Hey all.

New member here Thanks in advance for any help! I primarily do wedding photography with a couple of 5D mkii's but I'm getting back into shooting event/wedding videography and I need to purchase a new camera of this day and age. I'm looking for a camera that has these features:

- 1080 HD resolution
- Interchangeable lens
- Larger sensor
- Reliable Continuous Autofocus
- 60 fps

I am by no means an expert in video/video cameras so please correct me if Im wrong or misunderstood about anything at all and I am open to being heavily educated lol. When I shoot event/weddings I prefer to keep it as simple as possible with continuous autofocus and as compact as possible instead of duel system recording. So what I've I concluded that i need is an interchangeable lens camera so that I can use faster lens that perform well in low light. Low light performance and continuous autofocus are the most important features to me right now. Combine that with a larger chip sensor say APS-C or higher (maybe micro 4/3) and I would imagine that it would solve most problems I would have with low light weddings or at least that it would be my best current solution. Now I'm merely talking about the low light performance for the ceremony portion of the wedding day where I would not be allowed use of an external light. I also want to have shallow DOF and bokeh in my shots but it is NOT priority and it would simply be a bonus. For weddings I don't mind a video look as long as its HD, in focus, and performing well in low light. As for the 60 fps. I want 60 fps due to the fact, if Im not mistaken, that it helps autofocus focus much much faster. Whereas autofocus is supposedly less effective and slower reacting in 24p. If that is not true then please let me know.

As for the continuous autofocus, I know many are using manual focus and are getting spectacular results, but for me and my style/workflow i would prefer/need the comfort of having continuous autofocus for run & gun situations and for Event/Weddings in general. That being said, i don't know if using faster interchangeable lens or being in a low light situation negates the continuous autofocus anyways due to there not being enough light to help it function properly but i really would prefer GREAT functioning reliable continuous autofocus. Which for the most part seems to be scarce in dslr's if not there at all. I also don't know if shallow dof makes it harder for autofocus to focus. Lastly if there was one more feature I would want in a camera after the above 4 features, it would be XLR inputs, but I would scarifice that to get everything else listed above and I would then consider duels system recording.

All that being said, here are the cameras that I have come across in my research that potentially offer me the above mentioned features:

- Panasonic Lumix GH2/GH3
- Sony NEX VG20/30
- Sony NEX EA50
- Sony NEX VG900
- Sony Alpha 99

Now I know these aren't out yet so they are hard to judge, but on paper and by my perception, the clear winner to me is the VG900 with the a99 and EA50 being a close second. Again, on paper it has everything I need/want. If i understand correctly the VG series and the Ea50 all supposedly have great continuous autofocus if used with their NEX lens which I would not mind switching over to at all IF its indeed great autofocus. But those three cameras all cost a pretty penny and I am trying to get the best bang for buck in terms of being able to buy multiple cameras. So if any other camera gives me everything i need and is cheap enough for me to purchase two of them for the price of one VG900 then I would prefer to go that route. That brings me to the Panasonic GH2. I have been heavily considering the GH2 due to its size, light weight, low light performance, and very cheap price which would allow me to get multiple GH2's within my budget (which is about $3000) But I'm foggy about the abilities of the GH2 and if it would provide me with what I need, and I would love for someone to let me know how it compares to the other cameras and to the specifications i need. Note that I am referring to the UNhacked GH2. The cameras I mentioned are only the ones that I have come across in my own research and I am open to any other camera suggestions that I did not list. I do know the GH3 is due out pretty soon so any info/opinions on that would be nice. I'm sure I forgot something but thats all I can think of for now. Thank you for your time and I appreciate any advice given.

The last thing I want to note is that I intend to burn onto Blue ray if that affects any decisions.

Thanks again

Johnny

Hi Johnny, I have looked into all these cameras and have posed similar questions to the group. My criteria is a little different, but for the DSLR have looked into the G2/G3 for the sheer cost of it. I have also looked into the Ea50 and am leaning toward that for the focusing and sound capabilities as I do live band footage. The Ea50 also has the larger sensor and ability to change lenses so it seems like a good fit for me. My problem is I need 3 cameras, so the costs add up, however when I start to add up the "rig" for the GH3 and audio then it also adds up. Good luck!

idid the same thing with a friend for events and guess what, i got a 5fmkiii, yeah some people cry about the AF in low light but i am used to a mkii manual focus so whatever, its the best DSLR in the world atm, i do wish it had the same wifi and flip screen with the bells and whistles the GH3 has but for now i can live with out the machine washed out color of the GH3 and get the best pictures money can buy., that is to make the client happy and not impress myself

Another thing i learned is your gonna spend the same for a dslr rig that your would a video camera in the end, 4 grand, even less for a v camera, and you will need to shoot events for allot longer then 29 minute, fr a dslr to do this you need to use the hdmi out to a ninja or hyperdeck HD card box, records at high standards with 4:2:2, thats cool for TV standards too, i got info that the 5dmkiii will have a upgrade to this in april, clean output at 4:2:2, cross our legs

I started shooting weddings before there was DSLR (not that it was that long ago) and I used traditional video cameras. Traditional video cameras still have a place in the wedding video scene. If you have to record the entire ceremony or reception in one continuous take, many DSLRs won't do it. Auto focus? True some of these large sensor cameras do have auto focus and when someone says they are great, perhaps they are comparing to other cameras of the same ilk. A traditional video camera generally has auto-focus performance that greatly exceeds large sensor cameras. The reason is simply that the large sensor cameras has lenses that were built for still photography, yes, some of them have been modified but auto-focus, image stabilization and smooth power zoom are the trademarks of the traditional video camera. Dual system audio? Not with traditional video cameras. You have something that will get you those beautiful shallow depth of field images maybe you need a traditional video camera to catch the bouquet, the cutting of the cake, the first dance, the speeches etc. Currently, I have three video cameras, one Panasonic AF100, and two Sony FX1000s (3 x 1/3 chip traditional cameras). I wouldn't want to try and shoot a wedding with three AF100 even though I love this camera.

I thought video cameras lacked the depth of field effect, with the acceptation of lens extensions

You can get a depth of field effect; however, you don't need or want a shallow DOF in every shot. Consider a wide shot of the ceremony where everyone is at the alter you focus on the bride and groom but you don't want the minister out of focus. When you cut to the close-up of the bride, that's when you want the shallow DOF. Let's not forget framing. Getting the angle of your subject so that they have a clean background can be more important than putting a background out of focus. At the reception you need to pan around the head table, you need fast, reliable auto focus, image stabilization, and a buttery smooth zoom controller. Save your large sensor camera for shots of the cake, the decorations, close-ups of the rings and bouquet etc.

your totally correct, and you know what else, this website is full of those inspired to own a camera that has both dslr and video camera abilities, i am sure we will have an mini arrie one day, snaps into a rig for scenes and in our hands at 4k etc,


But.... as of today i just built a rig for my 5d3, like those with 5d2s and the price in the end was the same as any decent video camera and even more expensive with my lilliput IPS monitor with zebra that is useless.

Hey all,

I am truly sorry for the late response. I agree with all of you. After more extensive research I have realized that I need a traditional video camera as a primary. I need unlimited recording time, reliable autofocus, low light performance, and audio capabilities. All of which if I add upgrades to a dslr will end up costing just as much as a video camera. I already own two 5dmk ii that i plan to slowly ease into my workflow for manual focusing shots and the controlled moments like gerald said, the cake, etc. Now I just first need a good reliable continuos autofocus video camera. But unfortunately Im still up in the air as to which video camera to get. Matt, the FS100 does sound nice and like you said it does check off all the boxes, but how reliable is the continuos autofocus on it in low light and with that very big sensor? The only other interchangeable lens camera I am still considering is the NEX EA50. Other than that and the newly suggested FS100 (even though its out of my price range atm) I am looking at video cameras with fixed lenses. BUT which ONE! Lol. The XF100, AC90, PMW100, these all seem great for what i need but is the low light on any of them even usable compared to an aps-c sensor? On a final note Ive realized that I need to throw budget out the window. Reason being, I have been renting canon XA10's for the past month to shoot weddings with and compared to a beautiful wedding shot by a competitor with dslr's and its low light performance, i am simply not happy with the low light performance of the XA10. That being said, I realized that i need to keep shooting weddings with XA10 and just save up to which ever camera offers everything i need no matter the price. By that I mean that I need to start looking at cameras a couple of thousand dollars higher in price. That being said I would really appreciate help pin pointing a camera. Thanks again for your responses and any other advice is welcomed.

Johnny

I think you have three choices: Panasonic, Sony, and JVC all of them make good 3 x 1/3 chip cameras. The Canon 3 x 1/3 cameras are great in all respects except for low light. They're really so poor that I wouldn't recommend for weddings. The Sony EA50 and the FS100 are good cameras but the lenses on them do not compare with the ones on any of these 1/3 chip cameras. The lenses that are put on these 1/3 inch chip cameras are built from the ground up to do video. The image stabilization, the power zoom, brightness and the focal range on these lenses make them head and shoulders above what you have for the EA50 and the FS100. For this wedding work I would also suggest that you buy a really good tripod and a remote zoom controller. This will give you even smoother zooms than the cameras alone can do.

I completely understand. I guess its a catch 22. By what I can tell to get good autofocus you need a camcorder with a smallish sensor but it wont give good low light performance due to the small sensor. To get good low light performance you need a large sensor but since most large sensors are currently found in cameras meant for cinema or photography dslr's, like you pointed out Gerald, that means no good continuous autofocus. I guess the camera Im in search for doesn't exist yet. Looks like im looking for someone to build a video camera from the ground up with a with a micro 3/4 or aps-c sensor and a built in lens all together designed towards continuos autofocus. If its even possible. Can't wait till that day. So for the time being Im just gonna have to stick with these current options of video cameras and use my 5dmkii to get that beautiful low light image. I really just want a camcorder as a back up run and gun angle that is constantly in focus as a fail safe to the 5dmk ii's in case we get caught not focusing manually fast enough. Cuz if all is in focus then the 5dmkii's image would be on the screen 100% of the time. That being said the reason I wanted to upgrade from the XA10 is to match the low light and the image to the 5d image in those circumstances where i'd have to cut back the video cameras angle. Right now you can tell a huge difference when i cut between the two. In low light, going from the 5d to the XA10, the xa10 looks so bad and grainy. This is purely in a low light ceremony as you cant really use external lights during a ceremony. Well I personaly don't anyways. For receptions and everything else, the xa10 is great once i mount on the on camera light. Anyways thanks for the response and any other info is welcomed.

I really think that you are underestimating the quality that you can get with a 1/3 inch chip camera. I have two Sony FX1000s (with Ninjas) and they work great in low light. Perhaps not a good as a large sensor camera but very good. I use them in a three camera shoot with a Panasonic AF100. I tweak the colours on the Sonys to match the Panasonic. If you took the same shot with the Panasonic and the Sonys the differences would be obvious, but the AF100 does a static wide shot the Sonys are constantly moving and grabbing close-ups. The mix looks great. I virtually never have to bump the gain above 0 db on the Sonys because the glass is very bright (at least on the wide end). The noise is not a problem, true a large sensor camera could reach deeper into the shadows and make out more detail in the highlights. Using the small chip cameras for close-ups makes the differences less obvious. If I was going to replace them, I would replace them with Sony PMW 200s.

I'll keep at it and try to tweak a bit with the 1/3 chip. I never really color correct either or attempt to fix the image in any way so I may have to play with that now. Thanks for the great info gerald. And ya Im intrigued by the pmw200. But out of my price range atm. What are your thoughts on a gh3 setup for continuos autofocus? Any experience with it. Is the autofocus reliable? The gh3 has a larger but to too large sensor, infinite recoding time, and supposed reliable autofocus. But I wonder what the requirements in terms of lens are to get good autofocus. In terms of audio I can just record to an H4N or something like that.

I shoot primarily live theatre, so I have been using units like the H4N for a while now (You can't record the audio from the back of the theatre). I had the original H4 when it first came out. I have an H4N and a Tascam DR 40. The DR40 is now my first choice. Separate audio is no problem now especially if you use Plural Eyes to sync the audio.

The GH3 is a great camera. I would think that the auto focus would be fine. I wonder what lens you would put on it. Can you find something bright enough, sharp enough, and with enough zoom for your needs? What about a power Zoom? I think you should rent a 1/3 inch chip camera and use it for at least one job before you make a final decision. Many stores that sell and rent will apply the rental cost toward the purchase price if you talk to them about it in advance.