Which camcorder to shoot weddings?
 

I'm shopping for an event camcorder; weddings and Bar Mitzvahs. Is the DVX100A a good tool for capturing weddings?

I'm concerned that the lens' zoom range is insufficient in a large church. Also, given the lack of exterior space on the camcorder, what's best place for a wireless receiver, camera light and battery?

And finally, if the DVX100A isn't a good tool, what other camcorders are good for weddings? I've used the DVC200...a wonderful camcorder for weddings...but my budget isn't that generous.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Bob

There are good wedding cams for the money:

Sony VX2000/VX2100
Sony PD150/PD170

I own both a DVX100A and VX2000 but when its time for a wedding I leave the DVX100A at home.

All four cams that Frank mentions are noted for their above average low light peformance and that will help you when you're are at the mercy of a dim ceremony or reception with little to no control over lighting.

I just shot a wedding this past Saturday (as a wedding gift for the bride) and as usual my VX2000 came out like a champ.

I think the DVX100A is the better cam in just about every other aspect other than low light performance compared to the VX/PD cams. Either way you're getting a great cam no matter which of these you purchase.

JVC GY-DV5000 with FUJINON s20x6.4BRM-SD lense. Actually it is my big camera configuration. 8 )

Leigh, I believe JVC GY-DV5000 is around the same price as the DVC200 and out of Bob's budget. Nice cameras though.

I'm thinking a Panavision 35mm would make the bride look halfway decent.

Then you'd have to spend big bucks to have it converted to VHS. There goes the profit.

I just shot an out door wedding with the DVX100A in 30 fps progressive mode and the footage turned out quite stunning. I switched to 60i for the reception and was not as impressed in the low light as mentioned in other posts. Even with an onboard light I had to crank in 12 dB of gain. Footage wasn't bad but I wished I had one of the Sony's for the reception.

Ideal situation would be to have both cams for the options. I used a DVC30 for a second cam during the ceremony but I'm not sure how much better it is in low light than the DVX so I didn't use it during the reception. Has anybody used the DVC30 in a low light yet?

I'm using a Canon GL1 and a GL2 and I'm happy with the image quality from this combination, plus they both have a full 20X optical zoom range. The GL2 is noticeably better in low light and has handy audio controls with an on-screen audio display, and if you buy the shoe-mounted XLR adapter that gives you a perfect spot to mount a wireless receiver. The GL2 can also shoot 16:9 video which is reportedly fairly decent, although I haven't tested it for that purpose. And it shoots one megapixel digital stills to an SD memory card, if you have any desire to do that.

All in all the GL2 is a big improvement over the GL1 and suits me nicely for event work. I bought mine a few weeks ago for under $2000 after a Canon rebate, and I doubt you'll find many better cameras in that price range.

Bob, don't take my sentiments in the other thread that I'm downing the DVX100. It is indeed an excellent camera- I once use to shoot wedding with it. I just feel that each camera has it's strengths and weaknesses and it just so happens that the PD-170/VX2100's strengths are ones that are helpfull to the event/wedding videography genre.

I'll break down my take on the DVX100:

Pros
- Very high amount of in-camera image adjustment
- The ability to shoot 24p
- True zoom lense, not zoom by wire
- Stock lense is quite wide and good for shooting in expansive churches

Cons
- Not the best low light performance
- 24p is definitly film'ic but it doesn't lend it'self very well to slow motion, 60i is much smoother
- Despite the fact it has a real zoom lense it's dials feel sloppy and there is a noticable amount of play in the zoom ring
- Tele is a bit short at only 10x
- The highly regarded "cinegamma" setting crushes the highlights a bit. The brightest brights seem to overexpose a bit early. Lack of dynamic range?


What I like about the PD-170 (some soley opinion)
- Has the ability to shoot DVcam (I know not all find this an advantage but for really important shoots I go DVcam to greatly lessen the possibility for video errors ..ie dropouts)
- Produces the cleanest image with realatively high gains applied, hence it's ability to peform in low-light. Try comparing low-light reception footage from a VX2100/PD-170 to a DVX100/DVC80...there's no comparison.
- Despite it doesn't have true manual lense adjustments the dials roll smooth as silk and offer a good resistance. Rack focuses are cake.
- Color rendition. To me the PD-170 offers the most neutral color rendition out of all the cams I've shot with....with the XL-1s being on the opposite spectrum offering the most color casted results (very warm).
- NP-960 batteries....the longest lasting batteries for a camera in this class. I charge one of these and it's good from the start of the day in the salon with the bride- all the way to the end of the night at the reception when the lights go on and the DJ is kicking people out. I still had a marked 200 minutes left. That's another bonus...with Sony Info Lithium batteries you'll get an actual "minute" reading for how long the battery has left.
- It has a longer zoom than the DVX100, at 12x. Doesn't sound like much but equates to a considerable amount when in the field shooting. It's not as wide as the DVX100 lense but Sony packages a Wide-Angle adapter lense with the PD-170 kit!
- No lense cap. No more fiddling around with the lense cap in hopes you won't lose it. The PD and VX now have an integrated lense cap in the lense hood that can open and close at a flip of a switch. Also the lense hood is made out of a rubber composite which can take bumps and bangs if need be. I've heard stories about people cracking the stiff rigid lense hood on the DVX.
- The LCD, while it is considerably smaller than the DVX's LCD it's much crisper and easier to lock focus on. Plus it's a "hybrid" lcd (whatever that means) which allows it to be plainly visible even in the brightest direct sunlight.
- Audio controls. Some people may favor the separate dial approach but I actually favor the setup on the 170. You can "lock" both left and right channels so you don't have to fiddle around with two separate knobs hoping to get them matched correctly. The knobs on the DVX are recessed and a bit akward to make fine tweaks on. The PD has a very smooth notchy knob (you feel soft clicking as you roll it) giving it a much easier operation.


If you want I'll be willing to post some stills from wedding shoots I shot on my PD-170. I'll gladly match them against any wedding stills taken from a DVX100. I'll post both bright sunlit images and dark reception footage as well. That way you don't have to take my word for it- and you can draw your own conclusion.

DVX100A for weddings
 

Glen,

Thank you for taking the time to write such a comprehensive review of the PD170 and its application to wedding videography.

It's always good to hear from actual shooters rather than magazine reviewers whose objectivity may be compromised by advertisers.

One of my concerns is the "stepped" manual iris control. Last month, I shot with the PD150 for the first time. I utterly rely on manual iris for proper exposure in conditions where the light levels are changing...and the 150's stepped iris resulted in jumping video levels. It was jarring.

The PD170, I understand, is still a stepped iris but with twice as many steps as the PD150. I'll have to take a 170 out for a test drive before buying one.

Bob

Well dialing the iris up and down DURING a shot isn't good videography to begin with. It's best to set up your composition and exposure before you start capturing the content your going to use.

I, myself, rely on manual iris, as I do manual focus, manual audio levels and so on.

I suggest you try them both out- you don't have to take my word for it. I have no doubt if you try both your mind will be set. I tried both...mine is. Good luck- keep us informed with your decision.

>> Despite it doesn't have true manual lense adjustments the dials roll smooth as silk and offer a good resistance. Rack focuses are cake.

Glenn, I just don't agree with that. Yes, the rings glide smoothly, but, as an example, when you do a crawl zoom, it just doesn't respond well. And as for rack focusing, it always been a shot in the dark (hoping for the best). Unless of course you know something I don't; in which case, I'd like to know your trick.

You've seen some of my work correct? I often do rack focuses on the fly. I don't have any special technique- I never found any problem doing them.

Crawl zooms are even easier. I feel (meaning this is my opinion) that the fact that the zoom ring is zoom by wire it buffers any shakeyness or abrupt changes in a slow crawl. I found the DVX zoom ring provided practically no resistance, and felt very loose and sloppy. In addition to that it was super sensitive. Loose and sensitive aren't a good combo.

Glen, was that the original DVX100 or the DVX100A?

It was the original non-A version. I toyed with the DVX100a in B&H and it the lense rings were the same.

they shouldnt be...
the same that is..

ive got both models here and i jsut been giving tehm the once over and its true that the 100a has a taughter, more refined zoom ring. The focus ring is identical though.

I also like the new scratch proof viewfinder.. my old one has a zillion hairline scratches from cleaning :(

Maybe the demo in B&H was beat up from all the handling. Them making the zoom ring tigher is definitly a good thing.

I'll go with Bob and say that the stepped manual iris control on my VX2000 is its biggest failing. I too use locked exposure (not just locked aperture - a completely different thing) at weddings, and there are many times when - although locked - the aperture must be changed to take into account varying lighting levels, shooting into as well as with the light and so on. I hate the half-stop bumps that the Sony puts into my footage, and the PD170 goes a long way into correcting this design failing. Note that the VX2100 still continues with the old half-stop bumps, so I've stopped recommending this cam.

But when the light levels drop (as they invariably do at weddings) you'll be so pleased you chose the Sony over the Panasonic or the Canon. The low-light capability of the VX/PD is unmatched, and however nice your DVX100A is out in the sunshine, when you're using +9dB of gain up in the dim vestry you can only wish you had a Sony at zero gain. DVDs just hate gain-up.

The other thing is that the Sony's 6 to 72mm focal lengths is much more useful for weddings I find. Such long focal lengths (combined with powerful Steadyshot) allow terriffic differential focus portraiture to be shot, and weddings is all about portriaiture I find. OK, I hve to have a 0.5x wide-angle to hand, but with the DVX100 I'd need a wide-angle AND a telephoto converter, and at a wedding ceremony if you're fiddling about changing lenses you're not paying attention to what's happening all around you.

Go for the PD170 I say. The discounts at the moment make this the buy of the decade. A truely wonderful aquisition tool that'll last you for years. And you'll never be thinking - Oh, if only I had more light...

tom.

Glen


I caught your review on the last page about the PD170 vs the dvx 100. For weddings, why would you say the PD170 is better than the XL1s or XL2, and would you say it is a major difference or more personal preference?

Thanks so much. I'm now deciding about what set of camcorders ot stick with and it has been some tough research.

I am going to get beat up here I can tell, but if you are on a budget a Sony VX3 takes the cake. I wasn't sure if I was going to want to do this for a living so I did not want to spend a lot of money and I was looking at the panasonic gs 3 chip cameras when I came across the much older VX3 with 1/3 inch chips. I did my first wedding video and I cringed when they turned off the lights for the dancing but I did not have to worry the footage came out fine. As far as transfering from the HI8 (I also want to add that I never have to change the tape durring a ceremony because of 2 full hours of recording time) I use a transcend tv box, it cost me about 60 dollars and can record in DVD 720x480 mode onto my computer which I can then access directly with my vegas 4. I hope this helps somebody and dont flame me too much for not shooting in digital

<<<-- Originally posted by Patrick Moreau : Glen


I caught your review on the last page about the PD170 vs the dvx 100. For weddings, why would you say the PD170 is better than the XL1s or XL2, and would you say it is a major difference or more personal preference?

Thanks so much. I'm now deciding about what set of camcorders ot stick with and it has been some tough research. -->>>


It's both. I personally prefer the design of the smaller form factor 170 and the color reproduction. The XL-1s produces image that are way too warm. You can even see this in color charts when they review cams. The XL-1s is more expensive and needs a bunch of add-ons to make it as usefull as the PD-170. It doesn't have XLR inputs...you have to shell out for an MA/300-500 and then you still going through a standard RCA into the camera. The zoom and focus motors make a great deal of noise on the XL-1s...enough to be heard when shooting in quieter environments...you then have to buy a mic isolator to aleviate that problem. Then there's the HUGE issue of low light performance. The XL-1s is terrible in low light- not only does it get grainy but the image becomes muddy and the colors start to oversaturate.

The 170 gives very neutral color response- ie Grey looks like neutral grey and not yellowish/reddish grey. The 170 has a fixed lense which is a disadvantage but it's fixed lense is better than the stock lense included with the XL-1s. The low light capability is incredible. Crank the gain up to 12db with no added noise. Colors don't oversaturate in darker environments. The 170 also has built in XLR inputs, and the ability to shoot DVcam. Lastly it also includes a w/a lense adapter....all for much less the price than the XL-1s.

I'm not saying this with any bias- I've shot with both- my first 2 years shooting wedding videography was with Canons (XL-1s and GL-1s). The Sonys are so much more fit for this genre.

I challenge you to find anyone that has shot with both and prefers the XL-1s. And I don't mean just picked up and played with, but actually shot several full jobs with both cams. There's a reason the PD and VX are the most popular cams for this genre.

XL1 in low light
 

I shot my first wedding last weekend using an XL1, an XL1S and a third small Canon. Canons look red anyway and low church lights aggravate this. I was disappointed with the graininess of the 6-12 db gain I had to use. I don't shoot a lot of low light stuff- I prefer to light things. But churches don't let you do your own lighting in a lot of cases like this one. The Sonys are probably a better choice here.

Ken, great post and I've had similar findings with the XL1s compared to the VX2000/PD150.

When you're at the mercy of an irrational bride or mother you just have to roll with the amount of light given. I have had some cam footage (Sony PDX10) that was a complete waste of tape.

Oddly, my wife looked at the XL1 video and commented on how "warm" and "nice" it was. Which is exactly what Canon wants you to say! The light in the church was extremely orange and the rear camera was so far away I couldn't zoom close enough to get a good white balance so I left it on auto. I tweaked the heck out of the back camera's video in Premiere and got the color to match the other two but it wasn't fun or fast. You mentioned the oversaturation on XL1s in high gain. I experienced that as well. What also showed up was a tiny burn on the left side which I'd never seen before. The project will look fine but I sure learned a lot.