Brides perspective of 5D & 7D footage

Patrick Moreau · September 22nd, 2009, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Kawamoto

All of these brides-to-be have weddings planned for '09-10, and were already booked with us before the 5DMII came out.

However, for my style of shooting weddings (lots of slow-mo, creep zooms, and dissolve transitions) and after talking with these brides, I may just stick to using my EX-1 for now.

and there lies the rub.

a bride that books you and enjoys that style would look at something we do, as an example, not find as much in it. if you show one of our brides your films, they too would come up with a list. you need to match the tools and style to the demographic your trying to reach. for the traditional wedding video style (bw, slow motion, slow zooms, dissolves) you don't need to add in shallow depth of field, tonality from a full frame sensor and L-glass, nor the extra latitude gained.

this sounds a little misguided. imagine me showing my couples samples from a new camera that does slow motion and black and white. they certainly wouldn't be encouraging.

P.

Jim Snow · September 22nd, 2009, 07:46 PM

Patrick, that's a good point that I would like to add to. In several posts in the past, I have commented that these cameras are great tools to extend the capabilities of a videographer. There are things that can be done with them that can't be done very well with "standard" video cameras. When skillfully used, they can add a HUGE amount of production value. BUT, there are a couple of problems that I have noticed. One is overuse of shallow DOF. There are a number of shots that I have seen where the use of shallow depth of field would be very nice if the aperture were closed down somewhat so that the shallowness is not so extreme. It isn't usually flattering to see an angle closeup of a bride prep where one of the bride's eyes is in focus and the other not. Maybe it should have been an f3.5 shot, not an f1.4 shot - or whatever. A master artist knows how to use their "paint brushes" and his or her work is a pleasure to see. But Michelangelo didn't run around crowing that he painted the entire Sistine Chapel with a "#9 slather blade" or whatever artists call specialized brushes. You don't often see a golfer bragging that he won the tournament using only his putter. But there are a few videographers who are throwing away all of their "clubs" except for their newest one.

The other problem that I have seen quite often is wandering focus. Part of this is lack of practice with a new camera. That's reasonable but don't inflict it on a paying customer until AFTER the use is mastered. Until then, maybe it's better to shoot that ceremony at f8 or f11 except for those FEW special shots where the aperture can be opened for those carefully calculated shots where shallow DOF of field adds that special touch that adds so much to the finished production.

Bill Vincent · September 22nd, 2009, 08:02 PM

Jim, your club analogy is right on. There will be those that argue that the 5D or 7D eliminates the need for multiple "clubs" but I disagree. If, for no other reason, you won't have a consistent timeline recorded of anything that runs longer than 12 minutes (unless you run two 5D's offsetting each other, but that is still not a consistent timeline from one cam.)

These DSLRs make really pretty pictures - they are like still photos with motion. But, too often in the hands of zealous shooters they are like drinking syrup - on top of some good pancakes syrup is great, but I don't want to drink it like a beverage. Ugh.

Dimitris Mantalias · September 23rd, 2009, 03:18 AM

I like the latest offerings from Canon. The video it produces is certainly out of this world and probably we'll go for a MKII soon (we'd prefer it over 7D due to the full-frame sensor, although converting 24p to 25 will be surely disturbing). But to use it as a main camera it should be downright wrong, at least for our way of work. Surely the decision has to do with the style of shooting and editing as Patrick said, but it also has to do with the ease of use. 5D and 7D are perfect on a tripod or steadicam or flowpod for example, but in handheld (for those that, like me, want the handheld shots from time to time) you can create serious problems to your footage.

Sure, I can live without handheld (wedding is not a Bourne movie after all) but also the need to overcome DOF issues in low F shootings, as well as the need to exchange between lenses to have the desired result (unless you have some 7Ds hanging around, which is not that convenient) is an extra problem. If you add the lack of serious mic options and the 12 minutes limit, we can see that the average videographer will have some important things to think about in a live event like the wedding.

My point of view about it in a few words is that the use has certainly to do with the personal style each videographer wants to give, but also with the abilities of each one to overcome and master certain technical difficulties. It was never an easy job in my opinion, but it certainly doesn't get any easier with these offerings. It surely gets prettier though. :)

I will admit though that for jobs like a Next Day Shooting or productions other than the weddings (like the creation of a documentary or a music video) it may be an ideal solution. But of course, opinions are subject to change, and nobody knows the equipment he'll be working with next summer! :)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

September 22nd, 2009, 07:46 PM	#17
Jim Snow Major Player Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Santa Clara, CA Posts: 356	Patrick, that's a good point that I would like to add to. In several posts in the past, I have commented that these cameras are great tools to extend the capabilities of a videographer. There are things that can be done with them that can't be done very well with "standard" video cameras. When skillfully used, they can add a HUGE amount of production value. BUT, there are a couple of problems that I have noticed. One is overuse of shallow DOF. There are a number of shots that I have seen where the use of shallow depth of field would be very nice if the aperture were closed down somewhat so that the shallowness is not so extreme. It isn't usually flattering to see an angle closeup of a bride prep where one of the bride's eyes is in focus and the other not. Maybe it should have been an f3.5 shot, not an f1.4 shot - or whatever. A master artist knows how to use their "paint brushes" and his or her work is a pleasure to see. But Michelangelo didn't run around crowing that he painted the entire Sistine Chapel with a "#9 slather blade" or whatever artists call specialized brushes. You don't often see a golfer bragging that he won the tournament using only his putter. But there are a few videographers who are throwing away all of their "clubs" except for their newest one. The other problem that I have seen quite often is wandering focus. Part of this is lack of practice with a new camera. That's reasonable but don't inflict it on a paying customer until AFTER the use is mastered. Until then, maybe it's better to shoot that ceremony at f8 or f11 except for those FEW special shots where the aperture can be opened for those carefully calculated shots where shallow DOF of field adds that special touch that adds so much to the finished production.

September 22nd, 2009, 08:02 PM	#18
Bill Vincent Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 119	Jim, your club analogy is right on. There will be those that argue that the 5D or 7D eliminates the need for multiple "clubs" but I disagree. If, for no other reason, you won't have a consistent timeline recorded of anything that runs longer than 12 minutes (unless you run two 5D's offsetting each other, but that is still not a consistent timeline from one cam.) These DSLRs make really pretty pictures - they are like still photos with motion. But, too often in the hands of zealous shooters they are like drinking syrup - on top of some good pancakes syrup is great, but I don't want to drink it like a beverage. Ugh.

September 23rd, 2009, 03:18 AM	#19
Dimitris Mantalias Regular Crew Join Date: May 2009 Location: Arta, Greece Posts: 82	I like the latest offerings from Canon. The video it produces is certainly out of this world and probably we'll go for a MKII soon (we'd prefer it over 7D due to the full-frame sensor, although converting 24p to 25 will be surely disturbing). But to use it as a main camera it should be downright wrong, at least for our way of work. Surely the decision has to do with the style of shooting and editing as Patrick said, but it also has to do with the ease of use. 5D and 7D are perfect on a tripod or steadicam or flowpod for example, but in handheld (for those that, like me, want the handheld shots from time to time) you can create serious problems to your footage. Sure, I can live without handheld (wedding is not a Bourne movie after all) but also the need to overcome DOF issues in low F shootings, as well as the need to exchange between lenses to have the desired result (unless you have some 7Ds hanging around, which is not that convenient) is an extra problem. If you add the lack of serious mic options and the 12 minutes limit, we can see that the average videographer will have some important things to think about in a live event like the wedding. My point of view about it in a few words is that the use has certainly to do with the personal style each videographer wants to give, but also with the abilities of each one to overcome and master certain technical difficulties. It was never an easy job in my opinion, but it certainly doesn't get any easier with these offerings. It surely gets prettier though. :) I will admit though that for jobs like a Next Day Shooting or productions other than the weddings (like the creation of a documentary or a music video) it may be an ideal solution. But of course, opinions are subject to change, and nobody knows the equipment he'll be working with next summer! :)