was also excellent and I think we all know how challenging it can be to get good audio at weddings, beside the good camera and audio work I think you got lucky that these people had something meaningful to say :) I often have couples reading out only text that is provided to them in church and they just do a short welcoming speech, that hardly gives me any material to work with, but the wedding you did is full of personal and funny speeches that you used very well throughout the video to support your images.


I did see soms other camera angles, was it a 2 or 3 camera shoot and was it also a 2 man shoot? And what other lenses where used?

[Nigel Barker]

A 12-35mm on a Micro Four Thirds camera is the equivalent of a 24-70mm full frame. Unfortunately there ain't no such beast as a F/1.8 zoom. The Olympus 12-35mm F/2 is the largest constant aperture zoom on the market for any camera & the best that you will see on a full frame is F/2.8.

[Gary Hanna]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

Really inspirational piece Gary, loved every single part of it. The sound was also excellent and I think we all know how challenging it can be to get good audio at weddings, beside the good camera and audio work I think you got lucky that these people had something meaningful to say :) I often have couples reading out only text that is provided to them in church and they just do a short welcoming speech, that hardly gives me any material to work with, but the wedding you did is full of personal and funny speeches that you used very well throughout the video to support your images.


I did see soms other camera angles, was it a 2 or 3 camera shoot and was it also a 2 man shoot? And what other lenses where used?

Thanks, 2 man shoot with a third cam on tripod just for the ceremony.

Other lenses were 25mm 1.4 Panasonic, 35mm 1.4 rok, 85mm 1.4 rok, 135mm F2 FD lens

[Gary Hanna]

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

Hi Gary

OUCH!! those 13-35 zooms cost more than the camera!! I saw them on Amazon for $1299!!! For that price I would have expected at least an F1.8 or faster!!!

I only use my GH's for backup and the odd reverse shot as a static camera as I still prefer video cams..Chip hacked a US model for me so I can use it in PAL land but it's only got a moderate bitrate (I think he was talking around 28 mbps average which is more than enough)

Chris

Don't mind the price, though I haven't bought the lens, just rented it for now.

A 2.8 Lens with AF and Image Stabilization costs $1900 in full frame land with the Nikons - which don't AF well with video like the Panny does.

Canon only had a 2.8 WITHOUT IS, no C-AF for $1200. Also the Canon wide isn't that good.

So Panny is right in line with the competitioin IMO. $600 cheaper than a Nikon counterpart. Slightly more expensive than the Canon, but the Panny is sharper, and has OIS and C-AF that the Canon doesn't.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Gary Hanna

35mm 1.4 rok, 85mm 1.4 rok

have those 2 as well, great lenses for their price.

[Gary Hanna]

Yep especially the 85mm, really makes the GH2 for weddings. 35mm didn't use too much and kind of wished I got the 25mm 1.4 first (the 25 was a rental as I'm aiming for the noktons). 25mm was def. sharper wide open vs. the 35 - comparing apples and oranges as the focal length is different enough, but still. I used to own the 20mm 1.7 and must say the 25mm 1.4 is leaps and bounds better and can see how it's always back ordered, just gorgeous and that really impressed me more than the 12-35 on my wish list (12-35mm was a rental as well).

[Noa Put]

haha, same here :) when I bought the 35mm the 24mm was just announced, a local store told me it could take months before it was available and I didn't want to wait, I do use my 35mm quite a lot but wished I had waited for the 24mm. I use the 85mm a lot at the reception to get closeups from people and the footage turns out great on my canon 550d, my 35mm at f1.4 turns out to be a bit soft so I often close it down a bit.
First I was thinking to get the 24mm as well but now that the Canon 5DII is sold quite cheap second hand (very likely do to the 5DIII) I might get a used 5DII instead which will turn the 35mm to a more usable wide lens and I still can use the 85mm on the 550d to get closer with the 1.6 cropfactor.

[Chip Thome]

Chris..... if it wouldn't have been for Gary being so supportive of me going GH1 all those years ago.... I might not have had any, nor got you going on one either. :-) Interesting how things and people connect in this world, isn't it ???

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

Hi Gary

OUCH!! those 13-35 zooms cost more than the camera!! I saw them on Amazon for $1299!!! For that price I would have expected at least an F1.8 or faster!!!

I only use my GH's for backup and the odd reverse shot as a static camera as I still prefer video cams..Chip hacked a US model for me so I can use it in PAL land but it's only got a moderate bitrate (I think he was talking around 28 mbps average which is more than enough)

Chris

[Jeff Harper]

For what you get, I agree it's worth the price, but I would go with the Olympus F/2.0 zooms at about $2100 instead. F/2.0 is as slow as I go on my cameras. In low light F/2.5 is just slower than I like. Still useable, but low-light shots just don't seem to have the pop I like.

Granted the Olympus lenses are very expensive, but at F/2.0, and given the quality of the glass, they cannot be beat on the GH2, IMO.

[Rob Cantwell]

great video well done. Love the glide cam parts, I still cant get mine to stop twirling around!!!

good audio too, i think audio is key, you maybe be forgiven for dodgy video but if you cant make out what people are saying in a video it ruins it, to the point that it makes people annoyed and lose interest.

Originally Posted by Noa Put

Really inspirational piece........ I think you got lucky that these people had something meaningful to say :)...........

Where i'm from you'd seldom get people pouring their hearts out in public, I guess irish people dont do that too well, so i'd be in the same boat there, sometimes it's hard to coax a word out of people when they realise there's a camera or a microphone about or if theres someone looking at them! Therein lays the challenge :-)


R

[Gary Hanna]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

For what you get, I agree it's worth the price, but I would go with the Olympus F/2.0 zooms at about $2100 instead. F/2.0 is as slow as I go on my cameras. In low light F/2.5 is just slower than I like. Still useable, but low-light shots just don't seem to have the pop I like.

Granted the Olympus lenses are very expensive, but at F/2.0, and given the quality of the glass, they cannot be beat on the GH2, IMO.

I actually had a few chances to get some, but was afraid since it's not a m43 mount and even with the adapter won't AF for video. I prefer 12 vs. 14 for glidecaming as well. If I weren't gliding, I'd probably go for the 14-35.

But 2.0 is still slow for receptions, one reason why I don't bite, even though I'd like to.