f1.4 no longer vital?

[Noa Put]

I've been tempted by the FZ200

Or the new sony rx10? But it's twice the price.

[Clive McLaughlin]

This CNET review actually has a wee comparison table of the two 3/4 way down.

http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-came...-35829200.html

I've been seeing FZ200 ebay auctions ending in and around £300. That would do the job...

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

Or the new sony rx10? But it's twice the price.

I suspect that the image quality for both stills & video is far superior on the RX10. It's 20 Mega pixels vs 12 Mega pixels but more importantly the sensor is over four times the size.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Clive McLaughlin

This CNET review actually has a wee comparison table of the two 3/4 way down.

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 - Digital cameras - CNET Reviews

I've been seeing FZ200 ebay auctions ending in and around £300. That would do the job...

The CNET review doesn't claim that the FZ200 is better in any way just cheaper

Panasonic's FZ200 has an f2.8 lens as well, but it's 24x and the camera is less than half the price of the RX10, and lots of people are willing to accept the less-than-perfect photos in exchange.

[Clive McLaughlin]

I wasn't for one second arguing its is better. But it may well be ideal for my zoom requirements.

6D with 50mm 1.4 setup on tripod, handycams in various static locations. Fz200 on monopod in my hand, being selectivly used for close ups, cutaways and a tighter crop at vow time. Also, would allow me maybe dander back round down the aisle if appropriate.

For my limited needs, I think £300 for the FZ200 is a great price, but a grand for the RX10 would be overkill.


As a side note, I'm debating Spider Camera Holsters for both cameras on a monopod each. They have threads underneath don't they? The Spider plates could be place between the camera and monopods? And they could hang from my belt with the monopods attached (and compacted). I could holster both cameras and use my hands for my steadycam...

I would look like some sort of action man!

[Peter Rush]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

No, to Peter, sorry, should have used his quote, but you confirm what I have been thinking as well, aperture makes no difference to stabilisation at all but Peter claims otherwise.

Hi - what I'm really saying is that generally (there are some exceptions) lenses at f2.8 and below tend not to have OS as they are deemed fast enough for still photography but we are using them for video where OS would be really handy :) I'm looking for a short zoom (say 17-50 or 24-70) at f2.8 throughout with OS and Canon EF fit - I'm drawing a blank unfortunately :(

[Peter Riding]

I guess I'm one of those guys thats super cautious about exposing the camera internal. I'd rather not change lenses unless in a controlled environment. OTT?

But yea, I'm actually more tempted by the spider camera holsters. But my second camera is APS-C sensor and so a 24-70 2.8 wouldn't give me the wide I want.

Also, you say changing lens is no big deal, but in my head I'm thinking of cropping in tighter when the vows begin. At that point of a ceremony, I'd rather not stop rolling to change lens.

Keeping the sensor clean used to be a major PITA but since the arrival of the vibrating cleaner on switch on and shut down that has pretty much gone away. I used to have to clean my 1D bodies before every job but the 5D's don't even get cleaned once a year. Remember that the visibility of dust varies according to the aperture; at wide apertures such as f4 and under you are unlucky if it shows, but at f8 and over you can start to have problems. Its visibility also varies according to the subject matter; sky or light plain backdrops will show it much more than busy backdrops. A household vacuum cleaner with a suitable narrow nozzle attached will clear any dust out on a split second, you don't need all those silly expensive exotic devices unless the debris is sticky.

Change lenses with the chamber facing downwards if in a wet or dusty environment (or if hairdressers are going mad with the hair spray!) but otherwise its no biggie. Always put the rear lens cap on when the lens is not in use. Front elements don't matter as much as they can take a lot of gunk before anything shows.

I would be very careful about using spider-like fastening devices except for very light use. The bodies other than the 1-Series and equivalent are not built for that sort of potential stress (though the 5 Series body is a quite robust single component). And I would not recommend routinely hanging a monopod from the body all day - though I am guilty of doing that.

If you are worried about changing lenses mid-ceremony how about setting up so that you can cut to a locked down cam when the need arises. Or have two cams with different lenses on you - thats what i do all the time.

BTW Clive I watched one of your 1st dance videos on Vimeo, very nice :- )

Pete

Pete

[Eric Coughlin]

Also of note with regards to low light, Dxomark rates the Canon 35 f/1.4L at a 1.6 T-stop, while the Sigma is a 1.8 T-stop, so (assuming that is accurate) you're really only losing a third of a stop instead of two thirds with regard to light transmission.

[Robert Benda]

Pete, not having to change lenses on the fly is why we're considering sticking with four cameras. For instance, our two up front/off to the side cameras can keep their 135mm-200mm (depending on the church) to keep medium/tight shots of B&G the entire ceremony, while another camera at the aisle is wider, and a fourth is also medium or wide for faces and other random goings on.

Might even put a dual camera mount onto a tripod to test having two different widths filming the same shot.

[Nick Reuter]

Originally Posted by Steve Bleasdale

Canon 50mm 1.4, sigma 30mm 1.4 every wedding but only for the mingling leading into first dance when lights are low. Much needed at 1.4 because I find without a light nothing comes close to a dslr and 1.4 apeture...

That is exactly what I shot my first weddin gwith. Canon 50 adn Sigma 30. I was happy with the results.

That said this zoom lens does have an appeal. Less switching.