just curious if anyone here has gone back to a traditional video camera for most of the run and gun work during events? I am using a 7D alongside an EX1, and more and more I tend to grab the EX lately.
Maybe I'm just not that thrilled with the 7Ds low light capability. Yes, I may need a 5D2, but I shoot stills also and the 5d2's AF is horrid.

Regarding low light, your lens choice is, in my mind more important than camera selection.

Otherwise, I can easily see why you'd want to abandon the DSLR for run and gun. They are a complete, umitigated pain to use, at least for me, but I'm running nothing but them, but then I am also insane. The insanity is partially due to the use of the cameras I chose, partially it was a pre-existing condition. But I digress.

How can one do better than a F/1.4 for low light? Hard for even the EX1 to beat, but a f/1.4 lens is not always what can be used either, especially for wide shots.

We have to choose what is more important, ease of use, or creativity. If your creativity is not enhanced because of the inconvenience of the DSLR , but is instead hampered by it, you have made the right choice.

I find I am preoccupied with simply getting a good shot, and my creativity has not yet been increased, but instead has actually been stifled by the GH2. This is not the fault of the camera, but instead is because I do not mesh well with the shooting styles needed to fully utilize the camera's creative potential.

For one-on-one shoots, I do attempt some fun stuff, but for wedding work, the damned thing is just a complete drain of my spirit. Just maintaining focus and getting the right exposure is a challenge to me.

On the other hand,once I have learned the ways of shooting with these cameras, and when I have a system (the key to the whole thing) and workflow for shooting with them, it will become easier, and I will grow as a shooter, but in the meantime I am not enjoying the experience much. I find the DSLR thing has taken the fun out of shooting for me. It is now like work, and tedious work at that.

This is a personal decision, that we as individuals must make, and in light of the pressure to deliver ever-higher quality images and "amazing" moving shots, is not an easy decision to make.

I'm sticking with it for now because I'm committed to it financially, but am looking hard at new videocameras. Videocameras such as the EX1 are made exactly for what we as event videographers do, DSLRs and Hybrids such as mine are not, and therein lies much of the difficulty.

Jeff, using a few f1.4's and f1.8s, so I got me some speed. I was in a venue last night that
was excessively dark, and it's probably the 7Ds high iso performance that has me scratching my head
a bit. It was really pushing it last night, even with some lights.

I thik Jeff pretty much nails it when he describes DSLR shooting. It's not easy, and often times not real fun either. There's a bazillion settings to remember and try out to see which ones work best. Recently I have kicked around buying some video camera just to have something where I can turn it on, push the button and just shoot. Oh those days were so much simpler. We forget how our footage wasn't that awe inspiring though, as we remember how easy it was to point and push the button and come away with something.

Then last night I had the opportunity to remind myself exactly why I went to DSLR.

First "No Deb the Ghost" when in spotlight !!!! on Vimeo

Five years of shooting this band and five years of every shot of the lead singer in the spotlight and she's always coming out as Casperette the Friendly Ghostette !!

I shot her with 5 different video camera models over that time and came away with the same results from all of them. I couldn't begin to count the number of posts I have had about this situation, and number of suggestions I have used to try and fix it. I basically resigned myself to considering that because of her hair color and complexion she was going to be the anomaly when in hard bright light.

Last night with the GH1, 14-140 and Spot Metering, I finally pulled the proverbial rabbit out of my hat !!!

The clip is just a test clip from trying this new type of exposure control for me. If you watch it through, pay attention to what happens when she walks to the left of the frame out of the Spot Metering and what happens when I pan to her and bring her back in.

So as of right now, I'm not baling, too much potential to investigate yet.

There's no way I'd give up my GH1's at this point. I love shooting with them -- they're small, light, and deliver incredible visuals.

I don't think they're all that difficult to shoot with -- but then again, I have a lot of photographic background . . . film, darkrooms, developing, etc. And I started in wedding videography using Panasonic AJ-D700's, which are all manual -- exposure, focus, WB, etc. (that was of course after a handful of wedding gigs on full-auto SVHS cams).

Hi Scott

I'm still one of those who still uses video cameras (as Philip calls them "proper cameras") and probably the main reason is convenience. I know I can grab the camera flick it into auto and "point and shoot" if I need to just to grab the event because I just wouldn't have the time to play with focus and exposure cos the bride is only probably going to be picked up in the air by the groomsmen for another 30 seconds anyway!!

I'm an experienced stills shooter with 10 years wedding experience before I even thought about video and yes, I really like the control of DOF especially on a full frame DSLR. Personally if I WAS to use DSLR's I think I would still shoot the main event with video and use the DSLR for creative shots during the ceremony with shallow DOF and probably during the photoshoot. As you have found out, sometimes receptions are even too dark for your 7D so you might as well have popped a light on the EX and shot with video there.

I still think DSLR's work best when combined with another camera as you have..that way you have the best of both worlds and always have a choice....so what if you use the 7D more or the EX more...whatever does the job best!!

Chris

Every tool has a job and every tool handler has a favorite tool and a tool that they feel works better than any other tool.
What I'm saying is you use what you feel is the best tool for you to use on that job.
I too have an extensive photo background from back in the very early 70s, using all forms of media in everything format from 35mm to 8X10 view camera. But I haven't used a SLR in any serious fashion since probably 1985. It certainly would take me some time to pick something up today and do a proper job but my job is video so I stick to video cameras. Thats what I feel works best for me for the type of work I do. Everyone is different. Makes the world go 'round.

Chip, thanks for the reminder as to why we are using DSLR to begin with. I just showed some prospects some footage from a recent wedding, and they were blown away, as I am when I look at the footage from my shoots.

This is the footage I've always dreamed of getting, and now it's a reality. I also find when I download the footage from a wedding the aniticpation is pretty intense, can't wait to see it.

I don't find it any harder at all... perhaps just a little more stressful.

I've always been an all manual shooter for video, so there's nothing extra to worry about on a DSLR. And I don't think I could ever go back to an electronic focus ring after using a proper mechanical focus. It's great being able to hit your marks every time (as long as you've found your marks beforehand).

For sound, I actually love using an external recorder and having it on me at all times and being free to wander around, rather than constantly being attached to my camera via a 4ft headphones cord. I have to sync it in post, but I usually have 2-3 video tracks anyway so it's just one more thing to sync.

And of course, the images blow away anything I've captured with a camcorder. Not just the shallow DOF, but because of the colours, perspective, dynamic range, and the quality glass (no more flare when shooting backlit brides!).

But, despite all this, I constantly have this fear in the back of my head that everything is going to go wrong, that all the cameras are going to overheat, that the SDHC card is going to fail, etc, etc. Dealing with this uncertainty (even though I haven't had a disaster yet) is the only thing about DSLR videography that is harder for me.

Hey John

I think it's called trust!!! Equipment is pretty well made nowdays and is unlikely to fail. I avoided moving from tape to card for nearly 12 months. I had this vision in my brain of the computer saying "Corrupt Card" and I would have lost an entire wedding!! In fact the operation on card has been faultless at weddings!!!

Your old MiniDV camera had tapes that could jam, idler wheels that could slip and motors that could just die ....the newer technology at least seems to have less working parts which is great!!

Chris

Well, it's good to know I'm not the only one who has those 'visions.'

The difference is that with the DSLR's you are using camera's for something they are not primarily designed for. There are known faults, and while you can safegaurd yourself in some ways, it's almost playing with fire.

Of course, I put my DSLR's through paces thoroughly before using them for critical events, and didn't come across any issues, but there are just so many horror stories online that it feels almost like a matter of time before something goes wrong. So currently I am concentrating on minimising the issues as well as having a contingency plan at all times.

For me, I feel it is worth it for the images I am getting. For others, I could certainly understand if they weren't comfortable.

Love using my 60d but I'm using my hv40s more and more, you cannot use the dslr all the time, it's impossible!! The hv40s on 560bs mono is absolutley my way to go. The past three weddings have been a nightmare, from the car's arrivals to change of plans and ridiculous toastmaster's plans, so the dslr would not have coped for sure. My two pence worth.

you cannot use the dslr all the time, it's impossible!!
it is possible, you just need more than one, however, I still use EX1 for stedicam work and HF G10 on the crane, I hope to replace most of my cameras when RED scarlet will be available, but no matter what 5D, 14mm and 70-200 will stay

I'm shooting with nothing but Panasonic GH2s and GH1s, no video camera. It's a pain but it is not even close to impossible.

a 7D and 2 60Ds all day. Video camera's collect dust.

it will become easier, and I will grow as a shooter, but in the meantime I am not enjoying the experience much. I find the DSLR thing has taken the fun out of shooting for me. It is now like work, and tedious work at that.

Same experience for me, a weddingday feels like a marathon to me now while in the past it was more a walk in the park.

However the result I get out of it is worth all the extra effort it requires, as a single shooter I can't use a dslr all day, only the church I do with real videocamera's, no way I'd be that crazy to shoot it with a dslr :). I run two camera's and several wireless audio recorders that I have to set-up in 5 minutes max.

I mainly start using my 2 dslr's (550d's) from the reception on (also during preparation in the morning) but for speeches I use my main videocamera again with a videolight, I find it a pain getting good audio with my dslr.

I also always film the weddingdance with my dslr but absolutely hate it when the dj changes the light intensity, sometimes they make it darker or brighter during the dance and because I always film in manual that means sudden over- or under exposure and making any exposure changes is something you clearly see in the footage.

Currently it's about 50% real camera and 50% dslr and it took at least a half year for me to find the right workflow during the day and especially when to use my dslr and when not. At this moment I still use a xh-a1 when light is good and when I need good sound and for me my dslr's support in area's where my xh-a1 doesn't perform well like low light, filming in tight area's or when using on a steadicam (blackbird) because it's so light.

I don't intent to change that combination for the next 2 years as it works for me but often I think back to those fun day's when I started out with just one camera and a cheap tripod. :)

snipped
Then last night I had the opportunity to remind myself exactly why I went to DSLR.

Five years of shooting this band and five years of every shot of the lead singer in the spotlight and she's always coming out as Casperette the Friendly Ghostette !!

snipped

Chip, with huge respect I fail to see anything in your clip which couldn't have been shot with any video camera I've used in the last 30 years which has a manual iris/exposure mode.

If that's so your post really amounts to a testimony to spot metering, but the "spotlight" settings I've had in so-called prosumer cameras since the PD150 until the Z1 (I have EX1R now and although they have the facility it's rightly made almost useless and inaccessible) could have achieved the same effect.

I don't mean to sound critical but coming from a background where iris and exposure were always manual,it's hard to get overly excited at someone who beats (as you clearly have) the inadequacies of auto-systems.

5D and 60D, althoiugh my preference is 5D. I'm absolutely enamored by the images they produce.

I sold my last EX3 a couple of months ago.

It's harder to use DSLR. You have to plan your shots more and have your mind in the game. But it's worth it.

That said, I should also say I made the decision not to do events anymoore, unless I'm just getting b-roll and art shots.

My remaining days are going to be doing documentaries exclusively. And I like what these cameras do for that purpose.

I encourage all of my competitors to continue using "proper cameras" as long as possible. I'll keep using my DSLRs and we will all be happier. :)
Bill

I refuse to use DSLR's. I can get the same look from my NX5U in post as a DSLR so I'm not using one of those alien looking contraptions I see DSLR shooters using.

While on a family outing "doon the watter" yesterday and carrying my steam powered tape based Canon HV-40, a chappie came up to me an introduced himself as a fellow recent HV-40 owner looking for some advice on accessories (I had a Rode Videomic Pro, lenshood and circular polariser as well as a monopod fitted).

Halfway through the conversation, when I had got a bit technical and felt I had to explain a bit, he surprised me by saying he worked as a cameraman for the BBC who needed a hassle free solution to filming family occasions and wanted reliable "point, shoot, stick in a cupboard, take it out in a few years and it still works" solution. When I the conversation turned to the use of card based acquisition and DSLRs in particular, he was quite vehement on the bad experiences his colleagues had had at work on using these, with particular reference to the problems encountered with compression down the line in editing and preparing footage to broadcast standards and unreliability of storage. He knew a lot more about it that me obviously, but the severity of the technical problems he was relating surprised me. I felt less of a dinosaur for still using tape after the encounter with him.

He told me that the cameras that he would be using in the near future would be disc (rather than card) based as a result of the trials that the BBC had been conducting.

Now I didn't exactly ask to see his union card to verify his story, but he seemed genuine enough and the reaction of his family as we talked techie was all too familiar to me :-) so I think he was who he claimed to be.

The BBC have approved DSLRS but only for shooting very small parts. Yes, the compression for them will be a nightmare as I can see things being compressed down the various lines until its dead and for DSLR, already compressed footage thats going to kill it.

Ive also seen the cost of the cameras the BBC approve... not in my budget.

My understanding is that the minimum the BBC requires is 35mb/s so EX1/3 is OK, though they'd prefer 50mb/s. In reality they have been known to use HDV eg Z1s but don't ask for that in writing. We're talking here mainline programming, not covert journalists etc.

This is a wedding forum, not broadcast documentary and the fact remains that DSLR output is sufficient for DVD and most people here seem to regard us people giving BD as part of our standard package as oddities anyway. If your clients accept moire, anti-aliasing etc then they'll not be worrying about compression.

My clients have the option of purchasing a package where I film with a "proper video camera" or a DSLR.
In my consultations, I show them samples of both and I charge more for the DSLR. I haven't booked a "proper video camera" package since 2009.

The argument for and against DSLR is somewhat perplexing, not in that folk will always resist change, etc., that's to be expected.

But when you view quality DSLR footage vs the conventional cameras, how can anyone argue against them?

Would we believe that many if not most of the top names in event video have moved to DSLR because they are idiots? Because they have nothing better to do then fiddle with primes that cost $2K? Because it's "trendy"? You've got to be kidding me.

If the same "effect" could be acheived in post with a 1/3" chip camera (it cannot), you still cannot compare a one inch sized sensor with a 1/3". It doesn't even make sense, at least in the physical world. You cannot, in post, duplicate the low light capabilties of a DSLR. If this was possible, why wouldn't we use cheap 1/4" cameras and just fix it up in post?

The reason boutique studios, and now we smaller guys are using this technology is because of the sensors, people, pure and simple. I don't know how large the sensor is in the Canon 5D, but's it's way over 1". And we compare this to a 1/3" sensor? If this is a joke, please hurry up with the punchline, someone.

No one is trying to force those that want no part of the DSLR "craze" to use it, but for us to sit around slamming something that clearly produces stunning results just seems, I don't know, small-minded. Yes it has it's drawbacks, the most ardent supporters don't deny it. So what? Doesn't everything? 1/3" videocameras have drawbacks as well, like the fact that the the sensors are 1/3", but they have their use, and still get the job done for most guys.

I'm using the damned GH2 and as I've said if you can show me a "proper" video camera with even a 3/4" chip that costs less than $4000, I'll ditch my cameras and buy it.

The argument for and against DSLR is somewhat perplexing, not in that folk will always resist change, etc., that's to be expected.

But when you view quality DSLR footage vs the conventional cameras, how can anyone argue against them?

Would we believe that many if not most of the top names in event video have moved to DSLR because they are idiots? Because they have nothing better to do then fiddle with primes that cost $2K? Because it's "trendy"? You've got to be kidding me.

If the same "effect" could be acheived in post with a 1/3" chip camera (it cannot), you still cannot compare a one inch sized sensor with a 1/3". It doesn't even make sense, at least in the physical world. You cannot, in post, duplicate the low light capabilties of a DSLR. If this was possible, why wouldn't we use cheap 1/4" cameras and just fix it up in post?

The reason boutique studios, and now we smaller guys are using this technology is because of the sensors, people, pure and simple. I don't know how large the sensor is in the Canon 5D, but's it's way over 1". And we compare this to a 1/3" sensor? If this is a joke, please hurry up with the punchline, someone.

No one is trying to force those that want no part of the DSLR "craze" to use it, but for us to sit around slamming something that clearly produces stunning results just seems, I don't know, small-minded. Yes it has it's drawbacks, the most ardent supporters don't deny it. So what? Doesn't everything? 1/3" videocameras have drawbacks as well, like the fact that the the sensors are 1/3", but they have their use, and still get the job done for most guys.

I'm using the damned GH2 and as I've said if you can show me a "proper" video camera with even a 3/4" chip that costs less than $4000, I'll ditch my cameras and buy it.

Well, I've seen some used AF-100's going for $3700 on the classifieds here or the 'other' forum. I've got an FS-100 and it was a bit more than $4000.
Well worth it to get around the drawbacks of the DSLR's in my opinion.
The big sensor 'proper videocameras' are now here, and they are just going to keep getting better in my opinion. If people want to keep using still cameras to shoot video, my guess is that the main driver for this,....is cost savings over proper video cameras. You have a choice of 2 different
large chip video cameras for under 6 grand. If that is too much, and you
want the large chip 'look' that you will have to stay with DSLR's for a little longer.

The point is DSLR is characterized as a "trend" in an attempt at reverse snobbery. What I stated are facts, the high end folks lead the way, and are doing so, and if many of the smartest guys are using it, wouldn't one think there is something to it besides a "trend"?

Gabe, you are mistaken. The AF100 isn't DSLR. Most folks that purchased them dont even know how to turn them on, had no idea what they were buying.

DSLRs are T3i, 5d, 7D d60, 60d and so on. Go find them used for sale, they go for close to new prices even used. Please give me the model numbers of the large chipped cameras you refer to.

The Sony large sensor camera sucks, and is not a proper videocamera, it uses interchangeable lenses, and the kit lens sucks for event work. We viewed it here and it's not even close to prime time.

What's the other you refer to?

Jeff,

Yeah that's what I said/meant. The AF-100 is a PROPER video camera (in other words NOT a DSLR) and yet you can get them used for less than 4 grand (this in reference to your comment to show you a big chip proper video camera that costs less than 4 grand and you will ditch your DSLR's and buy it.)

Furthermore, I have viewed video from every DSLR that exists. I have to strongly disagree with you, as I feel the video from the Sony FS-100 is better in EVERY way than video from the ANY DSLR that I have seen. (Ok the 5D has shallower depth of field, but the FS-100 is plenty shallow and better in every other way).

Not sure why you say it is not a proper video camera. It has everything a proper video camera has.....XLR audio, zebras, manual control of iris, white balance, black balance, shutter speed, gain, frame rates, peaking, focus assist, picture profiles with control over gamma curves, black levels, slow and quick motion recording (over and undercranking), much more control than a DSLR. And then there is the fact that you do NOT get any aliasing, moire, or line skipping, as you do from the DSLR's. It's a super 35mm sized sensor so fairly good sized (about 40% larger than your GH2 chip if you look at the part of the chip used in 16x9 mode). Plus it's better in low light than a DSLR. As it's not trying to fit 21 million pixels on the sensor for still capture and instead uses about 3.5 million pixels, each pixel is much larger and thus, gathers more light, making it better in low light.

The AF-100 plus the FS-100 equals two large sensor VIDEO cameras as opposed to DSLR's which compromises motion picture capture because it is made to be a STILL camera first.)

But hey, if you think video from DSLR's is better, by all means, keep using them!

The AF100 isn't DSLR. Most folks that purchased them dont even know how to turn them on, had no idea what they were buying. The Sony large sensor camera sucks, and is not a proper videocamera, it uses interchangeable lenses, and the kit lens sucks for event work.

Are you saying a GH2 is better for event work than an AF100? How so?

Warren, I thought I said that AF100 was a camera many bought and had no idea what they were getting into, no one's knocking it. it was not what many purchasers expected, that's all, at least that's what I gather from the large number of people who sold them with zero hours on them. Outstanding piece of gear, love to have one. Well, not really, it's too pricey. I get the same sensor, or even a bit newer, with the GH2, so for a poor man on a budget the GH2 is fine for me. I would look much more professional holding an AF100 than a GH2. These things are non unlike a toy, they are so tiny.

Gabe, the AF100 is not a proper video camera or DSLR it is a mirrorless design like the GH2. It is not unlike your sony, it's a hybrid of sorts; it uses interchangeable lenses, and has many of the drawbacks of DSLR. The AF100 It is basically a GH2 in a videocamera body. A super fine piece of equipment, easier to use than our dinky little GH2s, I'm sure.

Gabe didn't realize the model I was knocking was yours, sorry. I had forgotten the model number/name just remembered the camera, I wanted it before it came out.

But when I previewed it the kit zoom lens which was a nice lens really, it was just too slow for wedding work. And the cost of outfitting the camera with lenses faster than F/2.8 and better seemed ridiculous. The zoom lens was what, f/3.5- 5.5, or somethng and the features of the camera were hidden away in a menu. Of course my camera has menu issues as well, but at $899 I am learning to live with it.

Sony is a fine camera, but when some of us here looked at it was not, in our eyes, quite where it needed to be.

The GH2 has all of the features you describe but XLR, as most dslrs do. The list of controls you list are available on ALL dslrs, you dont' really think they don't have full manual control and white balance? Control over shutter speed? Histogram? I don't have zebra, but something almost identical. And moire, is a non issue with the GH2 as well, but even with the T3i or 5D which may have some of it, who cares? Don't shoot pan across chain link fences and you'll be fine.

As far as low light the Sony sensor may be superior, so as long as your outfitting with with fast lenses other than the kit lens, you'll be golden. A larger sensor with a slow lens is still slow.

I was hot for your camera at one time, believe me, and I'm sure you're getting outstanding performance from it.

What lenses are you using?

I have to say I just saw a friend's Canon 50d, my god, it is so much more substantial than my camera. I used to have a 40d and I had forgotten what a nice size they were.

I do not recommend the GH2 over any camera. It is a complete pain to use, but the images are great. I wouldn't wish the damned things on anyone, too much work. But for $899, you still cannot find the same quality in low light for under $4000, or even $5000, unless there is something new out. The new Canon videocameras are quite nice, and I'd acutally love to have one of those. For a one third inch sensor, that is a pretty nice darned camera, and amazing in low light.

Jeff,

I'm just wondering, which of the drawbacks of a DSLR do you think the new 'large sensor' video cameras have? They actually have a sensor made for MOTION not stills, so they don't line skip. That gets rid of most of the main drawbacks of the DSLR set right there. Skipping 3 out of every 4 lines is not a good way to make a motion picture in my opinion, and I don't want to worry about if there is a brick
wall or fence in my shot, so the answer to 'who cares' is ME!...but that's just me.

As for the features of the camera being hidden in a menu, I wonder if we are even talking about the same camera? The FS-100 has the following as buttons on the body, NOT in the menus.

'Zebra, histogram, peaking, marker, (safe zones, aspect ratios and such) gain, white balance, shutter speed, slow and quick mode (under and overcranking) smooth slow record, last shot.'

Are those all on the body of your GH2 or in menus? Not to mention clean 4:4:4 HDMI output. All DSLR's do not have all these functions at least not easily accessible. Many DSLR's have a limit on how long they can record (not your GH2, but many others). Many have overheating issues. With many, you cannot adjust exposure without seeing visible 'steps'. I mean they are set up for stills shooters, and I am a motion shooter, I don't care about '21 megapixel' and '185 point autofocus zones' and 'face detection' or 'aperture or shutter priority mode'.

I like having everything set to manual and able to be controlled through switches and buttons on the camera body instead of being buried in menus! This is one of the reasons these cameras are BETTER than DSLR's because they DON'T have things buried in menus, not sure if you saw a pre production model or what, but trust me, it has MUCH more control of everything on the body of the camera than a DSLR.

As for lenses, yes, the kit lens is slow. And yes, you will have to spend more money on lenses, but you have to do that with DSLR's as well, so that's kind of a strange argument against a large sensor video camera in favor of a DSLR.....it costs too much to get a f2.8 lens for a AF 100 or FS 100? It costs the EXACT same as it costs to outfit a DSLR with that lens.....cause they can use the SAME lenses you use on a DSLR!

Now I will say this, you seem to have picked the best DSLR there is for shooting video, the GH2. However, I am curious, what advantages do you think a DSLR has over the AF 100 or the FS 100? I can think of exactly two. First is that a DSLR can shoot better stills. Second is that it is cheaper. Maybe it can be put in a smaller space, although the FS-100 can be stripped down to a size almost as small as a DSLR.

But I can think of a lot of advantages to a proper video camera like the AF 100 and FS 100. No aliasing, no moire, no line skipping proper audio inputs, and in camera audio monitoring, clean uncompressed video out before any compression via HDMI or HD/SDI for higher quality video, less compressed codecs, a sensor built for video not stills, means better low light performance....there are all kinds of advantages. But of course, that one disadvantage is HUGE....and that is price. There are a LOT more people willing to spend 1-2K on a camera than 4-5K. Which is fine, but I don't get the attitude that the DSLR's are the same as the big sensor video cameras. They are not, if they were, they'd cost about 3K more.

We have an AG-AF101 but prefer using the 5DIIs for weddings & similar events because they are small, portable, simple to use etc. The Panasonic is an awkward ugly brute that does shoot lovely video but needs to sit on a tripod or proper shoulder rig. The DSLRs just need a loupe & a monopod. We have no need for 4:4:4 video via HD/SDI.

BTW The Sony FS100 bizarrely lacks built-in ND filters & only has one card slot.

I totally agree with Gabe and find Jeff to be in denial.

A DSLR will ALIAS on hair, skin (close up), suits, dresses and any piece of clothing with tight patterns, leather jackets....should I go on? And to say that moire and aliasing are NOT a big deal must mean your standards are pretty low.

And the FS100 and even the AF100 are better than every DSLR for VIDEO.

FS100 and even the AF100 are better than every DSLR for VIDEO.
you might as well add VG10 to the list :)
anything more or less comparable/better quality than DSLR video starts from F3 and up, and that's completely different budget we're talking about. Don't get me wrong I WANT to use a 'real' video camera, and that's why i still run EX1 along with all DSLRs i use, it has power zoom, which i like as an event videographer, and it's not 21mbs

I totally agree with Gabe and find Jeff to be in denial.

A DSLR will ALIAS on hair, skin (close up), suits, dresses and any piece of clothing with tight patterns, leather jackets....should I go on? And to say that moire and aliasing are NOT a big deal must mean your standards are pretty low.

I've been shooting DSLR since the end of 2009 and never had a bride mention any of this. Since I've started DSLR, my business has greatly increased. I shoot closeups all day.

you might as well add VG10 to the list :)
anything more or less comparable/better quality than DSLR video starts from F3 and up, and that's completely different budget we're talking about. Don't get me wrong I WANT to use a 'real' video camera, and that's why i still run EX1 along with all DSLRs i use, it has power zoom, which i like as an event videographer, and it's not 21mbs

I'm pretty sure the VG10 has a still chip in it and will give you the
aliasing/moire/line skipping problems that you get with a DSLR.

Also, the AF 100 / FS 100 uses 24mbs, and it is a form of H.264....which is a better compression method than the 35 MPEG-2 that the EX-1 uses.
A straight 'numbers' comparison will give you the wrong idea here, there is a comparison between the two formats over at the 'other' forum,
showing a comparison between the two. I mean, if you and your clients can't tell the difference, more power to you. I certainly can, but
DSLR's are sure a lot cheaper, and I was tempted to buy 3 of them instead of a FS100, that would give me multi camera everywhere.

Also, the AF 100 / FS 100 uses 24mbs, and it is a form of H.264....which is a better compression method than the 35 MPEG-2 that the EX-1 uses.
A straight 'numbers' comparison will give you the wrong idea here,It certainly will. The Canon DSLRs also use MPEG4 H.264 but at over 40Mbps however that doesn't mean that the image is better than that from an AF100 or an EX-1.

I don't know why anyone has to choose one over the other, I'm currently using a blend of dslr's and a video camera for my event work and it's great! I use the GH2 for all of my creative stuff, getting ready, photo session, details shots etc. My HMC150 is my "A" camera for the ceremony and the reception. They blend beautifully together and I get the best of both worlds!

I don't know why anyone has to choose one over the other, I'm currently using a blend of dslr's and a video camera for my event work and it's great! I use the GH2 for all of my creative stuff, getting ready, photo session, details shots etc. My HMC150 is my "A" camera for the ceremony and the reception. They blend beautifully together and I get the best of both worlds!

I'm the same way. I blend the GH1's and HMC40's, and use each according to what kind of shot is needed and how much light is available. Going back and forth about which is superior is pointless.

I don't know why anyone has to choose one over the other, I'm currently using a blend of dslr's and a video camera for my event work and it's great! I use the GH2 for all of my creative stuff, getting ready, photo session, details shots etc. My HMC150 is my "A" camera for the ceremony and the reception. They blend beautifully together and I get the best of both worlds!

Here is the difference. You are using a DSLR (the GH2 is probably one of the BEST DSLR's
for video) and a video camera. Your 'big chip' camera is your DSLR, and your 'little chip'
camera is your HMC150. The only thing I was saying, was that I feel the FS100 and AF100
'big chip' cameras are (in my opinion) better than the DSLR's for VIDEO. I would not say
a person should get rid of their 'events/little chip' camera!

In other words, I would think that in your particular case, I would personally rather be
using an AF100 for creative stuff, getting ready, photo sessions, details shots etc....and
keep using the HMC150 as the 'A' camera for the ceremony and reception. The big drawback
to this idea, is that the AF100 costs significantly more than the GH2! (especially when you
consider that it is being used as a 'B' camera!) Again, I think the big attraction of the
DSLR's is they are a lot cheaper and although not quite as good for video, they are at least
'fairly close'. With client budgets being what they are these days, for many people that will
be the determining factor. I'm just saying given a choice, I'd rather use a AF100 or FS100 over
any DSLR.....being able to pay for them is another issue entirely :-)

I'm the same way. I blend the GH1's and HMC40's, and use each according to what kind of shot is needed and how much light is available. Going back and forth about which is superior is pointless.

Just to be clear, when I was talking about video cameras, I was talking
about large chip video cameras like the AF100/FS100. They are VERY
different than your HMC40s. I was not comparing a small chip video
camera to a DSLR. I was comparing a large sensor video camera, (which is
made for video not stills) to a DSLR......a totally different comparison
whatsoever!

Just to be clear, when I was talking about video cameras, I was talking
about large chip video cameras like the AF100/FS100. They are VERY
different than your HMC40s. I was not comparing a small chip video
camera to a DSLR. I was comparing a large sensor video camera, (which is
made for video not stills) to a DSLR......a totally different comparison
whatsoever!

I already knew exactly what you were saying. I was responding to Chris' comment about using GH2's and HMC150's together. And the topic of the thread is giving up on DSLR's for event work in favor of "traditional" video cameras.

Hmmm....I read the topic of this thread as being

'Anyone given up on the DSLR for event?'

NOT as being

'Giving up on DSLR's for event work in favor of 'traditional' video
cameras.'

So to me, if a thread for discussion is taking about giving up on a
DSLR for event work, I'd think that discussions of large sensor video
cameras, and their advantages over a DSLR would be very appropriate.
However, since the OP DID talk about traditional video cameras in his
opening statement, maybe that IS what he is looking at. The large
sensor video camera ARE kind of a 'compromise' as they are not quite
traditional video cameras with servo zooms and such, but they are
made for motion pictures, while still giving the shallow depth of field
of a DSLR. However, they probably make less sense to a small 1 person
producer who wants both a 'traditional video camera' and a 'shallow depth
of field' camera,.....because they expensive compared to a DSLR. You can
have a DSLR, and a cheap 1/3 traditional camera for almost the same price
as one large sensor video camera.

Anyways, after posting on several of these threads, it appears that it also
kind of 'disturbs the waters' so maybe I should just leave these
threads alone.

Hmmm....I read the topic of this thread as being

'Anyone given up on the DSLR for event?'

NOT as being

'Giving up on DSLR's for event work in favor of 'traditional' video
cameras.'

So to me, if a thread for discussion is taking about giving up on a
DSLR for event work, I'd think that discussions of large sensor video
cameras, and their advantages over a DSLR would be very appropriate.
After posting on several of these threads, it appears that it also
kind of 'disturbs the waters' so maybe I should just leave these
threads alone.

I'm sorry you're feeling argumentative about this, but please read the original post. He's favoring a camcorder over the DSLR. I never had a problem with your large-sensor posts, but you felt the need to quote and respond to my camcorder/DSLR post directly.

I wasn't responding to your large sensor camcorder posts, as they don't concern me and I'm not interested in large sensor camcorders in the least bit. Please continue to discuss them though, as others have found it helpful, I'm sure.

I'm just curious, you use DSLR's but are not interested in large sensor
camcorders in the least? Are you a former still shooter that is used
to DSLR's and not camcorders? Are the large sensor camcorders just
too freakin expensive? Another reason?

I would have guessed that DSLR shooters would be MORE interested
in large sensor video cameras than people like me who are primarily
from the video world.

So far my canon G9 produces better videos than my D7- and its focuses.

I was wondering if any of the FS100 doubters has actually has seen any footage? I paid $30.00 for a nikon 50 1.8 lens and let me tell you this camera is more sensitive than my own eyes. I have a NX5 camera to for the more run and gun work. So in my opinion I have two video cameras with all the things a video camera should have plus the large sensor look for the creative work. I always crack up when DSL shooter complain about the FS100 not having nd filters, when none of the DSL have them. Gabe and I have the FS100 so we now how beautiful the image of the FS100 is.
Dan

I sure do like the footage.....it used to be that shooting video was just
'work'. I mean I liked shooting and all, but now I actually and go shoot
for fun in the very limited free time I have.....random things around town like this:

Juneau By Gabe Strong On ExposureRoom (http://exposureroom.com/members/alaskacameradude/cc93851dcc894877b2c44f3ad634f4c1/)

I always crack up when DSL shooter complain about the FS100 not having nd filters, when none of the DSL have them.Lack of ND filters is a very valid criticism of the FS100. All the other camcorders that I own or have owned (including an AF101) have built-in ND filters. The advantage of a large sensor camcorder like the FS100 is that it is a regular camcorder with regular camcorder functions like XLR audio so lack of ND filters is a very big & rather strange omission.

I'm just curious, you use DSLR's but are not interested in large sensor
camcorders in the least? Are you a former still shooter that is used
to DSLR's and not camcorders? Are the large sensor camcorders just
too freakin expensive? Another reason?

I would have guessed that DSLR shooters would be MORE interested
in large sensor video cameras than people like me who are primarily
from the video world.

Too expensive, and still in their infancy stage at this level. The way I see it, they rushed the large sensor camcorders out, and there are a lot of usability issues. I can get footage that looks just as good from my $400 GH1. I am comfortable with either DSLR's or camcorders, it doesn't matter to me.

So, until they come WAY down in price, correct their myriad issues, and really blow me away with highly noticeable, superior image quality (to the consumer, not just camera geeks) over the GH1/GH2, I am in no way interested in them. I know this is offensive to some, but it makes sense to me and the market I'm in.