No argument here regarding the AF100, nice cam if you can afford it. But you still need lenses, of course. You still need to outfit the AF100 with a decent microphone, and lenses will cost a couple of thousand. Your looking at $6400 investment, or much more if you buy fast lenses. I personally can't afford it.

For $999 the same chip is available on the GH2, but if you cannot deal with the form factor, the smaller cam will do you no good anyway. (I think it's the same chip. It's definitely the same size.)

Conventional DSLRs have never interested me. That's where the GH2 comes in: it is not a DSLR, it just looks like one. It is optimized for video and reportedly has the fastest auto focus on the planet, so they say.

The GH2 might make a good second cam for your AF100. The GH2 has stereo mic input (true, it's a mini plug, but that doesn't bother me), touch screen focus and the list goes on.

One thing I especially agree with you on, is the form factor. On the other hand the prospect of having a DSLR form factor that will allow my wedding folks to feel more much more comfortable for candid shooting than a video camera does sounds good to me.

For all of my talk about the above camera, I still have many questions that must be answered before I take the plunge. It is still not a true video camera and as you infer, the form factor would be very odd to say the least.

And lastly, as has been dutifully pointed out, it is not easy shooting with these things. I'm only hoping this new camera will be "easier" to use then the current crop of DSLRs that people have been shooting with.

Hi Jeff, Don't know if you plan to shoot solo but I can give my point of view based on my own experience so far as a solo shooter when using a dslr. I did purchase a 550d almost a year ago and currently I am looking to replace my xh-a1 with another newer model but it's going to be a real videocamera, not a dslr.

Now first of all, I would never ever do any full dslr shooting for weddings alone, those dslr's don't give me the realtime controll like I get by using a "real" videocamera, it takes more time to set up your shots and for getting it right with virtual no setup time with a dslr is asking for trouble, with my xh-a1 I have some piece of mind that a dslr never could provide me in run and gun situations.

For businessevents however were I do have the time to set-up and where audio can be a less important factor I have started to use my dslr for about 90% and my xh-a1 10%
For weddings it's still 70% xh-a1 and 30% dslr where those 30% is almost only "beauty" shots (don't know the right name for it in English but I think that's clear :))

dslr footage, eventhough I do notice that my xh-a1 produces sharper images when viewed side by side and up close, can look very sharp in full hd on a full hd screen. It's the combination of color, dof, and different lenschoices that can give a dslr a look that's almost impossible to copy with any videocamera in it's price range.

I did purchase 2 second hand nikon nikkor lenzes ( 28mm f2.8 and a 50mm f1.4) and I am also using a 10-22 canon lens that actually belonged to my wife (not anymore now :D). Recently I got a blackbird steadicam as well to combine with the 550d/10-22 lens and that's the last investment I will make in regard to my dslr. I do use the dslr for some very specific shots and I try to shoot complete parts of a wedding day f.i. like a photoshoot, reception (where it can get real dark) but a church recording or in any run and gun situation or when audio is needed it's back to my main videocamera. I avoid to mix xh-a1/dslr footage as much as possible because it's harder to match.

This has worked out very well so far, I absolutely love my blackbird/dslr/10-22 lens combo, it's very light and I can get realy cool shots with that, below something I did recently, basically as test and partly just for fun and this is where those dslr's really shine. But then again, I realy toke my time to prepare each shot, only then it works out great.

To look at it in HD you have to go to the vimeo page direcly..


On the other hand I also noticed that a shot is easily ruined, especially with wide angle lenzes where moire can get very noticeable when you got very fine detail, like small bricks, in the back.

I would see a full dslr wedding only possible with at least 2 and preferably 3 cameraoperators/dslr's, respect to those that do this alone but I would never do this.

A perfect situation for me would be a Panny AF100 combined with my 550d with some good (expensive) lenzes so I could exchange lenzes (not sure if that's possible but that would be a bigger advantage) but I almost would have to break the bank for that and I"m still thinking very hard if it's worth the investment. I think if you plan to go full dslr anyway, don't save out on the lenzes, they make a difference. (the man behind the camera even more :)

ps: sorry for any spelling errors, my spelling checker is not working on this pc :))

Noa, thank you for the thoughtful feedback. I really appreciate it.

Your video was amazing, really. Too many cool things to mention, but they way it appeared that you went practically flying out the door was way awesome.

I wholeheartedly agree with this regarding the Canon DSLR's - but I think the AF100 and GH2 have enough features that they can be used exclusively by a single shooter. You would need quite a few cameras though, maybe even up to four.

I would picture one main rig, with a good, fast zoom lens, perhaps with a follow focus, and an audio recorder recieving feeds from a shotgun mic and a wireless, all mounted on a tripod on some kind of shoulder mount/handheld rig. Then a 2nd camera on a monopod, again with a nice zoom lens, and if you really want to impress then a camera on a steadycam with a wide lens, sitting ready and waiting for particular shots only. The final camera would be your wide/safety camera. Round off the kit with a few audio recorders to stick on the lecturn or the officiant for extra/back-up sound, and you have a rock solid kit with all bases covered by reserves. The only problem I see with this set up is that the shotgun mic would pick up noise from the lens as well as the little control dial on the GH1/GH2, so you'd have to be aware of that when making changes and not do it at critical times when you can't afford to edit out a sound source.

Four cameras may seem excessive, but when you consider you that you can get GH1's body only super cheap right now, and you'll already have all the necassary lenses in your kit, additional bodies are not a bad idea. They can save you time changing lenses, tripod plates etc. With the set-up I described above, I would imagine you'd have the tripod camera set up inside ready to go (but obviously not yet in position in the aisle) then you could shoot everything up until the brides arrival with the monopod and steadycam kits. Once she is on the alter, move the main rig into position in the aisle, frame it nicely, check the audio levels and leave it running. Then you could grab the monopod/steadycam rigs again to move around the location and shoot some nice cut-aways and beauty shots, checking back on the main rig from time to time to reframe, monitor levels, etc. All the while having the 4th camera and audio recorders running as backup.

Only problem would be packing it all up quickly afterwards - might be helpful to have a nice padded case big enough to fit all your kit in, even without fully packing up the tripods/monopod/steadicam.

John, I'm glad you listed your ideas of how to shoot with the cams. You can't have too many cameras, but in my case I'm dealing with the reality of a limited budget. A fourth cam would be out of the question for me, in my price range.

Two cameras with fast zoom lens, and one with a wide angle would be sufficient. The camera in the back would have the wireless, the first camera would have a shotgun, and then use a recorder or two and I'd be good.

That wide lens would be fine for the exterior shots of the venues, the cake, and other shots. The wide lens would also be great for the dancing as well, along with a second cam with a zoom.

I'm glad you think the GH2 is feature rich enough that it is feasible for single shooter. I haven't played with one in person, but I've been hoping they would be user friendlier than the Mark 5 and 7, etc. It certainly seems to be. I also hope that the LCD is accurate so that I could accurately make adjustments on the fly. One reviewer has written that it is very much WSIWG, as it displays what the sensor is seeing, not what the lens is seeing.

Do you find that to be true regarding the LCD display? Is it reliable enough to trust for setting exposure and white balance, in your experience?

I found an excellent post before on another forum explaining the best way to match cameras. I have matched my XHA1 close enough to use on a wide angle while recording good sound. Basically the software that comes with the canon 7d allows live viewing of the 7d on the computer screen as you adjust picture presets. Setting up my XHA1 to capture in premier and sizing down & rejigging the windows allowed me to display live, both cameras pointing at the same subject on the same monitor. This is the best way to match cameras.
What it leads to is a trusty reliable camera on the job with you covering everything. Very important IMO

Jeff, I've had no problems judging exposure on either the LCD or viewfinder. I use the viewfinder more, becuase I often use it outside in bright light. On either display you can have a live histogram which can be a big help too. You can also see the EV meter (even when using manual lenses) which is great as it essentially tells you what the camcorder would do if it was in auto mode - so then you can feel all smug when you tell the camera that you know better.

The GH1 is very user friendly. From the moment I took it out of the box everything just made sense. With the 5dmkII I borrowed however, I had to stop every 30 seconds and ask the owner a question. "How do I put it in movie mode? How do I start recording? How do I change aperture?" I'm sure whatever camera you own becomes second nature pretty quickly but the GH1 seemed to immediaely make sense without having to read through the manual.

Having said that, the 5dmkII's reception footage was fairly breathtaking, espescially compared to my V1p. While I would love to be working with footage from a 5dmkII on every wedding shoot, I think the GH1/2 is a better middle ground between the DSLR's and camcorders, offering some of the big sensor benefits but without completely compromising usability and other features.

John, thanks for your reply. I've been looking at Panasonic lenses and the offerings are limited. This is a drawback. They are all slow, save for one I've found, but it only works on a DMC-GH2K.

I'm wondering what a GH2K is vs the plain GH2. I would look at other lenses, but am I wrong to want full functionality? I want the auto focus and auto exposure features, which can't be had otherwise.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/484209-REG/Panasonic_L_X025_25mm_f_1_4_Leica_D.html This is the first lens I would buy, but I'm not sure if it would retain auto focus feature on GH2. If anyone has this lens let me know how it works for you!

Actually, I'm not sure the above lens even has auto focus, I think it does not. Fantastic lesns, but without autofocus what a waste of the GH2 autofocus/autoexposure features.

Fast (native) lenses is the biggest problem with micro 4/3rds right now. You either have to choose between having autofocus, or getting fast manual lenses and throwing away some of the biggest advantages the GH1/GH2 have over the Canon's.

I think the 'K' on the end of GH2 denotes the region. I know all the Australian GH1's had the 'K' suffix, so it could mean it's the PAL version. I'm sure if a lens works on a GH2K it will work on any other GH2 body no matter what region it is from.

I seem to recall reading something about Panasonic making a m4/3rds version of the lens you listed. I could be wrong or thinking of a different lens, but it might be worth doing some research and waiting a little before buying that one, as a native m4/3rds lens would likely have better autofocus (hopefully).

exactly, plus inability to find on the market fast IS zooms for M4/3 keeps me with the Canon

Buba, glad I'm discovering this now, not later!

John, I'm looking at the 20mm f/1.7 which looks "ok". For the money it is nice. It is such an odd design, but that is apparently what a pancake lens looks like.

Canon lenses are my favorite, and a couple of Sigma's I like also. I feel as if I may still go forward, but I need to nail down at least some kind of game plan before I move forward!

I just put the latest magic lantern onto my T2i. Man its good. Focus peaking works well on it and its still in the early development stage! These guys are geniuses (or is it geniuii?)

Jeff, its the T2i with the Magic lantern firmware hack installed on it that you should be comparing to the GH2.

Ger, does the T2i have continuous auto focus? Is the LCD usable for movie mode, i.e., does it have live view for video?

Buba, T2i doesn't have continous autofocus, or even auto focus in movie mode...is this correct?


Edit: I just saw that it does have live view in movie mode, but no flip out screen like GH2. It T2i doesn't appear to have auto focus in movie mode, and of course no continuous AF. That is too bad, as the T2i has a larger chip, less moire, and is 18mp for stills. Really nice camera.

Regarding synchronized audio, that's not necessarily harder on a DSLR than on a proper video camera, and there's something to be said for having separate audio sources at weddings regardless. But granted that having all the features traditional video cameras offer is a big plus, and shooting live events with a DSLR can be a hassle.

Ger, I've been looking at the T2i per your post, it seems very good. Manually focusing just seems too much for me. I can handle starting out with auto and them moving to manual as needed, but my with my poor eyesight I have issues focusing on things quickly with my eyes, etc.

It seems if the T2i and GH2 were taken and the best features of each were to be combined into one camera (a Canon so we'd have lenses to choose from) it would be sweet. Unfortunately that's not happening.

I'm still shopping lenses. The Panasonic website is not working for me, I cannot access all of the lenses to see what is available, frustrating.

Actually the T2i has more moire. They both have alisaing, but it appears much more often in real-life scenarios with the T2i than the GH1/2. With the GH1 you don't get the horrible chroma moire which shows up as purple or green patches which are very obvious. On the GH1 I have to look for the aliasing and normally only find it on things like power lines, diagonals, etc - but that is the same with all HD cameras I've used.

Audio can be done, whether into the camera or a seperate recorder, but it's a hassle and an expense. It's not just the fact that you don't have XLR inputs or manual gain on the camera - it's that you need to get a big rig to mount all your audio gear on, and that an onboard shutgun is often useless because it picks up lens/camera noise (unlike video cameras which are designed to be as silent as possible), and that the more complex rig is slower to setup, etc etc.

It's funny because now that DSLR's have come along, so many people are claiming it doesn't matter that the cameras don't have good audio because everything should be shot with dual system anyway, and people should never use the onboard XLR's on a Pro camcorder except for sync. Those people are ignoring the fact that after 30+ years of video professionals trying and testing systems and equipment, they've come to the conclusion that for most things, onboard XLR is not just adequete, it's ideal - as well as faster, easier, cheaper and more reliable (in the sense that if you are recording video you are also recording the sound you're monitoring through the headphones/meters).

Actually, I only saw one comparison video of the T2i and the GH2, and the moire was pretty bad with the GH2. but non existent on the T2i footage...as you say it's present in all of them to one degree or another.

What was the comparison video of?

As I said, they do both exhibit it espescially if you are shooting test chart. So will my V1p or your FX1000's or any other camera to varying degrees. In real life scenarios, though, the T2i is far worse.

It must be said though that its a lot worse in 720 50p mode than 1080 25/24/30p

After spending days researching the cameras, I might wait for the rumoured Canon mirroless EIS 60. If the rumours are true, and some details have been leaked, it will be quite a camera, and will supposedly have continuous auto focus. They are also reportedly developing lenses for it. They are also reportedly designing an EIS to EOS lens adapter.

The issue as I see it: By the time I'll be ready for a second camera, the Canon will be available.

The GH2 is a great camera, but I cannot get past the lack of available fast lenses. Panasonic is enjoying early success right now, and has been extremely innovative. Unfortunately for them, Canon will not continue to lose market share without a fight.

Canon will respond to the GH2 with a vengeance. The GH2 is selling so fast it cannot be kept in stock anywhere. This cannot have gone unnoticed by Canon.

I just hate the idea of waiting months, as my current cameras are dropping in value every day.

I'm pretty sure Canon lose sales with their 1.6x magnification factor (mf) chip to those manufacturers that have plonked for a 1.5x mf. Then Olympus and Panasonic come along with a 2x mf and I switch right off - as I did when half frame 35mm compacts and SLRs came along in the mid 60s.

tom.

I know what you mean Tom. Wait till Hasselblad offer RAW video from their digital cameras!!!! ( like thats ever gonna happen)
I think a lot of the indie filmmakers love the 1.6 crop. apparently its the same sensor size as a 35mm film frame would be.
For me the brighter while noise free the better. Thats what floats my boat too.

Jeff the magic lantern team are developing a focus peak type feature for the T2i. I have tried it and it does work. basically you get what looks like interference when things are in focus. Is it good enough? you'd have to judge that for yourself. I'll manage with it but Im not totally bllind yet :)
The only thing I would say is don't expect any camera at this point in time to have autofocus as good as you might be used to with smaller chip cameras. The dof is just to shallow to be able to track things accurately continuosly. Admittedly I havent used a GH2 so would be curious myself as to how good autofocus is on it. I just cant imagine any of them being very usueable in a professional capacity (including that new canon EIS 60).

I don't know Ger. Reviews on the GH2 autofocus is pretty positive, but again, I don't know.

Jeff, before you go the DSLR route make sure you try out the particular model of your interest before parting with your money. My impression with DSLRs as a commercial video tool is far from good. I'm not talking about the IQ issues as compared to the IQ we are more used to seeing from traditional 1/3"-2/3" video cameras. You can talk all day about it but I don't see it as the major issue with video DSLRs. My real gripe with using DSLRs to shoot video is the handling. I will point out the two major areas for you to concentrate on when you get your hands on testing a DSLR for your work.

First, the AF. Coming from the experience of constantly or even occasionally relying on the AF system in the likes of Sony FX1/Z1, newer Sony models like the Z5, NX5 up to the EX1/3 or similar Canon or Panasonic models, you will find the AF system on ALL the current video DSLRs simply useless for serious work. I've found the AF systems that come closest to being useful is the systems in the Sony A33/55 series and the Panasonic GH2. Closest here doesn't mean they are actually useable in the field like autofocusing with one of the handycam video cameras. The problem is the physics of DoF from the larger sensor sizes and the optimization of the AF algorithm to suit both still and video photography.

Second, think about how you could keep your footage stable while you have to manually focus the lens, still photography-style, with your left hand which you also need to prop up the camera for stability. Servo zooming with either your left or right hand? Sorry you're out of luck. I still haven't gotten past the use of riding the iris wheel or ring to control the exposure, the use of levels of ND filters to control excessive lighting or where to grab you camera for low-angle or tracking shots etc. and you get the picture.

You could practically overcome the above downsides and make video DSLRs a workable option but not until you have paid at least 2-3 times the cost of the camera for a quality rig and accessories to pimp your naked camera and lens up to the level that allows you to access and operate all the necessary controls without ruining your shots. Worst is, by the time you get there, your budget DSLR will become as (if not more) bloat as a badly-designed shoulder-mount 2/3" video cam.

Wacharapong, your words of caution are duly noted, thank you.

Are you using the GH2? I had thought it had autofocus that operated by touch screen (touch the point on the screen you want to focus on). So it sounds like you're saying that it doesn't focus accurately, and still needs to be manually focused?

Please clarify if you don't mind.

The touch screen AF works similar to the "Spot Focus" feature long included in most higher-end compact Sony Handycam models. What you do is touch on the subject you want to be in focus within the highlighted frame on the LCD screen and the camera will lock on that subject, keep it in focus while it moves around. This works OK to some extent but is not a substitute for manual focus for the following reasons:

-The touch area does not cover the whole LCD screen (roughly about 3/4 of the screen area judging from my brief experience with the camera).
-The system is good at maintaining focus on the chosen subject but not suitable for situations that require you to change focusing point frequently. The transition is not very smooth as it almost always is in the Sony's Spot Focus system though the focusing itself is reasonably quick. It's kind of jumpy. This may be because the depth of focus is far more limited compared to that of the compact Sony cams. Perhaps the lens on the camera I tried was not a lens optimized for shooting video (it's Panasonic Micro 4/3 14-42mm or maybe 14-45mm zoom, I can't remember).
-In wide shots with deep DoF it's often very hard to tell from what you see on the 3" LCD screen if the subject you've touched or something somewhere nearby is what the camera really is focusing on.

And focusing is not the only issue. Let's assume you can manage it. Now the thing to worry about is how to keep the shots steady, not classical Hollywood granite steady but steady enough to keep your clients' attention on the memorable once-in-a-lifetime moments instead of annoying everyone who watches the video with shaky cam movements. Even with the OIS in the always-on mode, I found the footage played back on the store's 46" LCD screen not really steady despite my careful movement of the camera. The stabilization system did help but was nowhere near the levels achieved by cheaper small handycams like the Panasonic TM/HS700 series, the Canon HFS series or the Sony CX/XR series.

Go to the store and try one to see for yourself. Ask the salesperson there if you could shoot some trial footage to your SD card so that you can bring it home and see how it looks on your monitor.

Jeff, Have you read this rewiew? Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 review: design, screen, viewfinder, AF, movie mode, continuous shooting, sensor | Cameralabs

It shows example video of touch focusing.

Norm

Hey Norm, good looking out, thank you!

I actually got my hands on one last week (to play with only for an hour).

The auto/touch focus is wonderful, I love it. I had planned to wait to see what canon is about to come up with. In the end, though, I decided the footage from this camera and most like it will match pretty well, so I'm waiting for one to come in locally.

I'm absolutely sold on it. I"m planning on buying a Cam Caddie with accessories and the Marshall monitor as well. I am super pumped.

I'll take a look at the review, but I think I might have seen it. I've read SO many!

Thanks Norm!

OK, time for an update. So much of the responses and conversation in the thread went right over my head, I couldn't fully appreciate everything that was said without actually having the camera.

Some of the cautions that were told regarding focus issues you just have to experience to appreciate.

I have the camera, and a last minute wedding, and I am concerned, to put it mildly. I sold my large cams, and am stuck with using the GH2 as a primary camera!

There's no need to worry about keeping things in focus. They won't stay in focus, period! So you have to adjust focus constantly. Auto focus is fine, when it's not changing contstantly!

I may borrow a friend's camera for insurance, as there is no way I can trust myself with this camera as a primary.

I should have three cams for the shoot, so in the end everything should be fine.

Re: Going DSLR for wedding videography
 

Likely everyone reading this has been slammed with magic lantern talk and how great it is, but I didn't see any mention of it on here and didn't want anyone to be misinformed. I saw a ton of talk about the 12 minute 4 gig limit and overheating. With magic lantern this isn't really an issue. There is a setting that automatically restarts video. Sure there is a 1-2 second break, but aren't all wedding videos cut every few seconds anyway. Overheating isn't an issue either as there is a setting that allows you to turn off the lcd, and tests have shown it can run for over half an hour without overheating issues.

I heard many people talking about on the fly adjustments. With the most recent build you can adjust iso and kelvin white balance with the press of an arrow button, no menus necessary. White balancing with the beautiful 1000+k resolution lcd is great. Magic zoom, which places a picture within picture on the lcd puts up a 5 x picture of selected focus point for amazingly fine tuned manual focus. I could go on for days talking about the marvels of magic lantern and how it has made the 550d a full on professional rig, but you can just google it.

Call me a fool, but I like to have to manual focus. Once you get good at it you will wonder why you ever used autofocus.

Re: Going DSLR for wedding videography
 

I got good at manual focus but auto focus beats me every time. It knows which way to turn the lens ring and doesn't need to rock 'n' roll when it gets there as mere mortals need to.

Re: Going DSLR for wedding videography
 

I have to agree that I'm getting used to manual focus, and I'm liking it more and more. The 12 minute limit is what kept me waiting for the GH2 and I can't imagine having to sync up footage from three or four cameras in 12 minute increments, as I will be running three of these cams for weddings, and four. The hack sound nice. I just discovered the GH2 has a button for screen magnification which has made my life SO much easier, especially for long shots. Glad the 550 has it also.

Re: Going DSLR for wedding videography
 

[QUOTE=Jeff Harper;1631152 I can't imagine having to sync up footage from three or four cameras in 12 minute increments, as I will be running three of these cams for weddings, and four.
[/QUOTE]

Jeff, have you heard about the Plural Eyes software? Check it out. It does the syncing for you automaticaly and very accurately.

Re: Going DSLR for wedding videography
 

Thanks Spiros, I've heard of it, but not looked into it. My footage usually runs non-stop for ceremonies, and I leave the cameras on during the reception, so syncing is not "usually" an issue.

But what a helpful tool Plural Eyes sound like.

And now that I think about it, I'll want to limit my recording since I will have to transcode everything, so I might just need plural eys after all!

Re: Going DSLR for wedding videography
 

I am using Plural Eyes too. Let's say.. it's magically sync over 90% of the clips. Some will still fall here and there. I can live with that as it already save a lot of time in manual syncing.

However, it doesn't work all that well with Premiere. After reimport back to CS5, all the stereo tracks split into 2 mono tracks. Then the audio level yellow line disappear from the clip. That's annoying. But I learn to work around that issue.