ok bought Sony rx10ii, got fz1000, already got 6ds, 70ds, 5d3s and used to using these great cameras.
Sent fz1000 back same day, thanks Amazon, Sony border line, hardly any cinematic bokeh but slog 2 freaking amaze balls to grade. A7sii coming?
Fz just camcorder footage. Canon hfm506 better, stills never tried,
Sony handles lovely, feels quality.
Will keep as back up for holidays and weddings , but canon 70d, 6d, 5d, nothing can beat, tell me I'm wrong,
70d starting to be my main camera but shocking compared to 6d in low light even at ISO 640'
Canon 6d takes some beating on terms of all cameras I have used, colour rendition, handling, ease of use, low light etc. steve

Wouldn't touch any Canon DSLR with a ten foot bargepole in 2015 (well.... Unless you pay me! He who holds the purse strings plays the piper). As Canon has clearly dropped off the ball when it comes to video performance, and apparently don't care about their HDSLR shooters.

Even a lowly Nikon D5x00 series camera can match up with the stock 5Dmk3, and a ridiculously lower cost.

Ones to take a look at instead are Sony A7s / A7r mk2 / PMW-F3 / A6000 / RX10 mk2 and Samsung NX1 and Panasonic GH4 / G7.

I have to entirely disagree. The Canon 5D mkIII is an excellent DSLR. Let's remember, this is a photo camera first, and a video camera second, if at all. The Sony A7s is definitely designed with video in mind, and in my opinion, might as well be called a video camera that shoots stills (and maybe it is, I don't follow it that closely.)

I am not saying that the Canon DSLR series is for every videographer, but I will say that it is a great set of cameras for photographers, which is exactly what it is meant to be. If you ask me, Canon is the better brand for photographers, hands down. I know a number of photographers, one of which I work with, who all use Canon simply for Canon L glass (considering the bodies aren't really very different when it comes down to performance). Nikon does have some good glass, but if I'm not mistaken their F-mount system can't handle things like f/1.2 with autofocus. (Yes they have lenses that go to f/1.2 but as I understand it, they only shoot manual focus). The wedding photographer I work with always shoots autofocus because it is faster than pulling focus.

All that aside, In my experience shooting with both the 5D mkIII, 6D, and the Panasonic GH4, I would say that a 6D beats it every day of the week for wedding videography. I say this shooting only Canon glass (with the metabones speedbooster) on the GH4 so if the native glass somehow makes it better in low light, then I would take that back, but as of now, I've hated my experience going anywhere but Canon (though I expect I'll try the A7s very soon).

I am in no way saying that Canon DSLRs are the best way to shoot if you are in wedding video, but I am saying that in my experience, they beat out the GH4. Which just happens to be the only interchangeable camera system I've tried other than the Canon DSLRs.

I typically shoot with a 5D mkIII and a 6D interchangeably. I can barely tell a quality difference in the video between the two. However when stacked up next to a GH4, I'd say the GH4 is literally worhtless. 4k is fine but I hate that I end up applying neat video to every clip from the GH4 that is taken inside a church.

Maybe the Sony A7s will blow me out of the water, but since my style requires me to use interchangeable lenses, the Sony rx100 ii and the rx10 ii are out of the question and the price point of the A7rii (as well as the lack of higher ISO settings like the A7s) put it well out of the question for me personally.

As a final disclaimer, I think I should write that if it isn't clear already, I am and have been a Canon fanboy for a long time. I have no experience with Nikon cameras for stills or video. For my style of wedding video, I need interchangeable lenses.

I want to go ahead and reiterate that I am not saying Canon is for everyone, but I don't think they can be entirely discounted as a solid brand for HDSLR shooters.

This is a really subjective issue because you'll find people on every side who are 100% convinced their camera is the best. I own 2 Canon C100 Mark 1s and I absolutely swear by them as they continue to exceed my expectations. The only other camera I've seen that makes skin tones look as good as the C100 is the Sony FS7 which is a very large and heavy camera to use for weddings.

I think the A7R II looks like a great camera except that it has overheating issues when shooting 4K. If they get this bug fixed then I think that would be a great camera to get because it offers high dynamic range, great low light, and incredible detail in 4K.

The A7S is a nice camera, but I've seen one of my 2nd shooters bring it along to weddings and in most situations skin tones look very unflattering compared to the C100. When my editor (who is a Panasonic guy) has to choose between shots he almost always goes with the C100. In low light the A7S absolutely amazing and the size is great for getting in tight spaces. However it has a very sterile look to it that I just don't find nearly as appealing as my C100. I think the A7S is much better for documentary work where it's not quite as important to make everyone look amazing.

The GH4 produces some of the nicest looking images I've seen when shooting in 4K. The colors are great, skin tones look very pleasing, and it has enough dynamic range for most situations. It's not quite as good in low light which is probably it's main weakness in my opinion, but overall it's an amazing camera.

The interesting thing is that you can ask someone who owns any of these cameras and they probably see them totally differently. So I would say that if you're a big fan of the look Canon DSLRs give you then keep shooting with them. Most brides couldn't care less what you shoot on as long as they look good and the footage looks good.

Doing a post saying "Am I wrong" is a toughie Steve.

All the Canon people will say "awesome" all the Sony people will say "Yuk" as so it goes on and on.

What car do you drive and why? Did you buy the wrong car ?? It's very much the same with cameras!

Don't ask opinions just use what YOU like not what others like ... Based on your post I have no idea why you even bought anything else except Canon since you have such glowing reviews on what you already have ... Are you wrong ..absolutely YES ...Your heart is set on the Canon look so you were indeed wrong to buy anything else even to "try" ...send them all back and stick to what you have as you are obviously thrilled with them.

As others have said, camera preference is subjective. I have got some great video out of the GH4, but then I love shooting with it and have a wide variety of lenses to support it. Hands down, Canon produce great looking colour straight out of the camera, whilst others need grading. However detail wise, I find canon wanting. Wide shots don't always hold up to full HD standards. For close ups of people, great, but in the 6d, moiré can be seen in some shots and overall I find wide shots of buildings, countryside and even people not to have the same wow factor. I've had 2nd shooters use the 5d mark iii. I agree with an above post that it's a great photographic tool. However I'm shooting video and the lack of features, no 4k and that some of the HD shots look more like 720p than 1080 alas does not endear me to this camera. 6d to my eyes shows the same flaws but adds moiré to the list.

So what's left, lowlight. Well I've rarely applied neat video to gh4 footage, but then I have as I said, a great range of lenses. Ultimately if you like the canon look, nothing said here will change your mind or persuade you to replace all your gear. However the canon look isn't for everyone, including me.

Hi Steve

I think we all have different ideas of what our weddings should look like ..I loved the Sony EA-50's but the image just sucked ..other would love it of course. I happen to like the IQ and colour that Panasonic produces so that's why I went back to Panny ...then again our style leans heavily towards documentary style and the video look so again my cameras give me just that .. I'm not big into everything in shallow DOF ..that's not my style. If I was I think I would gravitate towards GH4's as they have 4K and I still like the Panasonic look ... never been impressed with Canon at all ..but that's just me ..I say each to their own preference ...Canon have been very slack on the 4K uptake ..I wonder if they will bring out a 5DIV or maybe a C400 with 4K options.

Maybe it's best to stay on the fence for a while and see what comes out later ...you guys are heading towards Autumn already so things will slow down when it starts getting chilly??

Chris

I hate that I end up applying neat video to every clip from the GH4 that is taken inside a church.

Have you been shooting with a f5.6 lens and is the church in a cave? :) I don't share that experience at all.

but canon 70d, 6d, 5d, nothing can beat, tell me I'm wrong,

That's a very subjective opinion, if it works for you then great but don't think that's the best way to cover a wedding, to some, like me, 4K is an important feature, to others they couldn't live without shooting at 50.000+ iso on the a7s and others just need to have the ibis from the olympus omd series. My latest wedding (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-event-video-members-only/529388-american-wedding-ghent.html) was shot on a panasonic gh3/4-rx10 and ax100, I could say nothing can beat them and you tell me I"m wrong, but I don't see the reason in starting such a thread because what's the point? I think if you say it like this: "but the man behind the camera, nothing can beat, tell me I"m wrong", then everyone should know the answer :)

Whoops touchy subject sorry.... Just stating the new FZ1000 and Sony RX10ii are not as good as the canons because i sent the fz1000 back and have the RX10ii.. OK my point of view but true for me... And yes its all subjective to everyone's uses agreed. No worries not a big issue guys, phew...

I like to shoot weddings with small, portable, function laden cameras.

The GH4 is a killer in these requirements. Its only downside is its low light performance, but with speedboosters, fast lenses and the odd off camera light its not a problem. So its all GH4's for me. The form factor alone makes it a winner in my books, not to mention the light weight and space saving glass. I also like using matching camera systems that share the same batteries, lens mounts, and accessories. And matching the cameras in the edit is a breeze.

I think Canon are overlooking mirrorless cameras, DSLR's are fast becoming obsolete and Canon have their blinkers on.

If I was invested in EF mount glass, I would be looking into shooting with the C100mk2. Great image, small form factor, lots of usable video features.

But at the end of the day its horses for courses. You like what you like for any reason you choose to mention. Cameras are tools, if it works for you then that's fine. Each to their own. Long live choice and great story telling.

Whoops touchy subject sorry.... No worries not a big issue guys, phew...

Common Steve, what did you expect when you start a thread like this :)

Whoops touchy subject sorry.... Just stating the new FZ1000 and Sony RX10ii are not as good as the canons because i sent the fz1000 back and have the RX10ii.. OK my point of view but true for me... And yes its all subjective to everyone's uses agreed. No worries not a big issue guys, phew...

Both cameras you mention are 1" sensor bridge cameras and even I'm on the fence about investing in the RX10 due to its sensor size. It makes up for it in features mind, but if you're after a certain look that Canon gives, a camera like the xc10 would be more to your liking if a bridge camera is indeed what you're after.

Just stating the new FZ1000 and Sony RX10ii are not as good as the canons

Ok, if you want to compare: The rx10 II: build in ND's, stepless irisring, constant f2.8 24-200mm 35mm equiv lens, stabilised lens, up to 1000fps, 4K; slog, motorised zoom, peaking, zebra's, XAVC-S codec etc...

The 5dIII: high iso performance, full frame sensor, ...uh, help me out here, if it's a better (video)camera then the rx10II then what, beside the mentioned obvious advantages, make this a "better camera"? Or maybe the moire galore from the 6D makes this camera better too? :)

OK my point of view but true for me... And yes its all subjective to everyone's uses agreed. No worries not a big issue guys, phew...

I keep coming back :) but I have to say that this thread's purpose is only to provoke and will lead into pointless this camera is better then that camera discussions. You asked to prove you wrong and when some try to do that you give the impression we are overreacting? So what exactly was the point of your thread then?

I can see Noa's point here Steve. You basically tell us how wonderful the Canon's are as cameras and how terrible the rest are and then say "Am I wrong" ... When points are brought out that cameras others like as opposed to Canon it's not an over reaction it's enthusiasm. Noa likes Panasonic and so do I ..the performance, look and IQ is stunning and it suits our needs ... you asked, we are telling you what we think.

If you want to hear about other options then you need to be subjective and not appear to have already decided on your choice and biased towards one brand.

A far better post would be, "if you were offered the following cameras to use at weddings, cost aside, which would you use and why" .. that would show no bias towards any particular manufacturer and you would have received interesting replies, also un biased.

I'm sure Steve meant no harm with his post; just enthusiasm for his choice of camera; something I'm sure we all feel at 1 time or another.

Besides I think the video function in Canon DSLR's deserves all the support it can get, its certainly not getting it from Canon.

Having shot my last 2 weddings full on with my Nikon D750, I really love the look SOOC. Nikon did a good job with video in that (and apparently the D5500).

But I obviously don't like having to carry a bag of lenses, but of course the trade off is, amazing footage.

We're renting a Canon C100 Mark I to test at this beach wedding next weekend, and I'm looking forward to comparing it to my D750, and the second shooters a7s.

Someone above posted what I had been trying to think of how to explain... the a7s footage is sterile. Good description based on the times we've used it at weddings.

Ok cool i put it the wrong way no worries, i will post correctly next time...

No issues at all Steve! Some of us like some cameras and dislike others ..it all depends on what end result you want. Yes, Kyle, I was looking for that elusive word too.... I loved my Sony EA-50's and used them for 3 years and technically they were perfect but sadly for me the footage was always sterile ..I used to struggle to make the images "pop" ... Never had any complaints from brides though ..they all seemed happy but the end result in my eyes never was what I expected and I spent countless hours trying to make it shine and never could get it right.

If you see footage straight out of the camera and it makes you say "wow" then you have found the right camera! Brand is totally unimportant!!

OK cool Chris, cheers main man.

I'll throw another name in the hat. Brought a used blackmagic pocket a few months back. Might be the least desirable wedding camera from a utility standpoint but man, do I never like how it makes human beings look. It's great for bridal prep/photoshoot/random B roll stuff.

I think a pocket cam is about the worst camera to use during a wedding, ergonomical it's just a bad camera and you need a lot of time to set it up and use it properly, the lcd screen is also quite bad, batterylife is bad as well and colorcorrecting it's prores footage to match other camera's might be near impossible, unless you have advanced knowledge in grading. When it comes to ease of use in a bad way this camera comes out on top.

If you want a camera that bridges the gap between dslr and videocamera then the rx10II is as close as it gets, it's the only camera I know of that has some advantages of a dslr but has the functioanlity you would expect from a videocamera.

I think you may be right Noa, its growing on me....

Depends on the person, if you like BMD and have a lot of experience shooting with them then yes a BMPCC can be the right choice for you to use.

If you go into it hating the BMPCC..... then yeah, I agree it will be the wrong choice for *you*!

I don't hate the bmpcc, I have one and I like it, but not for weddings, I have been shooting weddings for 10 years now so I think I can speak from experience to say the pocket cam is the worst camera possible to shoot a wedding with, unless you work with multiple shooters and have enough time to set up and if you want to deal with the hassle of colorcorrecting all your footage in post.

I came close to getting the bmpcc, but the delays initially in delivery caused me to cancel. I did get the chance to play with one and loved the footage. Mind you it's a camera that needs a lot of support gear to make it practical, which kind of defeats the whole pocket approach to the camera. If a successor that does 4k came out, I'd be in the market for one. Even might use it on Weddings in conjunction with a gh4. Not as a main camera though.

I don't hate the bmpcc, I have one and I like it, but not for weddings, I have been shooting weddings for 10 years now so I think I can speak from experience to say the pocket cam is the worst camera possible to shoot a wedding with, unless you work with multiple shooters and have enough time to set up and if you want to deal with the hassle of colorcorrecting all your footage in post.

Yeah, I definitely agree that it's probably the worst camera ever for a wedding, from a usability standpoint. I use it as a third camera for moments where there is a bit of a setup time, and never for anything critical. That said, to me it looks nicer than any camera I've used and had my 2nd shooters use.

The post workflow time is an overblown concern in my opinion. Doesn't take long to start with a baseline LUT and tweak to get a good image after. Plus, the pro res stuff edits really smoothly. And there's much more color flexibility, even with Pro Rest LT, which comes in handy for a lot of the poorly lit rooms/venues I'm stuck with.

So it has it's charms. Just depends on when you use it. I already had a GH2 so I was good to go with lenses too.