Camcorders only

Chris Harding · November 18th, 2015, 06:47 AM

Bear in mind that Peter Riding was a photographer who simply offered video as a freebie so to concentrate on his main task which was taking good stills, he wouldn't have had very much option apart from using a few locked down camcorders. I did just one wedding where I did video and stills and trust me it wasn't easy with two Nikons handing from my waist, a shoulder-mount camera on my shoulder and still trying to keep an eye on the 2nd cam on the tripod. Not for the faint hearted .. I certainly wouldn't do it again on my own!! I guess his bias was stills so not very much here was of interest to him.

Steve Burkett · November 18th, 2015, 07:02 AM

Actually Chris, I did comlement Peter on his work on more than 1 occasion. I found his use of multi camera put some Videographers I've hired to shame. Taken as a freebie, his videos were better than it had a right to be. Where he got flack was for declaring that his videos were what Brides really wanted and not anything others provided. Plus I think his ignorance of video came through and he wouldn't accept any counter argument.

He had strong views i give him that. I did visit his website back when he was contributing and was amused to see his pages littered with veiled attacks on Photographers who have won awards, weekend warriors and any Videographers offering cinematic edits. In fact one phrase on his video page stuck in my mind the most; that most Videographers were hobbyists and couldn't be trusted to do Weddings.

Clive McLaughlin · November 18th, 2015, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

Did you shoot 4K with the RX10M2? If not why not?:-)

Good question Nigel , I only shot in HD. But yea upon reflection, looking at the footage, the 4k downscaled may do a touch better compared with the A7sII.
I'll try that next time!

David Barnett · November 18th, 2015, 11:50 AM

Some of you get incredible low light out of your camcorders. Seemingly better than my (dated) Sony Z5U. Are those camcorders really good in low light, or are your receptions fairly well lit or do you do any color correction (neatvideo)?

Any export setting tricks?

Steve Burkett · November 18th, 2015, 02:49 PM

David, I'm not sure when your camera was released but I saw an article on it dated 2009. Hate to tell this to you, but technology has moved leaps and bounds since then. I know its only 6 short years, but back in 2010 I was running a Sony FX7, and I recall a Wedding where a guest was using a 7D. When he showed me his evening footage on screen and I could compare it with mine, I started using my Nikon D70 for Video and the rest is history. My GH4 knocks the spots of DSLR's back then for lowlight and Camcorders have also not been idle and I'd wager something like the AX100 would show a definite improvement on your current camera. That said, I think most using camcorders would either be using lights or switching to DSLR when the lights go down.

David Barnett · November 18th, 2015, 04:38 PM

Thanks, yeah I suppose so. That cameras been a workhorse, and I feel comfortable trusting it, but I suppose it's becoming time. I also use a Sony VG900 & the last few weddings have used it extensively for the dance floor footage, it's been great, and I used it on bridal prep once. I was hoping to get another year out of the Z5U, even thinking of using it just for the Ceremony & 1st dance (has a cool LANC controlled zoom tripod that gives a nice flowing motion to the 1st dance & parent dances).

I should look at a AX100, alhtough I was thinking about a Sony body like the A6000 & use the same lenses that I have for the other cam. However I'm still impressed by the low light ability of some of these camcorders & their price points.

Ian Atkins · November 18th, 2015, 05:23 PM

I was so happy to make the switch away from "videocameras" and I haven't been following them since I made the leap about 5 years ago. That being said, I totally understand why some prefer them...especially for weddings. If I were looking at videocameras now, I would strongly consider the EA50. You get all the benefits of a video camera, but the image strongly reflects the "DSLR" look. Too bad the lens is f/4, but at least that is a fixed aperture.

Chris Harding · November 18th, 2015, 05:30 PM

Hi Ian

I had my EA-50's for 3 years (two of them) .. Loved the form factor, loved the features and on the last year used them with fast Nikon lenses for low light work. However I never did like the end result ..it was good but always seems on the soft side and I had a huge amount of post work to do to get the image right. Sadly they are somewhat outdated now so you don't have 4K and hand held with fast lenses like the Sigma 18-35 F1.8 art series they become very front heavy indeed. They look very professional but I feel the AX100 out performs it by a long way!!

Noa Put · November 18th, 2015, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Atkins

Too bad the lens is f/4, but at least that is a fixed aperture.

That camera can exchange lenses so you can put on fast primes if needed.

Steve Burkett · November 19th, 2015, 02:39 AM

Full marks for Chris for sticking with the EA50 for 3 years, but lugging around what looks like a torpedo launcher all day isn't my idea of an alternative to DSLRs or a small camcorder like the AX100.

Noa Put · November 19th, 2015, 03:30 AM

When the nex-ea50 came out nothing came close to a camera that could give you the look of a dslr but functioned like a videocamera, it's actually too bad Sony didn't see any future in this camera, I do agree though that for weddings the size isn't exactly a advantage.

Steve Burkett · November 19th, 2015, 04:21 AM

Aside from using an FX7 when I first started out, my only experience of larger video cameras comes from the AF101A, and its hardly an experience that's endeared me to video cameras over DSLRs. Despite the larger size and more buttons to play with, it feels arguably less functional than my GH4. No touch screen for focus, a toggle switch to choose between 3 custom ISO settings, as opposed to 1 button on a GH4 that opens up a full range and only 3 custom white balance settings, compared to the GH4 with multiple presets, 3 custom presets, Kelvin settings; all of which can be adjusted for colour manually. Limited to AVCHD too, which I'm not a fan of.

Of course audio control is where the AF101a does score, but this is also tempered by an incident on a shoot where the battery died despite the camera suggesting I had 40 mins remaining. Had I patched my wireless mic into my Zoom recorder, this loss of image wouldn't have affected my audio too.

That said, if any camera is tempting me back to larger video cameras, its the DVX200; not a camera without its faults, but for non Wedding work and even some aspects of Wedding work, it could be very useful. Might wait for the price to drop a bit. I also looked at the Sony X70 when visiting the BVE earlier in the year. Its smaller and cheaper than the DVX200. Not sure how good the low light is, given its a 1" sensor as opposed to the DVX200's micro 4/3s.

Chris Harding · November 19th, 2015, 06:31 AM

To be perfectly honest Steve I think it was more vanity than anything else. Admittedly I love shoulder mount cameras and as Noa says there was nothing else on the market and it was a chance to get a DSLR look with camcorder functions but probably the bottom line was it looks professional and you will impress everyone with your big brute on your shoulder ... that's the vanity part kicking in!!

Put a decent lens up front with a matte box and suddenly you have a 5 or 6kg brute trying to dislocate your lower back ... not a good idea at my age either. I must admit I now have to say "Guys, it's video..see the big microphone ..you can talk not pose for a photo" with the small form factor of the FZ1000 despite the shotgun mic and big dead cat they still think it's a still camera. With the EA-50 ..there was no doubt at all that you had a TV style camera pointing at you.

My main change was I think due to my constantly sore lower back despite using a support rod and waist belt and Peter Rush also had the same problem so he is now using his A7S in place of the EA-50. It was also tough to jump ship from Panasonic to Sony as I was weaned on Panny cameras and the EA-50 was my first Sony but after the disaster of the AC-130 cameras I had, Panasonic had nothing more to offer and I wasn't quite ready (vanity again) to go to a smaller camera!!

Noa Put · November 19th, 2015, 06:52 AM

I know you didn't refer to me but vanity never played a part in my camera choice, if that was the case I would not use a cx730 as a main camera during a ceremony. I just wanted a all in one solution and since I came from a canon xh-a1 the nex-ea50 seemed like a logical step but the size of the camera became more of a burden then I expected and it also was a attention magnet and I prefer to be a fly on the wall instead of the elephant in the room. :) I know it has been discussed herer before about how the size of the camera can make you look more professional but for weddings that doesn't matter, it's more of an ego thing if you think that size matters or just being insecure.

Steve Burkett · November 19th, 2015, 07:26 AM

Back when I started using DSLR's in 2011, guests would always come up to me and comment on how small cameras were becoming. I always felt I had to defend my choice of gear. In recent years, no one comments at all; its just accepted. Then again back in 2011, guests weren't taking photos with smartphones (those were the days), so I don't think people expect cameras to be as big now. Though ironically phones have gotten bigger as cameras have gotten smaller.

I did have one guest at a Wedding last year, who worked for Sony come up and comment on how my GH4 looked like a toy camera. Hard to argue with appearance, especially when I slap the 12mm silver Oly lens on it. It doesn't resemble anything professional.

Switching so quickly to a DSLR after starting my business, I never got to enjoy the vanity phase of working with a big camera, an FX7 being as close as I got. Running a Canon 60D early on, I was quite conscious of its small size. Recent years it doesn't bother me at all, so now even the toy camera remark just brings a smile to my face.

November 18th, 2015, 06:47 AM	#46
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: Camcorders only Bear in mind that Peter Riding was a photographer who simply offered video as a freebie so to concentrate on his main task which was taking good stills, he wouldn't have had very much option apart from using a few locked down camcorders. I did just one wedding where I did video and stills and trust me it wasn't easy with two Nikons handing from my waist, a shoulder-mount camera on my shoulder and still trying to keep an eye on the 2nd cam on the tripod. Not for the faint hearted .. I certainly wouldn't do it again on my own!! I guess his bias was stills so not very much here was of interest to him.

November 18th, 2015, 07:02 AM	#47
Steve Burkett Trustee Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Romsey, UK Posts: 1,261	Re: Camcorders only Actually Chris, I did comlement Peter on his work on more than 1 occasion. I found his use of multi camera put some Videographers I've hired to shame. Taken as a freebie, his videos were better than it had a right to be. Where he got flack was for declaring that his videos were what Brides really wanted and not anything others provided. Plus I think his ignorance of video came through and he wouldn't accept any counter argument. He had strong views i give him that. I did visit his website back when he was contributing and was amused to see his pages littered with veiled attacks on Photographers who have won awards, weekend warriors and any Videographers offering cinematic edits. In fact one phrase on his video page stuck in my mind the most; that most Videographers were hobbyists and couldn't be trusted to do Weddings.

November 18th, 2015, 11:50 AM	#49
David Barnett Major Player Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Philly, PA Posts: 951	Re: Camcorders only Some of you get incredible low light out of your camcorders. Seemingly better than my (dated) Sony Z5U. Are those camcorders really good in low light, or are your receptions fairly well lit or do you do any color correction (neatvideo)? Any export setting tricks?

November 18th, 2015, 02:49 PM	#50
Steve Burkett Trustee Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Romsey, UK Posts: 1,261	Re: Camcorders only David, I'm not sure when your camera was released but I saw an article on it dated 2009. Hate to tell this to you, but technology has moved leaps and bounds since then. I know its only 6 short years, but back in 2010 I was running a Sony FX7, and I recall a Wedding where a guest was using a 7D. When he showed me his evening footage on screen and I could compare it with mine, I started using my Nikon D70 for Video and the rest is history. My GH4 knocks the spots of DSLR's back then for lowlight and Camcorders have also not been idle and I'd wager something like the AX100 would show a definite improvement on your current camera. That said, I think most using camcorders would either be using lights or switching to DSLR when the lights go down.

November 18th, 2015, 04:38 PM	#51
David Barnett Major Player Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Philly, PA Posts: 951	Re: Camcorders only Thanks, yeah I suppose so. That cameras been a workhorse, and I feel comfortable trusting it, but I suppose it's becoming time. I also use a Sony VG900 & the last few weddings have used it extensively for the dance floor footage, it's been great, and I used it on bridal prep once. I was hoping to get another year out of the Z5U, even thinking of using it just for the Ceremony & 1st dance (has a cool LANC controlled zoom tripod that gives a nice flowing motion to the 1st dance & parent dances). I should look at a AX100, alhtough I was thinking about a Sony body like the A6000 & use the same lenses that I have for the other cam. However I'm still impressed by the low light ability of some of these camcorders & their price points. Last edited by David Barnett; November 18th, 2015 at 05:11 PM.

November 18th, 2015, 05:23 PM	#52
Ian Atkins Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Charlottesville Virginia Posts: 128	Re: Camcorders only I was so happy to make the switch away from "videocameras" and I haven't been following them since I made the leap about 5 years ago. That being said, I totally understand why some prefer them...especially for weddings. If I were looking at videocameras now, I would strongly consider the EA50. You get all the benefits of a video camera, but the image strongly reflects the "DSLR" look. Too bad the lens is f/4, but at least that is a fixed aperture.

November 18th, 2015, 05:30 PM	#53
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: Camcorders only Hi Ian I had my EA-50's for 3 years (two of them) .. Loved the form factor, loved the features and on the last year used them with fast Nikon lenses for low light work. However I never did like the end result ..it was good but always seems on the soft side and I had a huge amount of post work to do to get the image right. Sadly they are somewhat outdated now so you don't have 4K and hand held with fast lenses like the Sigma 18-35 F1.8 art series they become very front heavy indeed. They look very professional but I feel the AX100 out performs it by a long way!!

November 19th, 2015, 02:39 AM	#55
Steve Burkett Trustee Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Romsey, UK Posts: 1,261	Re: Camcorders only Full marks for Chris for sticking with the EA50 for 3 years, but lugging around what looks like a torpedo launcher all day isn't my idea of an alternative to DSLRs or a small camcorder like the AX100.

November 19th, 2015, 03:30 AM	#56
Noa Put Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Posts: 9,510	Re: Camcorders only When the nex-ea50 came out nothing came close to a camera that could give you the look of a dslr but functioned like a videocamera, it's actually too bad Sony didn't see any future in this camera, I do agree though that for weddings the size isn't exactly a advantage.

November 19th, 2015, 04:21 AM	#57
Steve Burkett Trustee Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Romsey, UK Posts: 1,261	Re: Camcorders only Aside from using an FX7 when I first started out, my only experience of larger video cameras comes from the AF101A, and its hardly an experience that's endeared me to video cameras over DSLRs. Despite the larger size and more buttons to play with, it feels arguably less functional than my GH4. No touch screen for focus, a toggle switch to choose between 3 custom ISO settings, as opposed to 1 button on a GH4 that opens up a full range and only 3 custom white balance settings, compared to the GH4 with multiple presets, 3 custom presets, Kelvin settings; all of which can be adjusted for colour manually. Limited to AVCHD too, which I'm not a fan of. Of course audio control is where the AF101a does score, but this is also tempered by an incident on a shoot where the battery died despite the camera suggesting I had 40 mins remaining. Had I patched my wireless mic into my Zoom recorder, this loss of image wouldn't have affected my audio too. That said, if any camera is tempting me back to larger video cameras, its the DVX200; not a camera without its faults, but for non Wedding work and even some aspects of Wedding work, it could be very useful. Might wait for the price to drop a bit. I also looked at the Sony X70 when visiting the BVE earlier in the year. Its smaller and cheaper than the DVX200. Not sure how good the low light is, given its a 1" sensor as opposed to the DVX200's micro 4/3s.

November 19th, 2015, 06:31 AM	#58
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: Camcorders only To be perfectly honest Steve I think it was more vanity than anything else. Admittedly I love shoulder mount cameras and as Noa says there was nothing else on the market and it was a chance to get a DSLR look with camcorder functions but probably the bottom line was it looks professional and you will impress everyone with your big brute on your shoulder ... that's the vanity part kicking in!! Put a decent lens up front with a matte box and suddenly you have a 5 or 6kg brute trying to dislocate your lower back ... not a good idea at my age either. I must admit I now have to say "Guys, it's video..see the big microphone ..you can talk not pose for a photo" with the small form factor of the FZ1000 despite the shotgun mic and big dead cat they still think it's a still camera. With the EA-50 ..there was no doubt at all that you had a TV style camera pointing at you. My main change was I think due to my constantly sore lower back despite using a support rod and waist belt and Peter Rush also had the same problem so he is now using his A7S in place of the EA-50. It was also tough to jump ship from Panasonic to Sony as I was weaned on Panny cameras and the EA-50 was my first Sony but after the disaster of the AC-130 cameras I had, Panasonic had nothing more to offer and I wasn't quite ready (vanity again) to go to a smaller camera!!

November 19th, 2015, 06:52 AM	#59
Noa Put Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Posts: 9,510	Re: Camcorders only I know you didn't refer to me but vanity never played a part in my camera choice, if that was the case I would not use a cx730 as a main camera during a ceremony. I just wanted a all in one solution and since I came from a canon xh-a1 the nex-ea50 seemed like a logical step but the size of the camera became more of a burden then I expected and it also was a attention magnet and I prefer to be a fly on the wall instead of the elephant in the room. :) I know it has been discussed herer before about how the size of the camera can make you look more professional but for weddings that doesn't matter, it's more of an ego thing if you think that size matters or just being insecure.

November 19th, 2015, 07:26 AM	#60
Steve Burkett Trustee Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Romsey, UK Posts: 1,261	Re: Camcorders only Back when I started using DSLR's in 2011, guests would always come up to me and comment on how small cameras were becoming. I always felt I had to defend my choice of gear. In recent years, no one comments at all; its just accepted. Then again back in 2011, guests weren't taking photos with smartphones (those were the days), so I don't think people expect cameras to be as big now. Though ironically phones have gotten bigger as cameras have gotten smaller. I did have one guest at a Wedding last year, who worked for Sony come up and comment on how my GH4 looked like a toy camera. Hard to argue with appearance, especially when I slap the 12mm silver Oly lens on it. It doesn't resemble anything professional. Switching so quickly to a DSLR after starting my business, I never got to enjoy the vanity phase of working with a big camera, an FX7 being as close as I got. Running a Canon 60D early on, I was quite conscious of its small size. Recent years it doesn't bother me at all, so now even the toy camera remark just brings a smile to my face.