What are you guys doing about this when you shoot weddings? It seems like there is no way to use any camera with Cmos chips for weddings. There are always going to be camera flashes from the Photographer. A lot of my editing uses slow motion and cannot afford the time to try and get around rolling shutter.

I am in the process of picking new cameras for weddings and finding it impossible because either they are real good in low light like the fx1000 but has cmos chips and rolling shutter or you can get something like XH-A1 with CCD's but the low light perfomances sucks.

I really don't want to use AVCHD and I want to stay in the $3000-$3500 range.

If they made a Fx1000 with CCD's that would be the way to go. Is there something out there that I am missing?

Thanks!

It's a shame you don't want to use AVCHD, the Panasonic AG HMC150 Learn about Panasonic's AG-HMC150 (http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&modelNo=AG-HMC150) might just suit you otherwise. 3 X CCD sensor, reportedly quite good in low light, professional features. And of course, no rolling shutter issues.
Why not AVCHD? I find that using something like the Canopus AVCHD2HQ converter can convert to a high quality editable format in faster than real time. So no different from downloading from tape, time wise.
Maybe you have another reason for avoiding AVCHD?

Thanks Roger! The AVCHD format just seems like it is to much trouble for editing then it's worth. It is so taxing on CPU's. Maybe I should check into the Canopus AVCHD2HQ converter. Is this a free utility? Does coversion loose quality at all and what format are you converting to?

Thanks again for your help!

P.S. It seems the lux ratings for the ccd cameras are almost the same.

It seems like there is no way to use any camera with Cmos chips for weddings. There are always going to be camera flashes from the Photographer. A lot of my editing uses slow motion and cannot afford the time to try and get around rolling shutter.
Is this the way I read it? Are you adding slomo's on a regular basis in your wedding vids? Why is that so nice to have or unavoidable? Seems to me that you would get bored meeting slomo's often. All sharp knives get blunt by frequent use.

Todd, I too don't want AVCHD, but the Panasonic is reportedly a very nice tool. I have two FX1000's, and they are nice, but I have heard virtually nothing but praise for the Pannys. You should check the Panasonic forum. Very few complaints on that camera. For what you are looking for at present it is the best option, IMO.

I have the FX1000 and the HMC150. Forget trying to edit AVCHD natively. Converting to an editable format is no big deal. The HMC150 is the best camera available in your price range, hands down.

Norman, someone asked somewhere how those two cut togther. I can't imagine they do. What's your experience?

Todd, I too don't want AVCHD, but the Panasonic is reportedly a very nice tool. I have two FX1000's, and they are nice, but I have heard virtually nothing but praise for the Pannys. You should check the Panasonic forum. Very few complaints on that camera. For what you are looking for at present it is the best option, IMO.

Thanks everybody for your suggestions! I really appreciate the input.

Jeff...seeing that you have two fx1000's what do you use them for? Are you shooting weddings? If so...I would think that the rolling shutter is killing you not to mention the 3.4 f-stop at full zoom.

In regards to converting to an editable format...which format are you converting to and do you loose any quality whatsoever?

Todd, there are many wedding videographers using CMOS cams quite successfully. I have not heard of a single complaint from any customers of the guys who do this for a living. Frankly I've watched quite a bit of footage from these cams during weddings and I just don't think it's as big a deal as some make it out to be.

But you must be the ultimate judge. What I can say as a user of the Z5, the low light is simply unparralled.

"In regards to converting to an editable format...which format are you converting to and do you loose any quality whatsoever?"

Since I edit with Edius, I convert to Canopus HQ avi. No quality loss that I can see.

Norman, someone asked somewhere how those two cut togther. I can't imagine they do. What's your experience?

To be honest, I don't know yet because I've only shot one event and I haven't begun editing it yet. However, I think I can tweak the FX's footage a little and match them up okay. Especially since the only footage from the FX is the wide shot from the rear (the HMC is my manned cam up front). Even when shooting with the same model cameras, at most ceremonies the footage can look vastly different since the lighting is totally different between the two angles.

Norman, I sure would love to hear how well the 1000 and 150 cut once you get into the edit.

To be honest, I don't know yet because I've only shot one event and I haven't begun editing it yet. However, I think I can tweak the FX's footage a little and match them up okay...

Hi Norman,

I made a post on the AVCCAM forum about matching the two cameras. I don't have an FX1000, so I am interested to see if the tweaks work.

Todd, to answer your questions about the CMOS and lens ramping, they are murder. I hate both of these things about the cam. Flashes cover half of the image and it looks bad. The 3.4 at full zoom is awful. I can no longer get the stunning closeups I got with the my old 12X cams.

I'm learning to live with these things, but as I've said before there are nice things about the camera, you just have to decide if the pros outweigh the cons.

Editing the files is not as bad as I expected and they perform OK on the timeline, but as I get into editing HD footage on a regular basis I plan on using the VASST tool to create proxies to make it more manageable. I forget the name of it, but its inexpensive and is supposedly works well. Neo Scene is another option but it costs twice as much and the required disc space for the resulting files is too much for me when I am dealing with 10-15 weddings at a time.

There are those who will tell you the rolling shutter effects on camera flashes are not bad. I completely disagree. I've shot 4 weddings with the cameras and particularly when the room is very dark the effect is dreadful. If the ambient light is bright, it is not so bad.

BTW, I have seen, as I mentioned before that Tom H referred to severe lens ramping on the Panasonic 150, but that was the first I heard about it. I would look closely at the specs on the Panasonic before buying, but I doubt it is a severe as it is on the FX1000/Z5.

"I can no longer get the stunning closeups I got with the my old 12X cams."

Don't zoom in all the way to 20X, zoom in to 12X and you still get stunning closeups like your old cam.(-:

Khoi the lens starts our wider. Explain to me how I can start with a wider lens, not zoom in "as much" and still get an extreme closeup? Turning up the gain and using digital zoom has been suggested also. Sorry, it doesn't work. By the time you zoom out to a point where you have the correct exposure you end up with a medium shot, not a closeup.

Todd, I think you need to judge for yourself regarding the rolling shutter effect. Again I don't see it as the issue that some say it is and, just as importantly, I have not heard of one single complaint from a customer of any of these guys. In my mind that's where the 'rubber meets the road'. Let's be honest, flash effects with CCD based cameras isn't terrific either and CCDs are prone to smearing, something totally absent in CMOS cameras. Smearing can be a pretty ugly artifact.

The other undeniable advantage of the CMOS setup in the 1000/Z5 is the low-light capability. If you've handled HD cameras in the past, seeing what these new Sonys can do in low-light is truly extraordinary. I don't feel my Z5 gives up anything to my VX2100 in low light, and its image, whether SD or HD, blows my 2100 & 2000 away. I've done A/B tests on my 2100 vs. my Z5 in SD, and I was pleasantly surprised at how much better the image was in standard def from both a sharpness & exposure latitude standpoint. But again, in terms of low-light, I don't think any cam anywhere near this price range can touch these cam's images.

As for lens ramping, this has been discussed ad nauseum and we know this is inherent in any cam's lens with a longer reach and anywhere near (and quite a bit above) these camera's price range. Unless you want a very very heavy, very very expensive lens/camcorder, this is the way it is with a lens of this zoom range. Most don't seem to be impacted by it (I haven't, but I don't do wedding videography). Even so, as has been said before, you can avoid the problem by limiting how far you zoom. For me, the real beauty of this lens is the terrific wide angle/zoom ratio. This is something I would think any videographer would truly appreciate. When I compare the wide angle image with my VX2100, it almost looks like the 2100 has been zoomed up. It's just great being able to achieve this wide angle without any heavy, image-deteriorating auxiliary lenses. I've never seen this great a ratio between the wide angle image and the fully-zoomed image.

Your best bet is to get hold of one of these cams (Z5 or FX1000) at a retailer or even as a loaner, and play with it. We all have different needs and only you can determine what's best for you.

What are you guys doing about this when you shoot weddings? It seems like there is no way to use any camera with Cmos chips for weddings. There are always going to be camera flashes from the Photographer. A lot of my editing uses slow motion and cannot afford the time to try and get around rolling shutter.

I'm with you Todd, and until CMOS settles down I'll stick with CCDs thank you. My last cake cutting lasted 14 seconds yet 64 electronic flashes went off

tom hardwick on blip.tv (http://tomhardwick.blip.tv/#1766207)

OK, the wmv file you see here looks a bit CMOS-ish, but on DVD each flash looks as you'd expect it to look - simply brighter. The light hit CCDs inside a Z1, that's why.

OK, early days of CCD were filled with vertical smear wails from us all, but development has sure tamed that. CMOS is fine for stills, but it'll take the next models to sort the partial frame exposure problem. Which is why all the brand new cameras from Canon, JVC and Panasonic go with CCDs.

So what are we doing about it Todd? Shooting onto CCD, that's what. For anything other than paparazzi shots CMOS holds lots of aces though, so don't discount the Z5, 7 and EX1.

Jeff - sounds like you should have bought a Z7. It has the least ramping 12x lens you can buy and is one reason people buy it over the Z5.

tom.

Khoi the lens starts our wider. Explain to me how I can start with a wider lens, not zoom in "as much" and still get an extreme closeup? Turning up the gain and using digital zoom has been suggested also. Sorry, it doesn't work. By the time you zoom out to a point where you have the correct exposure you end up with a medium shot, not a closeup.

So it is a little wider, at 4.2 and the old VX2100 was at 6.0, if you zoom in to 15X probably that will be equipvalent, your f stop will not goes down to 3.4, maybe at 2.8 at that will be just fine, set your auto gain to max out at 9db and if you zoom in full, auto gain to 9db should compensate for the loss of light, but really I think you have bad buyer remorse, you should sell it to me for cheap and go get the Pany 150 and you'll be much happier with more robust codec,twice as efficient compared to MPEG2, CCD chips, no rolling shutter better functionality..., but seriously, I will buy if from but you have to make it cheap. (-:
my email address is khoi@proeditproductions.com
make me an offer.

OK, early days of CCD were filled with vertical smear wails from us all, but development has sure tamed that. CMOS is fine for stills, but it'll take the next models to sort the partial frame exposure problem. Which is why all the brand new cameras from Canon, JVC and Panasonic go with CCDs.

tom.

Tom, not so fast. First of all Panasonic came out with a new 3-CMOS camera, and I'll bet the bank you'll see them before too long from Canon. This is the new technology and its benefits can't be ignored. They will generally have better color (as I've seen with the Z5), less power consumption and an immunity from smear. Yes smear is better controlled than it had been, but it's still there for sure with CCDs.

.... but really I think you have bad buyer remorse, you should sell it to me for cheap and go get the Pany 150 and you'll be much happier...


I actually agree with this. I think if you read Jeff's posts, he really doesn't sound like a satisfied customer at all. Yes, no camera is perfect, but Jeff does seem to have serious issues with this camera's weaknesses. If I were him I probably would have sold it already and gotten the Panasonic.

I actually agree with this. I think if you read Jeff's posts, he really doesn't sound like a satisfied customer at all. Yes, no camera is perfect, but Jeff does seem to have serious issues with this camera's weaknesses. If I were him I probably would have sold it already and gotten the Panasonic.

Heh heh here is another guy that think you should sell it to me cheap and be happier. (-:::

"I can no longer get the stunning closeups I got with the my old 12X cams."

Don't zoom in all the way to 20X, zoom in to 12X and you still get stunning closeups like your old cam.(-:

That is not even close to being the same.

I noticed that the specs on the 150 also show lens ramping. Man this is tough!!

Ken, the Pansonic starts out quite wide also, and while it is nice, if it is of no special or need to a videographer it is meaningless. I like it fine, but so what? If it limits my ability to do get my shots (and it does) what good is it?

Regarding complaints, etc., I have friend who says he will not purchase a new camera yet because customers are not complaining about 4:3 yet.

Customers do not bring 90% of their complaints back to vendors; more importantly it's not just the customers that wedding videographers are worried about, but the potential customers who see the finished product.

You are right, since you don't do weddings you don't know. You won't find yourself editing a highlight clip and come to a complete stop because of the flash that fills the bottom of a customers face (but not the top) during a closeup kiss or exchanged glance between two people that pretty much ruins it. I edited around 40-45 weddings last year and never once was a flash an issue, because the flash on CCD chips looks like a flash. With the rolling shutter of CMOSD it looks like I'm shooting with a defective camera.

Ken, if you do not shoot with the FX1000, Z5, etc., under conditions similar to those of wedding videographers you cannot understand the ramifications.

Most 12x zooms ramp from f/1.6 to f/2.8, but Panasonic's 13x zoom goes from f/1.6 to f/3.0 so is (theoretically) even worse. Don't send Jeff there - his Z5 is a 20x that's f/1.6 to f/3.4.

tom.

Tom, you are absolutely correct in that I would've been happier with the Z7. Mind you I'm not complaining for complaining sake.

Someone is asking and I'm giving my real world experience with the camera.

You are right Ken, I'm a wedding videographer who finds the FX1000 less than optimal for shooting weddings. It would actually be perfect as a rear cam, but not doesn't work for me at all as front one.

Yes, I'm sure it would be nice if I sold my cameras, Ken, then there would be no alternate opinions on the camera and everyone could just get on with the business of congratulating each other on their purchases.

Jeff...if you had to do it over what camera do you think you would go for?

I noticed you mention something about the Z7. I will have to look into that one.

Oh well...looks like the Z7 has cmos also not to mention out of my price range.

Maybe I should check into the Canopus AVCHD2HQ converter. Is this a free utility? Does coversion loose quality at all and what format are you converting to?


Yes the Canopus AVCHD2HQ converter is a free utility, but it does require the Canopus HQ codec (as supplied with Edius and Procoder) to work. It is possible to find a freeware version of the codec fairly easily, but there is some debate as to whether these freeware versions of the encoding side of the codec are supposed to be out there!??!

The quality is excellent - it's difficult to see any loss at all, and of course the intraframe format makes it very easy to edit.
It's designed to work woth the Edius NLE, but I have manged to edit it in Premeire, although exporting the final edited file is a bit of an adventure! Probably best to stick with Edius.

Another alternative with Panasonic AVCHD is to use their own transcoder, which you can get from here (https://eww.pavc.panasonic.co.jp/pro-av/support/desk/e/download.htm#avchd). This converts the footage to DVCProHD, which you can then import into Premiere CS3 or CS4. Again, an intraframe format, simple to edit.

Or there is of course Cineform Neo Scene (http://www.cineform.com/products/NeoScene.htm), yet another alternative - although that one isn't free!

I think the number of tools now available, to allow AVCHD to be converted into an 'editable' form, pretty much rid us from the early fears about dealing with this 'difficult' format.

And with cameras like the HMC 150 offering tapeless recording with professional features, all at a (fairly!) reasonable price, (and with no rolling shutter issues) I think AVCHD may perhaps at last be considered for serious 'prosumer' use.

Based on what I know at this point in time, the Z7.

In fact I'm thinking of putting one of my Fx1000s for sale and replacing it with the Z7.

As Tom has pointed out the lens ramping is supposedly severe with the Panasonic. Other than the lens ramping I would look hard at the Panny also.

If you were buying two, I would get the Z7 first and follow with an FX1000.

Ken, the Pansonic starts out quite wide also, and while it is nice, if it is of no special or need to a videographer it is meaningless. I like it fine, but so what? If it limits my ability to do get my shots (and it does) what good is it?

Jeff, I would think having a wide angle as nice as the 1000 would be ideal for wedding work. Yes, there are times you need to get in close, but there are certainly many times you want a nice wide shot that the 1000 can deliver.

Regarding complaints, etc., I have friend who says he will not purchase a new camera yet because customers are not complaining about 4:3 yet.

Customers do not bring 90% of their complaints back to vendors; more importantly it's not just the customers that wedding videographers are worried about, but the potential customers who see the finished product.



Well interestingly, that's one of the great things about the HDV format...and the Sonys in particular. If you need 4:3, you've got it and you've got it in a better picture than the cameras that are dedicated 4:3 cams like our VX2100s. The picture in 4:3 is simply better with the new Sonys than they were with the 2100.

If you need HD, you've got that too. What makes the Z5 so great is that you've also got a sleek, all-digital, tapeless cam too if you so choose. This is a rarity in the world of camcorders to have all this rolled into one camera. Of course you can use the digital card recorder on the 1000 too, but it doesn't meld quite as nicely.

In terms of 'potenial' customers, I see no reason why potential customers would be any less satisfied with your results than your customers. Since I haven't heard of a single complaint regarding rolling shutter from any customers of the guys doing this kind of work, I would suspect the same would be true of your 'potential' customers. Again, I've closely examined footage from these cams from some of the wedding guys and I just don't see it as big a deal as some say. Yes, I've seen the flashes go off and I've seen the effect and I still don't think it's as big a deal as some say.

But Jeff, again, if you're not happy with it I don't know why you don't consider a trade or selling it on Ebay. Why put up with a tool that isn't working for you? I honestly think if I felt like you that's what I'd do.

I'm in San Francisco right now where I did my first job with the Z5 (in SD) and I'm now here on pleasure with my wife. I've been shooting with the Z5 in HD around San Francisco for fun and the results look just stunning...at least on the flip-out LCD. Obviously when I get home I'll connect it to my 60" Kuro and take a closer look. I also reviewed the preliminary shots I did for the client in SD at the client's office, and he was delighted with what he saw. These clips were reviewed on a 50" LG plasma and in my mind that's a 'worst case scenario' since often times SD clips look like crap on an HD display. I had done a project for this client 2 years ago and he felt the picture quality of what he saw was better than my first project. These were raw clips which I'm often reluctant to show a client since they often have trouble envisioning an edited project. I felt comfortable with this client since he's seen my work before.

Yes, I'm sure it would be nice if I sold my cameras, Ken, then there would be no alternate opinions on the camera and everyone could just get on with the business of congratulating each other on their purchases.

Jeff, that's not my objective here, trust me. You know very well I've compalined about what I consider shortcomings of this cam. Remember who started the 'face focusing' thread? I have no problem knocking aspects of cams I own, and I've done just that with the Z5. Buttons that are too small and focusing that sometimes resists faces to name two.

Every cam has flaws as we've all acknowledged, but in the end I find the picture quality of the Z5 to be the best I've seen in this price range. Picture quality has always been of paramount importance to me in choosing a camera and unless that same cam has some fatal flaw that can't be overcome, that's the unit I'll buy.

I've had Canons, Sonys, JVCs etc., so I have no allegiance to any brand whatsoever.

Based on what I know at this point in time, the Z7.

In fact I'm thinking of putting one of my Fx1000s for sale and replacing it with the Z7.

As Tom has pointed out the lens ramping is supposedly severe with the Panasonic. Other than the lens ramping I would look hard at the Panny also.

If you were buying two, I would get the Z7 first and follow with an FX1000.

Jeff, what confuses me is why you bought a 2nd FX1000 when you were already aware of the issues you confronted with the first?

Second, why would you even consider the Panasonic, now that you know it has the same or worse lens ramping than the 1000?? The lens ramping seems to be your major issue with the rolling shutter coming in 2nd.

Which is why all the brand new cameras from Canon, JVC and Panasonic go with CCDs.
tom.

Tom, when I said you were wrong about CMOS, this is what I meant. At over $10,000, this is also one of Panasonic's most expensive, high-end cameras. Guaranteed there are more to come from all the big boys. CMOS has too many advantages to be overlooked by these manufacturers.

Panasonic Announces New AG-HPX300 Camcorder - Panasonic (http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Panasonic-Announces-AG-HPX300-Pro-Camcorder-36199.htm)

Tom, when I said you were wrong about CMOS, this is what I meant. At over $10,000, this is also one of Panasonic's most expensive, high-end cameras. Guaranteed there are more to come from all the big boys. CMOS has too many advantages to be overlooked by these manufacturers.

Panasonic Announces New AG-HPX300 Camcorder - Panasonic (http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Panasonic-Announces-AG-HPX300-Pro-Camcorder-36199.htm)

Well....Panasonic did not just discover CMOS, and selected CCD's for the newly released HVX200a, HPX170, and HMC150. I believe that this HPX300 is the first, and so far the only pro cam from Panasonic that uses CMOS.
At this price level ($10,700) its doubtful event/wedding shooters are whom its aimed at so rolling shutter effects caused by multiple flashes at a wedding won't likely be a factor for their target customers.
Barry Green wrote a couple very good articles for HD Video Pro magazine on CMOS vs. CCD design considerations that you should check out, they are excellent reads.

Well Steve, I think it goes beyond that 'target group'. I truly don't think that Panasonic would even think of putting out a +$10,000 camera that had flaws to the degree that some think CMOS have...wedding videographers or otherwise. Nobody in their right mind would stand for it and pay that price for admission if it were that bad. Afterall, this is one of their highest priced cameras, and they could have used CCD if they so chose.

It would look like CMOS is the future in image aquisition. That seems to be where the better DSLRs are heading, as well. As the technology behind the image devices improves, we will have less undesirable artifacts to deal with. Flash photography banding will probably become a thing of the past, eventually. But an old surfer once told me that if you wait for the perfect wave, you will never surf. Jeff, Ken, Tom, etc. are obvously surfing. Being a pioneer has never been easy.

But an old surfer once told me that if you wait for the perfect wave, you will never surf. Jeff, Ken, Tom, etc. are obvously surfing. Being a pioneer has never been easy.

Aint that the truth Greg! You see this all the time, no matter what the technology, no matter what piece of equipment you discuss. I see it all the time on the AVS forum, people waiting, waiting, waiting for perfection...as their lives pass them by.

No piece of equipment is perfect, but I'll tell you, after viewing my footage of San Francisco last night, I'd be hard pressed to find any better shots I've ever taken.

Very well put Greg!!!

Ken, regarding buying a second camera, I had only used my first one for one wedding when I ordered the second. I figured the issue was my not operating the camera correctly, I only found out about the f-drop after my second camera arrived.

And you are right, the lens ramping is more serious issue to me. Let me explain why.

I have built my business on closeups. Several years ago, I submitted a video to the owner of a company who at that time did premium wedding videos. His work was amazing (he has sinced stopped doing weddings as he found them unprofitable, he does only corporate work now). I respected his work and viewed him as a mentor.

Anyway, he watched the video I had submitted to him, which I fully expected him to be blown away by. Instead of heaping praise upon me, he had two suggestions: Closeups (get them) and he also told me I did not use transitions properly.

He emphasized closeups above all else. I won't go into the details of his instruction here, but to this day my biggest "seller" is a demo clip I have online that begins and ends with closeups that could never be achieved with the FX1000 under the same circumstances (distance, etc.).

I closely study people out of habit (years of working in nightclubs will do that) and I will observe potential customers as they view my wedding videos. It is amazing to watch the subtle yet profound changes in body language during the portions of my videos that feature these closeups (usually set to some appropriate music, of course). The woman will reach out and grab her fiances hand, or the man will put his arm around his bride-to-be and they will snuggle.

Once, while talking to a customer, I asked her why she liked my sample clips as much as she said she did. Her answer was, "Jeff, it was the strangest thing, but I felt as if I somehow knew all of the people, almost like they were family. It was a strange sensation, and I can't explain it, but I do know I want you to be my videographer."

I will sometimes point out to customers my closeups as they watch my work so that they understand that these are a feature of my work. It is amazing how many videographers will not go in for the closeups during the ceremony. I am the opposite. While filming I am always looking for the chance to completely fill my LCD screen with the image of my bride's or groom's face, or both at the same time. Now if find the closeups are not flattering for a person, I avoid them, but otherwise they are, to me, essential.

I sometimes forget that all wedding videographers do not employ closeups as I do. So the issue of the lens ramping is likely not as important to all others as it is to me. But for my style of work the loss of them is devastating.

I may or not get the Z7, as I have threatened to do. This year I have to put a stop on my spending, and to take a loss on a new camera and to spend $2k on another one while people around me are losing their jobs doesn't seem practical or even morally acceptable, but how I see this is likely to change back and forth several times before I make a decision.

For corporate videographers the issues of rolling shutter and lens ramping, for the most part, is going be of minimal if of any importance at all. For a non-wedding videographer who has not or will not experience these frustrations there is no first-hand experience on which to address these things.

But when a wedding videographer brings up these questions, as a wedding videographer myself I can respond knowing how these things affect me. These are not nitpicks but serious issues.

On the other hand, there are wedding videographers who do not mind the rolling shutter. For those who are not bothered by it, I might silently wonder why they are not, but that is their opinion and I respect it.

However in my case when I have a medium shot or closeup shot that is ruined by this phenomenon, again, this to me is a serious issue, not a nitpick.

I shot a wedding Saturday and rolling shutter was not at all an issue. It was brightly lit, the reception was well-lit also. However last month I shot in a very dark room and it was absolutely devastating. It looked terrible, especially during the cake cutting, as Tom will attest.

Now I have praised the FX1000 as much as I have damned it. It does shoot great images, and I love the results I have gotten overall with it.

But for wedding videography, it certainly has issues. I highly recommend the Panasonic based on Mark Von Lanken's recommendation, but it offers only a solution for rolling shutter, not much else. I am also recommending to my friends locally to look at the Z7, and one of them has bought one.

It is important to remember that just because we have a nice piece of gear that it will not work for everyone. I feel no loyalty to any brand of camera, no more than the corporations feel for me. And even though I might be posting on a Sony thread, I feel it is perfectly acceptable to recommend another brand of equipment to someone who asks.

I view loyalty to a brand as a weakness, not as a quality to be admired. The day someone from Sony corporate calls and asks me how my camera is working out that might change, but I somehow doubt that I will ever see that happen.

Jeff - as you know your lens ramping is only an issue (and only apparent) when you're forced into using apertures wider than f/3.4. If you're shooting outside in the sunshine at f/4 (say) then the ramping won't be apparent and won't be an issue. If you limit yourself to a 12x zoom then that f/3.4 becomes f/2.8.

Of course if you went to an EX1 (which is about a stop more sensitive than your Sony) then you could look on it as if it was your camera with an f/1.2 to f/2.4 lens. Of course the EX1's 12x zoom won't get you such tight closeups from the same distance - a great advantage of the 20x zoom.

I'm glad to here your a BCU man. I too love this look, though I'm careful to back off a bit with couples of a certain age.

tom.

Right Tom.

And indoors for getting ready segments I can move closer than I would normally and get some closeups, which I've done, but I hate asking for a minute while I do that. When I'm at very close range and don't have to zoom as much there isn't too much of a problem.

The time it interferes most just happens to be at the time I least need it to; it's that distance between the first row of pews and the wherever the bride and groom are on the altar. As you can imagine I'm not trying for these closeups from the back of the church, but from the front.

Additionally, I find myself pulling back and staying out of the way more than ever as I have matured as a shooter. I have found more and more it is really appreciated when I am barely noticed, and I try to shoot accordingly. Unfortunately with my FX1000 it demands the opposite in many cases.

You might notice a common "thread" in my posts. My "irish" comes out if it seems people act like I'm bashing a camera when I'm in fact complaining about aspects of it. Then I will go overboard in the severity of my tone. What I have figured out finally is that those who are least concerned with the issues I'm concerened with are not wedding videographers for the most part, or they have a completely different shooting style. Now that I have a handle on this it will help me to see the differing points of view.

Jeff, I fully understand your dilemna. I'm actually a bit surprised that you haven't had issues with the autofocus. Since you're often zooming in on faces, that's the one area that I've found the autofocus to pretty 'reliably' fail. To me that would probably be the biggest frustration.

I've learned workarounds for that, but if I were doing wedding videography with a constantly moving subject, even manual focusing or using focus assist, would go south as soon as the subject left the plane that I had last focused on. Obviously the more zoomed you are the more you are subject to focus errors. So it does surprise me this hasn't bothered you. I often see focusing issues with professional HD broadcasts and it bugs me no end.

As to the lens ramping, yes, you could limit your zoom ratio but I understand that the 20X on the G lens isn't as close as you might expect given the very wide image that it starts off with. But I'm wondering if you couldn't just shorten your distance a bit to the subject to fill up the frame before the lens ramping begins.

It would seem to me that you wouldn't have to move up much to approximate the 12X zoom you had with the 2100. To me this is an easier workaround than the rolling shutter issue.

As far as the rolling shutter issue is concerned, I guess we all have different tolerances for different artifacts. As I've mentioned I've looked closely at the rolling shutter issue and it just doesn't bother me as it does some others. Again, the fact that clients don't complain either, shows that many people don't see any significant issue. On the other hand, minor focusing issues bug the hell out of me and might not others. Thus I'm particularly sensitive to the autofocus issues on the Z5/1000. The only shots I was less than thrilled with were a couple of shots of my wife, zoomed up, with a nice shallow depth of field that were slightly out of focus. I'm still learning to focus this beast consistently and effectively.

But with all that said, I've now reviewed my HD footage from San Francisco as well as my SD footage from my first Z5 shoot, and all in all I couldn't be happier. This is a second go-around for this client and I was able to compare some shots in the same environment as I shot with the 2100. The Z5 is simply a much more professional looking image. The CMOS sensors are less prone to flare and have a greater exposure latitude. That, together with the greater sharpness, gives a much nicer image in my opinion. At times it may not have quite the 'hyped' contrast of a 2100, but I actually find that creates a more professional looking image with greater texture and detail.

For you Jeff, the Z7 could be the answer. Good luck.

I have found the auto focus to be a bit slow, but it is nothing that learning to operate the camera better will not fix.

Unfortunately the other two things are not as easily fixed. I did try moving closer to get a closeup during the vows Saturday, but the priest stopped the ceremony and ordered me to leave the altar.

Actually that didn't happen, but I have heard of videographers/ photographers who actually have gone onto the altar during a ceremony. Can you imagine that?

I've seen a number of wedding videos where the videographer did go onto the altar. I guess some don't mind being obtrusive if they got the OK from the priest. I'd feel very uncomfortable doing that.

Yeah, I couldn't do that either...you likely would lose any potential customers in the audience to boot. Additionally I can imagine someone seeing a photo with me in it and asking "who's that guy with a camera up there?".

I may or not get the Z7, as I have threatened to do. This year I have to put a stop on my spending, and to take a loss on a new camera and to spend $2k on another one while people around me are losing their jobs doesn't seem practical or even morally acceptable, but how I see this is likely to change back and forth several times before I make a decision.

I think it is morally acceptable for you to do your part in the economic recovery by having a succesful business and continuing to grow your business. If buying a Z7 helps your business and you can afford it, then you should go for it.

Well Greg, as I mentioned I will flip-flop with this decision several times before I decide finally. I feel best when I look at this kind of thing after looking at it from many angles.

Hi Jeff,

Why would you consider the Z7 if it also has cmos? Same rolling shutter issue.

I think I am looking into the XH-A1. I know the low light is not great but at least no Rolling shutter problems and not that severe of a lens ramp. I might have to see if I can rent one and check it out.

Just to put you right Todd - the XH-A1 lens ramping is exactly the same as the FX1000's - f/1.6 to f/3.4 20x zoom.

I would look at the Z7 because of the lens ramping, or lack thereof. It's not gone, but it's much less.

And you are correct to look at the Canon also. I've been amazed at the level of "love" the Canon owners have for their cams.

In my case I know next to nothing about the Canons. All I do know about them is when I see footage shot with them I am usually very impressed. They are great cameras, and initially I didn't look at them because of poor auto focus (so I heard) and relatively poor low-light. I had been waiting for two years for the Sony HD replacement for the VX2100, so I never really looked anywhere else. That might have been a mistake on my part, maybe not.

Now, any Canon users out there don't beat me up because of my statement about the poor low-light...I am not stating that as fact but simply repeating what I heard. I must say I also read a number of people state they thought the Canons were just fine in low light, and from footage I've seen it would seem to be true.