![]() |
Re: Camera size no longer important?
Quote:
Great camera you have there... for corporate work. I think I'd rather mine be a tad smaller for Weddings. |
Re: Camera size no longer important?
Quote:
|
Re: Camera size no longer important?
Hi David
I have yet to see a wedding guest sport anything better than a palmcorder with a flip out LCD screen and hold it in one hand to film the speeches from a back table. However plenty of people have quite fancy DSLR's and I remember one guest that had a huge Canon tele lens that he struggled to hold and also seemed to find no space to put it down when he was done! It certainly dwarfed the photogs Nikons so that's probably more of an issue than video! I expected comments from people when I moved from a shoulder mount Sony to my Panasonics (which actually have a slightly bigger body than the GH4 so would appear significantly larger than a GH4 with a pancake lens!! However no-one has said a word and I've used them at 4 weddings now ...if they did I don't care anyway as the IQ blows the Sony's away so they are keepers!! |
Re: Camera size no longer important?
Quote:
|
Re: Camera size no longer important?
Quote:
|
Re: Camera size no longer important?
Quote:
|
Re: Camera size no longer important?
Hi Steve
Plus 1 for me too!! My Sony EA-50's were twice the size (if not more) than my Pannys and the image quality is 10 times as good! I could manage 3200 ISO on the Sony yet on a camera 1/4 of the price I can shoot at 6400ISO .. and yes the Sony's were the same as well ..3 x ISO presets only ..on the FZ's I can scroll on the thumb wheel to whatever I need instantly!!! Bigger and more money doesn't always mean better!! |
Re: Camera size no longer important?
Quote:
|
Re: Camera size no longer important?
Quote:
Bottom line, if bang for your buck is your goal, the GH4 smokes the C100, but when it comes to features, and price doesn't matter, I'd take a C100 everyday. |
Re: Camera size no longer important?
Unlike the Canons, I find that great footage from the GH4 requires work and comittement to it. It took me several months of experimentation to find settings I liked and low light of any quality relies on a good range of lenses. The lack of internal ND is a negative but resolved with a variable ND that has a bonus in that it can be minutely adjusted whilst filming as you go from light to dark scene, something my af101a and I assume the C100 can't do as the change of ND is quite obvious on screen. I use it a lot.
Touch screen is a bonus in that you can tap something and focus shifts to what you've touched. It works very well and very quickly. As for the lack of xlr inputs, bit of a sore subject for me. I was using my xlr inputs on my af101a on a days filming at Vet School last week. The speaker had a wireless mic I had plugged in but during the shoot, the battery died for no reason at all. It was half way through its cycle, so in hindsight connecting to a zoom recorder would have guaranteed audio throughout and would benefit from not relying on me to be filming to have it recorded. Plus the avchd files have to be imported from the card folders or else there's this small fraction of a second gap between each file, something my GH2 doesn't suffer from and yet the AF101a does. Quite irritating. I hate avchd!!! All cameras have their pluses and negatives, but its not just bang for the buck that has me choosing the GH4 and I shall be replacing the af101a with the GH4r very soon; but its small size and features wins me over every time. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:35 PM. |
DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2025 The Digital Video Information Network