Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

I would think that the best tool is being used by the leaders in our community. If you look at them, they are using DSLR's (some migrating towards C300). The market rewards those that move forward. If you look at the knot in major metropolitan areas, dslr companies are showing up everywhere. I read posts from traditional videographers that times are tough, but ignore the competition, that are doing well.

I bet that the infocus awards next year will not have a single traditional videocamera winner.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Interesting observation Greg and I'm right with you. I've just had the honour of being part of the final judging team at this year's IAC international film competition, and the DSLR productions took all the top slots and all the major prizes. DSLRs tend to force the cinematographers to take more care, to set up the scenes, to plan more carefully, to take their time. They know what they want pictorially and it shows in the beautiful imagery up there on the big screen.

But the reason that Jeff and I and Noa and David all use and love the traditional videocamera has nothing to do with the above, and has everything to do with the very nature of wedding and event videography, where unexpected things happen at unexpected times right throughout the day.

Brides and grooms don't hit their marks, and nor will they wait for the audio to be set up, cameras to cool down, cards to be changed. It's for this reason alone that the camcorder has its place - it's almost unfailing ability to be 5 different DSLRs in one. Lens adapters and DSLR contraptions (for that's what they end up looking like when assembled for run 'n' gun) do have their place, but my contention is that getting that one beautiful pictorial shots means you miss 5 others happening all around you.

But what great times we live in. The tiny SD900 can work alongside the EX3, the 5D2 alongside the Z1. The best tool for the job is out there, giving quality results unimagined 5 years ago.

tom.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

I don't know who you have seen shooting weddings with a DSLR but it's the wannabee filmakers who pimp out their DSLRs with rails, follow-focus, matter box & all that other junk. You don't need any lens adaptors if you use the lenses designed for the camera (we use Canon 'L' lenses on 5D2s & 5D3s). Shooting events properly with a DSLR is done with minimal extra gear with at most a loupe & monopod/tripod. Even aside from the beautiful images they produce the key advantage of using a DSLR for video is simplicity & flexibility. It's a new style of shooting that makes you think more about framing & what you are filming rather than just letting the camcorder run on auto-everything.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Er - I don't know any camcorder wedding film-makers who run on 'auto everything' Nigel, do you? They won't be here, that's for sure. And I assure you that when a DSLR (rather than my NX5) is held between my palms it doesn't 'make me think more about framing & what I am filming'. A viewfinder is a viewfinder, both are inanimate idiots until a brain points them in the right direction.

tom.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

I suspect all that is happening here is that few people have both kinds of kit available to them in similar qualities, so their viewpoints are honest, but based on partial evidence.

I'll explain what I mean. If you have a very good quality traditional, large shoulder mounted video camera, and perhaps a DSLR possibly without a video facility, you simply cannot imagine how anyone would possibly be able to use one properly. You will have seen the narrow depth of field, and sighed in relief that your camera normally used doesn't exhibit that because you remember the hundreds of times you've struggled with jobs to maintain decent depth of field. This would be me, I think - remembering all the times I've done theatre stuff in very low light with the lens wide open and struggled to keep everything sharp - really hard work. Some of us tried Sonys when the EX-1 came along and found it very awkward to use because it was in front. Many of us have also had long lenses on our still cameras and found them unwieldy and difficult to keep steady. These reasons overshadow completely any positives with picture quality. Only yesterday did I realise one popular DSLR had the bottom end filtered off the audio - which to me, seems crazy. So I am biased. I look at the DSLR users and even without the crazy gizmos they attach to a small box, I just view the system as flawed - but note, flawed for me.

The users of DSLRs who love them, also get familiar with the downsides (which of course my own big cameras have plenty of) and concentrate on the positives - for them, shallow DoF and the big chips mean they love the images and excuse everything else. The end users of the products love or hate the products we produce because of content, not really quality, so to a degree, their input is flawed.

I cannot even consider buying a DSLR for video because for what I do they really would be a step down, not up. I need certain features that they don't have - so that is why they are out for me. In the last 5 years, I think I've needed shallow DoF once or twice, and using the lens open, plus a bit of cheating in post did it. Every single other production I have done wanted sharp focus, everywhere, all the time.

So there are two camps, with strong people in each one. A few flit from one to the other. Maybe we could adapt, but we don't want to try. I have physically big cameras on my plus list - with some small versions for PoV and B cam. I don't have a DSLR. Some DSLR owners have one of those, plus a small auto type camcorder, so their dislike of non-DSLR is perhaps because they are comparing DSLR with handicap types. I'm comparing my cameras with the video version of my stills only DSLR which means I'm not comparing like with like. We all read the reviews of the 'other' type and pick out the negatives and ignore the positives - that's just how we do it. I will not be buying a DSLR, but that doesn't mean people who do are wrong. I find the faults/features not what I want.

I suspect strongly we're discussing the merits/disadvantages of beta v vhs, or even Ford v Vauxhall - where the real answer is never anything other than opinion with no real substance.


We now have so many different video production tools, maybe we just need to pick them for specific projects and accept there is no single one that does everything?

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

David Chien for one. Autofocus is top of that long list he posted of the supposed advantages for a camcorder closely followed by autoexposure. Plenty of camcorder users take advantage of the auto functions even if they claim to run everything on manual.
Composing for the edit is different when shooting video with DSLRs. Almost by definition it must be a multi-camera shoot as there is more wasted footage because of issues with focusing, lack of motor zoom & all those other things that make using DSLRs challenging. You are always thinking about framing, cutaways, what shot will follow the next etc. You can't just have a camera on a tripod with a single viewpoint relieved only by some zooming back & forth to re-frame the subjects. Well you could but then it would be as boring as all those old style wedding videos shot with a camcorder. I am not saying that you cannot produce lovely wedding videos with a camcorder of course you can but they do allow lazy camera operators to just coast along producing uninspiring videos whereas with a DSLR there is nowhere to hide as you have to concentrate so much more on what you are doing to produce acceptable results.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

The bottom line in the "debate" to me seems to be exactly as Greg F has pointed out.

You look at what the leaders in the field are doing. In the wedding biz, the leaders are using DSLRs.

I agree also very much that DSLR shooting causes you to shoot completely differently, just as described. I've experienced it.

I still shoot, even with DSLR style cams, pretty conventionally, but I'm very slow to pick up new things, it's an age thing, sadly.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

I must be an exception then since I work with 2 dslr's and 2 videocamera's during a weddingday, both used in the right place and time as I work alone. I am thinking all the time about framing, cutaway's or what shots to take next and each time thinking about how I will be using those shots in the edit. Why would you even think a videocamera would make you lazy? Because it has automodes? My dslr has auto ISO as well if needed, does this make me a lazy dslr operator? My videocamera's are on manual everything 90% of the time and the other 10 procent it's ONLY autofocus because there are certain situations (and this I know by experience) my videocamera can focus faster and better then I can.

I use my videocamera mainly in areas where I cannot afford any mistakes and a dslr is being used in areas when I have the time to set up right, when light is low, for creative shallow dof shots or when flying a small light steadicam. The only biggest negative difference I see is that a dslr is MUCH more difficult to operate as it simply is not designed to be a videocamera.

I think you should stop putting a label on the person behind the camera just because they don't use a dslr, I have been saying this before and keep on repeating it, it's the person behind the camera that makes the difference, the camera itself is just a tool that helps you to make that difference. There is an equal amount of weddingvideos done with a dslr on the net that look amazing as there are that look like crap and the same applies for a videocamera, one last time: it's the person behind it that makes the difference...

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Noa I totally agree with what you are saying you particularly We use camcorders too for what they are good at e.g. big motor zoom up on a crane or locked off wide. We use DSLRs for what they are good at e.g. cool arty shallow DoF or ultra low light. I was responding to a long list of why only a camcorder with auto functions was the correct tool to use for shooting weddings. There are some people who just don't understand why anyone would want to struggle with a DSLR to shoot video just as there are people who think any video camera is a toy if you don't carry it around on your shoulder.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

i have both dSLRs and Camcorders and i reckon the biggest thing for me is the form factor. I've tried taking stills with one of the Camcorders, a shoulder mount with still capture facility and I just didn't feel right with it, the still camera is so much more ergonomic for stills, but not as good for video without changing the form factor!
two different tools that can do similar tasks, it's up to the operator to get the best out of them.

R.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

We need to understand that DSLR and video cameras are only tools.
I have been using both, the 7D and the FX-1000, even though my primary is the 7D.
There were times I knew that there is no way I can follow focus with my 7d, especially when there is so much movement in a small space.
As well, when I shoot by my self, I will not use DSLR for the ceremony or reception.
The times we are 3 videographers then it is 3 DSLR and 2 FX-1000
Lately I started covering the dancing only with FX-1000, I fell I get much better footage then the 7d for that scenario
The 7D is a great tool for me and I have been capturing great images with it, but i do feel that I can do even better with the FS-100, and the fact that it is $4000.00 over the 7d does not bother me since I fell that I am getting my money worth.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Lol. Guess many skipped over my target market? The sub-$1000 crowd, often sub-$500 per wedding. The points I gave were for shooters coming from that point of view.

Yes, my recommendations would be different with unlimited budgets-roll in the Arris or Canon 300s on Steadicams. But, my target market isn't paying for that equipment.

The equipment they will pay for through the fees I can charge them means camcorders over DSLRs. And one shooter because of that, too. At most, a voice recorder up set aside up front because the more gear setup everywhere simply means the more tied down I will be if something comes up-eg sudden changes in schedule to pack and move on.

I'm not afraid to use AF almost all the time because I know from the ol' Canon AE-1P days that for events where everyone's moving about-parties, graduations, etc-a good AF camera/camcorder does it faster, more reliable, and in lower light than I can see clearly in. This doesn't mean you can't follow focus a bride and groom as they walk and dance at f/1.2 - it simply means it is not as easy to do so reliably across a variety of situations quick enough.

The Canon Instant AF feature using IR and passive focusing works! Everyone snaps into sharp focus in less than 0.5 sec. day or night, moving or not. And the tracking as they approach or change distance is just that-rock solid reliable.

What all this automation allows is that I can focus on more important things as a lone shooter-getting a good shot.

I do lock down color balance for consistency. Shutter speed when it gets dark. But not having to worry about general exposure levels, dof, etc works for me. (zebras on just in case for a quick ev comp, but camcorder usually is smart enough)

Now, is this going to beat a $10k+ job with multiple DSLRs, camcorders, wireless mics, multiple shooters? Let's not kid ourselves. My clients aren't paying for that level of quality, coverage, or equipment or labor costs. They're happy with what I demo and produce for them because I let them know upfront what it would really cost and take to do pro level work (and some even turn me down after to look for higher end videographers-thank god I showed and taught them what to expect at various price levels. Not just get ripped off with a one-set-price).

I was clear from the start who my clients are. Other, more generic posts-oh, all top shooters use dslrs-really fail to differentiate what kind of client are you getting at what price point to make the roi possible. We can all say that with an unlimited budget, roll in the cranes, helicopters, 35mm sensor cameras, stedicam operators, wireless mics, wireless hdmi transmitters for the broadcast quality, liveswitched, one day.

But, really? None of my clients can afford that. As the price point drops, moving to more reliable, automated equipment simply helps ensure delivery on a tight budget, one-manned.

At most, I'd tripod an extra camcorder wide as a backup, but camcorders are so reliable, practically unneeded. Batteries and cards fail more often! But again, my clients accept this up front,I tell them clearly it's a one man, one camera shoot because they're cheap/can't afford much, so no backups. I even tell them how they can go cheaper if family can hold their own camcorder, too.

And unlike others, I tell them they only pay upon delivery. If I don't make it or video is lost, they pay nothing.

So clearly, everything's out on the table upfront, and none of my happy clients complain later because I'm totally clear what to expect at such low price points. Not DSLR like, they know. Not multicam, they know. Not shallow DOF, not one has asked after I tell them "Do you want to see what everyone's doing front and back, or blurry?" Grainy at dance lighting levels, they take it or have the lights brighter.

As for moire and such, you can get that on a camcorder, too. But usually not an issue unless that hatching is just so. Nothing that can be done about it unless you have a Foveon or 3CCD sensor, and I.m sure other artifacts will popup.

In the end, with my camcorder kit, I can reliably get wedding after wedding at the low end price range, get a decent roi, and keep customers happy. DSLR? I can't even film 1/6th of a 3 hour Catholic wedding with Mass before the dang camera stops recording on its own!! Just how do I replace the unreplaceable?-at my price point, it's called a camcorder.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

60p. Right. Lcd/led tvs may display what is on the screen 60p, but the input is likely 60i for my customers on dvd players. 60p merely increases the bitrate, without doing anything for such viewers. Even those with Bluray players must also need 60p tvs, which is a very small subset, if any, of my customers. Most tvs they have are years old, just a small handful have Bluray players.
Thus, 60i being universal is the easier and best pick of frame rates period, ime. Easier to process, render, output w/o worry as to what it'll look like client side.

And this week, nhk japan.having demoed their latest 145" 8k! Super HDTV setup with 24 channel sound, I'll just hold off on anything but 1080i for now. No point, at my price point, to be going crazy with 60p, 4k, etc.

What will get me more $ is an idea to bundle an inexpensive BluRay player +BluRay video for $100. If I make $50 or so off this, easy 10% bump in profits. (assuming $500 job) Doesn't make much sense if the clients can't see HD, having only DVD players

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

True, but why wouldn't your target market just buy a $300 camcorder for their cousin and have them record it?

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

I don't know David, I'm not high end, and 90% of my customers do have bluray. I ask them before I burn their videos, and nearly everyone I've shipped, particularly over the last couple of months, has wanted a BR disc. Of course Cincinnatians tend to be homebodies and big tv watchers, which may explain a lot.

Additionally, DSLR style shooting can inexpensive. For example a $900 GH2 outfitted with a 25mm F/1.4 lens can be used for getting ready, photo session, and as a wide cam for your ceremony. At under $1500 you have an amazing low light camera that will blow away most any sub- $5k video camera's image quality. Put a shotgun on it, which I do, and your ready to go.

I use a prime lens for all my getting ready footage now, the image quality is just too good to pass up. Even though my shiny new XA10s are great, they cannot touch the GH2s footage in many circumstances.

I think it's important to have an open mind. If you're in the sub $1K market, by investing a small amount you can produce videos that will allow you to increase your prices.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

I think that all depends where you live and what the "culture" is towards weddingvideo, where I live at least dslr's don't justify higher prizes, here they are just surprized when you say you use a dslr but they certainly won't reach deeper into their pockets. At this moment I stopped mentioing to my clients what gear I use unless they ask, instead I just show my demo's.

I see it more like I choose the tools that work best for me, taking into account what people averagely are willing to pay and then investing accordingly. I use dslr's together with videocamera's just because they are so cheap and help getting shots in areas where my videocamera's fail.

I shoot alone as well and I think that we all know what the consequences are if your camera fails, had this happening to me one time years ago where my brandnew xh-a1 failed to transfer footage to a brandnew unused mini-dv tape (expensive "hd" branded tapes) and I lost nearly one hour of church footage. I can tell you it was the worst day in my career having to tell the client what happened. Right after that incident I bhought a external recorder to attach to my xh-a1 and I bought a second small b camera, these where 2 costs I didn't plan for but I didn't care, I felt I needed to do whatever possible to prevent this from happening again. It just shows videocamera's are not fail-safe either. Only if my client asks what I do to secure their footage (a valid question for a videographer that works alone) I tell them I have 4 camera's (a canon xh-a1, a sony xr520 and 2 cheap 550d's) with me all day so in worst case scenario I have enough backup. Yet still any camera can fail (like my xh-a1 did) but I never tell them, I can only hope they don't.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Noa, you misunderstood my comment. I said with DSLR you can produce videos that will allow you to increase prices (ie., better looking samples which will bring in clients willing to pay more).

Higher quality work draws clients with a more to spend, but you cannot begin down the road to moving up in price until your work reflects a higher quality. That's all I was saying. My friends here that bring in $3-5K for 20 minute wedding videos have high quality sample on the web that draws customers and causes buzz on their facebook pages and blogs.

You are right that in certain areas the market is limited for sure, but mine is not one of those areas.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Hey Jeff

I do understand David's comments about target markets and also yours about DSLR's like the GH2 being a cheap alternative...Brides over here are mainly budget people so if they book it's often a sub $1K package that attracts them. I think there is a big gap between the "video at any price" and "normal" brides..the threshold here is probably around $1500 tops ..My standard package for a wedding is $1400

I tried upping prices with more cinematic looking and creative footage about 2 years ago and the orders just vapourised..probably because I had placed them into a dead zone...under $1500 and you are in the market for low end stuff...push the price to say $2K and you are simply just expensive but I'm sure that a $4K tag and pristine footage would attract the brides that want to pay more.

Now, do I want to shoot 5 weddings a year that are in the $4K bracket or 30 weddings in the $1.5K bracket..I know I can easily achieve the $1.5K target BUT I really have no idea if I would even get 5 weddings a year doing high end...it's untested water!!!

Brides here never, ever ask what cameras I use...(In fact I have been using a GoPro Hero as a back camera mounted 20' up in the air and they love the footage...cost ?? $400!!!!) If shooting with DSLR's would assure me of 30 weddings a year at $5K a pop ..I would be on it in an instant ...!!

My attitude is that I use the tools that work best for the job...when I shoot the bride a video guestbook during pre-dinner drinks ..yes, I shoot on full auto and it works everytime...there is no time to setup when you have to grab tons and guests and make them stand in front of the camera and talk.

My ceremonies are in full manual of course as are speeches but stuff like the first dance I shoot in full auto but I do have the ability to over-ride at any time with lens rings on the 130's

Chris

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

I did not misunderstand, here you can't charge more because you use a dslr, clients don't care what you use to produce your videos. If those "top" videographers that charge 5000+ for a wedding would live in Belgium 98% of their assignments would be in another country, that I can assure you.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Hey Noa

It must be a USA thing!! Brides here also have no idea what camera you are using or how many!! As long as they look pretty and the bridesmaids too, they are happy..all they want is a record of your day....Now, if you shoot with DSLR or video and you forget to film Grandma when she asked you to, or try to put events out of order, THEN she will have something to say!!

I think I have had one groom who asked me if my camera shot in HD..otherwise they just don't ask and they probably would be put off if you started telling them how great your gear is!!!

Chris

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

I know of exactly one Belgian wedding videographer that used to asked 5000 euro for a video, he didn't advertise his prizes nor mention them over phone or email, I knew what he asked because some of the brides that went to him and got a quote at his place ended up with me instead. :)
Now he does advertise his prizes and they are 50% lower and he doesn't use dslr... He does photography as well and I will bet that's his main income.

video's like a "save the date" which have been popular in other countries for years are very difficult to sell here, because I wanted to see if there was a market for it I gave one away for free last year, you know how many applied? 2 couples.... and it was on my site for 3 months. This year I already have received quite some bookings for weddings, how many are save the date? None, and the save the date video I got now as demo on my site was done with dslr's only.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

i think it's similar here in Ireland, most Brides couldn't care less what you record with as long as you can come up with the goods!
Due to our small population and our economic circumstances, I don't think theres too many operators here asking above €2000/3000 and getting it, most would be in the €1000 and lower bracket if at all.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Using DSLRs is all part of trying to improve the quality of the videos we deliver to clients. Video is stuck in a low rent ghetto where the photographer gets paid more than the videographer even though more time & effort goes into producing a quality video. The video isn't valued in the same way that the photo album is & to change that perception we need to deliver a product that is significantly different to the traditional documentary style wedding video. Here in the UK a wedding video has only ever been chosen by a small minority of couples even if they are quite prepared to pay for a photographer so the market is open for the vast majority of weddings that don't have a videographer. However this market is not going to be cracked by offering the traditional style as that has been rejected but by offering something different that will be valued in the same way that the beautiful photo album is valued

The message is slowly spreading that there is another option than a cheap wedding video. We did a wedding show at the weekend & had one bride specifically ask if we did a cinematic highlights trailer with audio from the day woven in with music etc Brides are getting savvy about DSLRs & book us because we use them rather than the shoulder mount cameras some of our local rivals use.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Isn't it a bit late in 2012 to still not see where our industry is heading? Where was everyone when the leaders in our community revolutionized the wedding film industry many years ago?

Do names like Konrad Czystowski, Ray Roman, Michael Y Wong, Joe Simon, Stillmotion, etc. ring any bell?

If your market still doesn't see the value in your work and is still paying the photographer more than you, maybe it's a good sign you need to do something about it before it's too late to catch up with the industry standard.

For those who say that this "reality" doesn't apply to their part of the world, I can only see that as a golden opportunity to become THE LEADER of your market. What are you waiting for?

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

You don't change a video culture just like that, there has been change over the past 20 years here but most change is limited by the fact that people just are not willing to invest into video that heavily. I was at a city hal for the legal part of the wedding last year and we had to wait a bit, a guy working there came up to me and said "oh, video? we hardly see that here" of about 300 weddings they had per year every wedding had a photog and maybe 10% had a videographer.

Funny that you mention Joe Simon, last year I had a bride showing me a wedding video from him on the internet filmed on a boat in the ocean and she said she really liked that style and wanted her video to look like that, I said that if she would pay me 5000 euro + I'd produce her such a video but she had a budget of max 1000 euro, need to say more?

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Nobody starts out in the industry charging 10K+ for a wedding right away. We all need to start somewhere in order to climb up. It depends if you want to stay forever in the low end market and produce affordable wedding videos or if you wish to move up and become a successful wedding filmmaker in your area.

Fortunately for us, there are pioneers in the industry who have already lead the way and shown us what it takes to get there. The question is, are you currently doing something that allows you to make it happen?

Does your portfolio show work that looks like it's worth more than what you currently ask for? Does your work seem to be able to attract clients who are actually willing to pay $5-10K for your services?

You can't open a fast food restaurant and expect people to come to you for fine dining.
You can't be surprised if a customer turns you down when you try to sell them a fine dining experience at your fast food restaurant.
And you can certainly not say that nobody in your area would ever pay for fine dining if there is simply no fine dining restaurant in your area.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

They certainly won't get anywhere in my country with their prizes, believe me.

I think you don't understand but that's normal because you don't live here and don't know what our culture is towards video because if you did, you'd know it would be just wishfull thinking to get paid for a wedding video according to delivered quality.

There is a quite big Belgian wedding forum and you know what THE most asked question is in the videosection? 'I"m looking for a cheap videographer' and by cheap they mean 400-500 euro.

I'm not thinking negative but it's just reality, if you want to do weddings full time here and make a decent living out of it, by all means buy a dslr but use it for making photo's...

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

I just got my Dslr the other day (canon 60d) I have to say I am impressed. I have had a XHA1 and still currently have a Sony Ax2000. I see a TON of possibilities I can use it for. I have a wedding coming up in a couple weeks I will defiantly be using it as one of my main cameras.

Not sure if anyone said this or thought of this. I find at times when I'm using my Ax2000 people get intimidated and start to act un-natural. i haven't tested the theory yet since i just got it but i think with the DSLR people wont be quite as intimidated.

As far as clients giving you a problem with using a dslr just list all the TV shows that use DSLRs to shoot. If its good enough for Tv I think its good enough for a wedding... just a thought

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

A dslr introduces a totally different behaviour, you don't want to know how many people take a "pose" when I am filming them thinking I'm taking a picture, funny sometimes but often annoying as you have to stop filming and give them a thumbs up as a signal they can start moving again because they won't move as long as you keep looking through that viewfinder. :D

My favorite lens during the reception to film people is a 85mm f1.4 Samyang lens, with the 1.6 cropfactor I can keep enough distance without being noticed that much and only that gives "natural" behaviour.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Noa, you are right, I don't live in the same area so I might not know what it's like over there.

Like you said, we can't easily change a culture in a day or two. Just here in Canada, I would say that not even 5-10 years ago, nobody would've ever thought that wedding videos could be worth more than $500-1000. People would've probably called it wishful thinking to charge $10-15K. But success often belongs to those who dare and there were leaders in our industry who have made it possible. Today, we're all benefiting from it.

Based on what you're saying, it seems like things in Belgium are still like they were in Canada about a decade ago, so you may think it's impossible for things to change. But if you never try, you may never know...

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Hey Long

One quick question?? What now makes your videos worth 10 times the price you used to charge...surely it's not because you just happen to have a different camera...the bride doesn't really care whether your camera is a DSLR or a WXYZ ...she simply wants to see your work and decide if she likes your style.

So I can go out and buy a couple of 5D III's and some prime lenses and my hourly rate can then change from $100 an hour to $1000 an hour. I'm not saying it doesn't happen..I just want to know what physically makes your product suddenly worth 10 x more ... you might be spending a lot more time during editing, if so then I can see why you can charge more ... if editing a creative, state of the art, wedding shoot only with DSLR's takes 6 weeks to edit then you are, of course, fully entitled to LOT'S more money per job.

So, what makes a DSLR wedding worth $10K ?????

Chris

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Hi Chris,

By no means I am saying that using dSLR's will automatically allow me to charge 10 times more. Like it's been said before, they are simply tools for us to use. But looking at what leaders in our industry have accomplished, it seems to make sense to me that it's a good thing to learn the style and workflow that allowed them to get where they are today.

Over here in Canada, most wedding video companies have moved from the traditional wedding videography to the movie-like wedding films that put a lot of emphasis on storytelling and overwall cinematography. I do spend a lot of hours meeting my clients, planning, shooting and editing to produce a wedding film that I hope will entertain my clients and give them a great cinematography experience (or at least, that's my goal). Over the years, the market has also been more and more exposed to this style and has started to give it much more importance and value. It just only happened that dSLR's were decent tools that give us the possibility to get closer to the desired result.

I am definitely not a hardcore dSLR fan that would never use anything else. But until I know I can get the same or better result using another tool or another workflow, that's just how I know to make wedding films at the moment.

I think it's important to always stay open to new ideas and concepts and keep our eyes open to what others in our industry are doing so we can get inspired and learn from them to improve our own work. Until I become good enough to come up with my own ideas and find new tools for the craft, all I can do is feel blessed that there were people before me who have done great things that I can learn from, namely Konrad Czystowski from Freshsox.com who has been a great mentor to me and taught me everything that I know today.

Oh and my work is not in the $10K range yet. I was simply referring to some higher profile companies in my area who charge around that price. As we speak today, I'm still sitting between $3-8K for a wedding. But I do hope I will improve and become good enough to make something that's worth more.

I hope this answers your question.

Cheers,

Long

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Interesting, I could see in some situations where you would want people to act like that but I can see where that would be annoying. but then again I don't want people running away from the camera.

I agree with many its just another tool. give it another year two and I think were going to see more functionality out of dslrs

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Thanks Long

So is the higher price (as compared to a traditional wedding) due to the fact that the editing takes 10 times longer??? Or are DSLR/Cinematic/Film-Like producers simply charging a lot more per hour because it's creative. Surely the fact that you are holding a different camera in your hands doesn't concern the bride but I can fully understand if a wedding gig like that took up a lot more of your time or needed a crew of 3 or 4 people..compared to a traditional video solo shoot. I don't think I would want to have to involve extra shooters..more to worry about and will they turn up, will they mess up the footage???

Actually Tom one of my fellow videographers is a photographer as well and she shoots her video on a Canon 5D II...she says what really annoys her is people who come up and pose and ask for their photo to be taken!! The answer there is very easy..stick the 5D on rails and a whopping great matte box in the front and a 7" monitor on top and people will start realising it IS shooting video.

Maybe next season I should get myself a couple of GH2's and some lenses and start raising prices????

Chris

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

i can see the advantages with dslrs but they may not be suitable for everyone. i think if your a one person operation then I could see the dslr being perhaps that more difficult to set up etc.

I remember seeing thisvideo below and thinking that it was really good and I'd love to be able to produce something like this, but then i discovered that there were five camera operators and i imagine a good amount of editing.

joya and emre | wedding music video (not sure if i'm allowed to link to outside stuff - please remove if not)

its a major production, but from what i see around my neck of the woods, i couldn't see many operators being able to run something like this for a wedding.

The aspirations are worthy of merit to produce quality products but it has to be balanced by what is achievable, especially in the single operator zone!!
I'd use my 7D when I can otherwise it'll be the camcorders!

this is my 7D setup but i cant break it apart in any good time to take photographs - it takes ages to put it together too :(
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/members/...e720-rig-2.jpg

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

I love using my DSLR for getting ready and other intimate stuff. The footage looks SO much better than I can capture with a video camera. I can get by with no lights almost anytime. I also put one with a wide lens by the door at weddings to capture the processional from up close to the door, it's so small and handy.

For the reception I will dive into a packed dance floor and get awesome footage handheld, and the best part is people don't run from the dslr like they did from my videocameras.

Yes I get a rare, occasional person that thinks I'm shooting stills, but as I learn to handle the camera I have found that is almost non-existent anymore. You don't approach people head-on with it, but from an angle, almost surreptitiously, and it's not a problem. I find I cannot live without either my video cameras nor my dslrs.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Hi Chris,

I think it is safe to say that we can all look at our portfolio and compare our own work with those who have made it in the industry and it should give us a fair idea on what we can do to improve ourselves in order to get better and eventually add value to our work.

It could go from a simple equipment change to an entire new approach to the craft. What's important is to keep finding ways to improve and better ourselves. And what better way is there than to learn from people who are better than us?

And about dSLR's and shooting with a big production team, I strongly recommend some of you to check out these solo shoots here:

Carmen + Elton | Florence, Italy | shooting solo on Vimeo

jc plus esther // all 7d highlights on Vimeo

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

Thanks Long

However that doesn't answer the question in my post!! A bride will ask me "Why is your package $8K and the videographer I just saw only $2K" I could never raise my prices to that level without at least some justification and telling the bride she will get a far more creative package isn't exactly going to be convincing is it??

If I tell her "my team of 4 will give you a Hollywood style production and we have stedicams, cranes and shoot with 6 cameras and it takes our team of editors 6 weeks to craft your awesome package", THEN I have justification..... Doing a solo shoot at a hugely different price with just 2 Canon 5D cameras isn't going to convince anyone so....... what justification would I have to charge BIG prices, shooting solo????

Chris

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

I think if you are able to sell a mobile phone to a deaf person you can sell a 10k package to your clients, just trying to say that you need to be a very good business/salesperson as well knowing how to do efficient marketing and how to create an identity so people will continue to recognize you beside the fact that you can shoot and edit very good video.

The internet is the most important tool to get noticed and once you accomplished that everyone is talking about you and once you raised your prizes to a very high level, you will start to attract a kind of clientele that thinks that high prizes must mean high quality. It's the kind of people to who'm 10k probably is a small expense.

Unfortunately I"m a bad salesperson who just happens to live in the wrong country and likes to shoot video :)

As far as creating an identity my personal favorite is papercranes, their Australian as well Chris :) and they also charge high prizes, looking at their portfolio they use dslr's and they seem to be doing very well.

Re: DSLR vs. Video Camera
 

This won't answer anyone's question about charging more, but here are tips for solo shooting with DSLRs:
[Q of Week] – shooting solo – stillmotion