Am I Dumb For Live-streaming our Church with a GH5?

[Brock Burwell]

About two years ago our church upgraded our live-streaming cameras and tasked me with putting together a list of gear that we needed to make that happen. We use four manned cameras so in the end we got three camcorders and a GH5 to use for a side camera in a part of our church that would give us a nice depth of field that a camcorder wouldn't give us.

Fast forward two years and the GH5 has really blown the camcorders out of the water in terms of image quality that we decided to switch it with our main camcorder directly in the back of our sanctuary. It looks incredible on our live stream and so much sharper than the $2,000+ camcorder we purchased for that spot. Of course it can't zoom with a controller and needs the cam op to manually zoom, which isn't ideal, but I think the image quality makes up for it.

Our pastor would like to replace one of our other camcorders with another GH5 (I think eventually he'd like to replace them all).

That said, I've been trying to research power lenses for these cameras and I'm coming up at a loss. Of course these lenses will be more expensive, but a lot of the lenses that will work on the GH5 are older.

Does anyone have any suggestions on a camera + lens combo that would be good for a scenario like this? We want the great imagine quality like a mirrorless camera can give, but with the ability to zoom with a controller.

We plan to purchase everything used or refurbished to save some money and he'd likely be OK to spend $2,000-$2,500

Thanks!

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Mostly the answer is no. Probably best to have multiple fixed positioned cameras. You'd have to attach one or two lens controller to a manual lens to pull zoom and focus. A lot of trouble to change the GH5 into something it's not. I understand you like the image quality but its an up hill battle. Services are long events to be filming this way.

[Paul R Johnson]

It depends on status.if you have the pips on your shoulder sufficient to make this decision then it’s fine. If, your opinion is what matters, all is good. In the broadcast world, operators often have to use equipment that ergonomically is less idea, and they get paid and put up with it in general. For most, as long as the viewfinder is good enough to focus sharply, they don’t really care what the public’s image is. If they are volunteers and the operating experience is less good, maybe they will think differently. You know best. I know that if I had a camera that stayed in focus when I zoomed, and I had a zoom demand and maybe even a focus too, I’d hate being given a DSLR. I also know I’m a grumpy old devil and I’d hate being given a worse tool for the job. They’re your people, but surely image quality is only one feature. If your shots are constantly soft, or late because your waiting for focus, or worse, you cannot call for a slow zoom in, that’s not improvement?

Ordinary cameras also balance better, so are you going to have to upgrade all the mounts and heads so smooth pans and tilts can happen?

Me? I’d hate it, and I’d not want to work a horribly out of place camera like this when clearly, it’s the wrong thing for the job.

[Christopher Young]

If you want to keep the price down and go for simplicity you could look at an option like this:

GH5 and LANC ZC-3DV remote control power zoom test - YouTube

Or as PC said go for a remote servo zoom setup. There are numerous different brands around but the PDMovie Live Air units have a good reputation for little time lag during operation. They also have fairly hi-torque motors which are really necessary when trying to zoom a lens that has a zoom ring with some resistance.

PDMOVIE LIVE AIR 2S Instruction - Most comprehensive teaching - YouTube

Chris Young

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

It depends on status.if you have the pips on your shoulder sufficient to make this decision then it’s fine. If, your opinion is what matters, all is good. In the broadcast world, operators often have to use equipment that ergonomically is less idea, and they get paid and put up with it in general. For most, as long as the viewfinder is good enough to focus sharply, they don’t really care what the public’s image is. If they are volunteers and the operating experience is less good, maybe they will think differently. You know best. I know that if I had a camera that stayed in focus when I zoomed, and I had a zoom demand and maybe even a focus too, I’d hate being given a DSLR. I also know I’m a grumpy old devil and I’d hate being given a worse tool for the job. They’re your people, but surely image quality is only one feature. If your shots are constantly soft, or late because your waiting for focus, or worse, you cannot call for a slow zoom in, that’s not improvement?

Ordinary cameras also balance better, so are you going to have to upgrade all the mounts and heads so smooth pans and tilts can happen?

Me? I’d hate it, and I’d not want to work a horribly out of place camera like this when clearly, it’s the wrong thing for the job.

My same thoughts. Who's operating this camera? I've worked with religious organizations and they usually are more keen on a setup that anyone can step in film without much fuss. Image quality isn't usually on top of the priority list. The challenge of making a "franken" kit might be a fun project for you, the usability will not be great. If you ever watch pro event operators they have a comfortable setup with the controls at their fingertips that they can concentrate on just following the action.