Anyone filming weddings with a GH1

[Jeff Harper]

John, I previously posted that you were working with a not-so-great lens, and I'm mistaken, sorry. You mentioned the 14-54, and I was thinking Panasonic 14-45 or 14-42, which while usable, definitely are not great.

You later said Mark II and I then realized I didn't know what I was talking about. For your shoot in the above video you were actually using a Zuiko. I looked it up and it looks nice for the price, Especially for wide shots. I would not hesitate to buy one for use in cramped quarters, for our work it would just be slow at times when light is low. Is that pretty much your experience?

[John J. Arnold]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

John, I previously posted that you were working with a not-so-great lens, and I'm mistaken, sorry. You mentioned the 14-54, and I was thinking Panasonic 14-45 or 14-42, which while usable, definitely are not great.

You later said Mark II and I then realized I didn't know what I was talking about. For your shoot in the above video you were actually using a Zuiko. I looked it up and it looks nice for the price, Especially for wide shots. I would not hesitate to buy one for use in cramped quarters, for our work it would just be slow at times when light is low. Is that pretty much your experience?

Except for perhaps the dimmest of venues, I think it's fine for most situations, especially with the GH2 (since I can bump up the ISO higher than I can go on the GH1). On the wide end, it's great and reasonably fast. And I use the GH2 telephoto feature a good bit, so that I can double the focal length on the long end as well.

[Gary Hanna]

Originally Posted by John J. Arnold

Thanks Jeff. Funny you mention new lenses. I just received my Olympus 35-100 f2 this week, and will be hopefully getting the 14-35 f2 later this summer. Not to knock the 14-54 Mark II though - I really like it and find it quite flexible (especially with the telephoto feature on the GH2). I also use my Panny 20mm and Sigma 50 mm 1.4 a lot.

And Patrick, thanks for watching!

I have ALWAYS wanted to see the 14-35mm in action on a GH2, ditto for the 35-100. Had the Mark II 14-54mm, great lens, but found myself needing continuous AF for glidecam work so went with panny's.

Just curious, why'd you get the 35-100 first? Think I'd get the 14-35 for prep and the fact you can get a bit closer for receptions when it's really dark. 35-100 would be good for churches but you could probably do just fine with a 2.8 zoom or faster primes than f2 (most churches aren't too bad lighting wise vs. the reception)

[John J. Arnold]

Originally Posted by Gary Hanna

I have ALWAYS wanted to see the 14-35mm in action on a GH2, ditto for the 35-100. Had the Mark II 14-54mm, great lens, but found myself needing continuous AF for glidecam work so went with panny's.

Just curious, why'd you get the 35-100 first? Think I'd get the 14-35 for prep and the fact you can get a bit closer for receptions when it's really dark. 35-100 would be good for churches but you could probably do just fine with a 2.8 zoom or faster primes than f2 (most churches aren't too bad lighting wise vs. the reception)

Definitely agree, I'll use the 14-35 more day to day, but I just couldn't find it in stock anywhere, so went ahead with the longer lens and plan to get the 14-35 when I can find it. Which lens are you using with AF on the glidecam?

[Brian Luce]

I haven't had any Moire issues with my GH2, how about you wedding shooters who often film moire prone subjects such as bridal veils? Any moire problems?

[Gary Hanna]

Please post footage from both f2 asap! Don't think there's a single sample on the GH2/Gh1 with them.

Using 14-42 kit. It's really sharp luckily. I'd get a higher end 2.8 zoom, but none of them autofocus or not as well. Usually I use primes indoors or if it's too dark.

[Jeff Harper]

I use a Tamron 28-70mm F/2.8 zoom for receptions, works pretty well. No auto focus, but I don't mind.

[Gary Hanna]

I use a Tamron 28-70mm F/2.8 zoom for receptions, works pretty well. No auto focus, but I don't mind.

How's the range? 2.8 is a bit slow though.

[Jeff Harper]

The Tamron is definitely not fast, it is certainly no F/2.0. But I went with the Tamron as well as a Sigma 18-50mm F/2.8 due to price. Keep in mind when I purchased these I was outfitting four cameras, not one or two, and price was a big factor for me. I also have a Canon 50mm F/1.4, the 20mm F/1.7 and 30mm F/1.4 to help out.

The zoom I listed above are far from ideal, but for someone who wants/needs a zoom, at around $400 to $500 they are pretty good. The Sigma cost me $400, and the Tamron I forget, but I think it was a little over $500, maybe $600. Not great lenses, but they are great values, and do the job. They are why I use light stands, and two to three lights at my receptions!

[Jeff Harper]

Here are screen grabs from wedding Saturday taken with a Canon 50mm F/1.4, a Tamron 28-70 F/2.8, and a Sigma 18-55/F/2.8.

Admittedly the conditions were pretty good, and not as dark as we may often enounter. The screen grabs are washed out, and the actual video has more contrast, but you get the idea.

[Patrick Janka]

Jeff, what lights are those you use at the reception?

[Jeff Harper]

I use three different ones, a Comer 1800, a Fotodiox I'm not particularly thrilled with (it was supposedly daylight balanced but is still bluish and irritates photogrtaphers) and another cheapo large led. The Comer is best by far, of course.

I also have a 2'x2' softbox I will take on occasion and it produces stunning results, but cannot be used most times. But when you put it up 9' high, it is the bomb and gives almost a studio quality to dance footage. I'm thinking about a 1'x1' softbox that will be more flexible and usable at more venues.