Has anyone here switched from 5D3 to GH4 for weddings?

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Craig McKenna

Really? I think high ISO is the one main issues for a lot of people when considering shooting with M4/3. If they can double performance in this area, moving from acceptable 3200 to 6400, then I think many people will raise their eyebrows and take note. Thus gaining them more sales.

A shallow depth of field can be achieved with one of the great prime lenses that are available, along with major advancements in recent years with regards to autofocus, lens selection - with the introduction of the pro zooms - and ultimately, video features / codecs.

I'm not saying ISO isn't important, more I feel lowlight isn't a priority for Panasonic and thus any improvements will only be marginal. Maybe they'll prove me wrong with the next camera..... The problem is for Panasonic, the micro 4/3 is always going to face an uphill battle with lowlight over fullframe. The larger the sensor, the greater the capture of light. Any innovation will only be matched by Canon and Sony making similar advancements, so it will always fall short no matter how much they invest in it.

As for depth of field, I own the Voigtlander 17.5, the Panasonic 25mm and Olympus 45 and 75. Only with the 75, can I get the sort of real smooth background I've seen on a Canon 5d. Now some say this is good thing, but there are times I like to throw the background out of focus completely without being so far away. Not knocking the other primes as I love them too. For Receptions, I'm frequently using the 75 for beauty shots of the guests when I have the room. This time of year, this isn't always the case.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

As for depth of field, I own the Voigtlander 17.5, the Panasonic 25mm and Olympus 45 and 75. Only with the 75, can I get the sort of real smooth background I've seen on a Canon 5d. Now some say this is good thing, but there are times I like to throw the background out of focus completely without being so far away. Not knocking the other primes as I love them too. For Receptions, I'm frequently using the 75 for beauty shots of the guests when I have the room. This time of year, this isn't always the case.

To get the same DOF as the Canon 70-200mm F/2.8L at 150mm the Olympus 75mm would need an aperture of F/1.4 rather than the F/1.8 it actually possesses.

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

To get the same DOF as the Canon 70-200mm F/2.8L at 150mm the Olympus 75mm would need an aperture of F/1.4 rather than the F/1.8 it actually possesses.

To be honest Nigel I wasn't being that precise in my comparison. Just suggesting to get creative with depth of field with micro 4/3 you need a longer focal length than fullframe, such as the 75mm.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

To be honest Nigel I wasn't being that precise in my comparison. Just suggesting to get creative with depth of field with micro 4/3 you need a longer focal length than fullframe, such as the 75mm.

I was just pointing out that even with a longer focal length that it's actually impossible to achieve the same shallow DOF of the full frame with an MFT lens.

[Ger Griffin]

I just love the fact that my footage is good to go straight from the card with the 5d3. Colors , detail etc. all seem to hit that sweet spot (for weddings) straight out of the camera.

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Ger Griffin

I just love the fact that my footage is good to go straight from the card with the 5d3. Colors , detail etc. all seem to hit that sweet spot (for weddings) straight out of the camera.

My own personal preference. If I was going to spend 3-4k on a camera, I'd go for the C100 over the 5D. I just feel that if I'm going to spend that much hard cash, I'd want a camera that's been designed for filming rather than photography with ND Filters, good range of control via buttons rather than menu and the ability to attach multiple audio sources. I can accept my GH4 for not looking like a Professional camera even though it films like one, because I only paid a grand for it. When the time comes to shell out £3000 or more, I'd be looking at something more professional. It's a shame the mark II doesn't have 4k otherwise I'd have ordered one like a shot. Sony have the FS7; just a bit out of my price reach. Maybe it'll come down in price... I wish.

[Ger Griffin]

For me Id take the 5d3 (with ML of course, but not neccessarily raw) over the c100. Apart from the price difference the crop factor would annoy me now at this stage having worked with FF for the last couple of years. A lot of the lenses I use when on FF have this swirl effect to the bokeh thats nowhere near as pronounced when on a crop body. Its a look Ive fallen for now at this stage and would miss a lot.
Of course not everyone would see these little reasons to be enough to swap systems, but they may be enough to convince someone not to swap which is where Im at at the moment.

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Ger Griffin

For me Id take the 5d3 (with ML of course, but not neccessarily raw) over the c100. Apart from the price difference the crop factor would annoy me now at this stage having worked with FF for the last couple of years. A lot of the lenses I use when on FF have this swirl effect to the bokeh thats nowhere near as pronounced when on a crop body. Its a look Ive fallen for now at this stage and would miss a lot.
Of course not everyone would see these little reasons to be enough to swap systems, but they may be enough to convince someone not to swap which is where Im at at the moment.

Fair enough; can't really argue with that. It's important to be happy with the quality of your work. I quite like the look of 4K, though not everyone's cup of tea, but then some of my non Wedding work benefits from detail.

[Craig McKenna]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

I'm not saying ISO isn't important, more I feel lowlight isn't a priority for Panasonic and thus any improvements will only be marginal. Maybe they'll prove me wrong with the next camera..... The problem is for Panasonic, the micro 4/3 is always going to face an uphill battle with lowlight over fullframe. The larger the sensor, the greater the capture of light. Any innovation will only be matched by Canon and Sony making similar advancements, so it will always fall short no matter how much they invest in it.

Very true. The A7ii has IBIS, which I assume is sensor technology borrowed from the OM-D? Hopefully Olympus will release a 12 megapixel video camera using the same sensor tech as the A7S in the near future. I'm uncertain as to what IS possible, but I'd like the think that was by my own logic.

Otherwise, you're right... and low light is so important for weddings, that I think I can see myself switching systems if Sony offers 4K in the next A7S... otherwise, I may spring for a C100 eventually... but whatever you choose, there seems to be drawbacks.

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

My own personal preference. If I was going to spend 3-4k on a camera, I'd go for the C100 over the 5D. I just feel that if I'm going to spend that much hard cash, I'd want a camera that's been designed for filming rather than photography with ND Filters, good range of control via buttons rather than menu and the ability to attach multiple audio sources. I can accept my GH4 for not looking like a Professional camera even though it films like one, because I only paid a grand for it. When the time comes to shell out £3000 or more, I'd be looking at something more professional. It's a shame the mark II doesn't have 4k otherwise I'd have ordered one like a shot. Sony have the FS7; just a bit out of my price reach. Maybe it'll come down in price... I wish.

I agree with all of this post, 100%. In some ways, I wonder if there's a point in having a better camera than a GH4 for filming weddings... it's a great camera!

[Ger Griffin]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

Fair enough; can't really argue with that. It's important to be happy with the quality of your work. I quite like the look of 4K, though not everyone's cup of tea, but then some of my non Wedding work benefits from detail.

Sure and when Im faced with a corporate job I now feel I must shoot in RAW on the 5d3 otherwise Im just not providing the quality thats on par with the current standard. I do believe shooting 4k on the gh4 is a more logical and effective solution to shooting raw on the 5d3 if detail is the primary concern.

[Michael Thames]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

I feel the same way, I love the softness and color of the 5D3 it's great for close ups. I don't think the GH4 would be very flattering to a brides face without a softening filter.

I too have survived the propaganda Youtube comparisons.

[/QUOTE] Just one other point on softness, Photographers are taking photos at Weddings with resolutions far greater than 4K. Are they all softening their images to compensate?[/QUOTE]

I just remember when HD flat screens came out, the news casters complaining about how much make up they had to put on..... ha ha!

My Ex-wife and I started a Magazine here in Santa Fe called "Local Flavor" the very first issue featured a women who owned an up scale restaurant. The photo was a close up of her face and she was in her late 40's. After the first issue hit the news stands she was very pissed, we featured a close up of her face and plastered it all over town.

[Adrian Tan]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

Just one other point on softness, Photographers are taking photos at Weddings with resolutions far greater than 4K. Are they all softening their images to compensate?

Well, I think they're all going to work with blemish removal. I certainly do when I have close-ups of women's skin, be it face, arm, or foot. Discolourations, dry patches, moles, bumps, wrinkles -- gone! (The problem then is: how much can you remove without turning them into different people?)

Blemish removal aside, it's true -- photographers usually seem to be in love with sharper and sharper prime lenses, and are going to lengths to sharpen even more in post. The commonest trick seems to be duplicate, apply high pass filter, set blending mode to hard or linear light. Some people go further and give their photos more of an drawn, illustrated look.

But is video the same, looking better when sharpened? Or does sharpness make a video more video-like? Or does it not have any effect at all? I genuinely don't know.

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Adrian Tan

But is video the same, looking better when sharpened? Or does sharpness make a video more video-like? Or does it not have any effect at all? I genuinely don't know.

I think there's a difference between detail and sharpness. Interstellar was shot I understand on 70mm film, which I'd imagine is a lot more detailed than 16mm film, yet both are still film. What constitutes film like is a tricky one to answer. The Hobbit received complaints of looking video like, which was blamed on the 48fps, yet I've seem 24fps video look like video and not film. I quite like plenty of detail in my video, especially in the wide shots, which is why 4K interests me. It's a personal aesthetic and not one I'd expect others to share as I agree softness has its places too.

Originally Posted by Craig McKenna

I wonder if there's a point in having a better camera than a GH4 for filming weddings... it's a great camera!

GH4 is a great Wedding camera, but less good for other types of shoots. I'd like a C100 with 4K, but Canon aren't going to oblige just yet. There's rumours of the 5D Mark IV for Easter. What's interesting is that whilst some feel it will have 4K, there are strong counter rumours suggesting that it won't. Another site has just published an article suggesting Canon are no longer interested in video in their Photographic cameras, preferring to direct video users to their Cinema Camera Line. Given the C100 Mark II doesn't have 4k, would Canon undercut it with the 5D Mark IV having 4K.

So my question is, should the Canon 5D Mark IV not have 4K, would it make a difference? How many existing 5D3 users would consider jumping ship say if Sony released a fullframe camera with internal 4K recording. Would it mark the beginning of the end of 5D use in Videography, or would the owners of the 5D3 still upgrade to the 5D4 if only for 50fps in 1080p. Is 4K all that important that it'll leave Canon behind or will they still have a strong corner of the video market?

[Noa Put]

There definitely is a difference between added sharpness or real detail, especially downscaled to 1080p 4K can look pinsharp, or should I say pindetailled :) even when I zoom in on a 4K image up to it's native resolution it still looks as sharp/detailled as my other 1080p camera's. Does that mean I always shoot 4K? No, I do with my ax100 as I use that one primarily during the ceremony and I reframe and crop when needed but my gh4 I have used in 1080p mode for my last 2 weddings as for many shots I didn't see the benefit shooting 4K because I had to match the camera up with other 1080p camera's. In some shots it shows when I match 4K downscaled with 1080p and I rather prevent that.

Only when I feel 4K has a benefit, like when I want all the detail I can capture or when I want to be able to re-frame and crop in post I"ll shoot 4K. Also when I have to shoot at max iso, like 6400 I prefer to shoot 4K with my gh4 and downscale in post as it looks cleaner then my gh3 because the grain gets smaller as well.

[Ger Griffin]

Just in relation to detail. Id be of the belief that people shouldnt be portrayed larger than a scale of 1:1
Putting a persons face closeup on a 42 inch screen will never flatter. In the near future I think we'll have to bear this in mind. Especially when 4k screens become the norm. We will have to retrain ourselves on how we should be framing our shots.