DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Wedding / Event Videography Techniques (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-event-videography-techniques/)
-   -   Camera size no longer important? (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-event-videography-techniques/529662-camera-size-no-longer-important.html)

Chris Harding September 7th, 2015 08:12 PM

Camera size no longer important?
 
It seems that the general bride has now come to terms with the fact that bigger is not better any more ...we all seem to be using smaller cameras and the huge shoulder mount camera weighing in at 25lbs is no longer a pre-requisite for a professional wedding video. I have dropped down significantly in size over the years and brides and guests don't really seem to care anymore.

Has anyone found any issues with using smaller equipment and get a comment "Is that what you are using for my wedding?" I found even people are getting used to having a DSLR pointed at them and they realise it's video and don't pose for a photo!!

Gosh, in the old days if you didn't have a "TV station size" camera on your shoulder and a stills camera with a honking great tele lens up front, you were not considered a professional!!

Dave Baker September 7th, 2015 11:59 PM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Hi Chris,

With the proliferation of smart phone photos and video being seen (and seen to be taken) everywhere, I guess the future Mrs. thinks anyone with a proper camera, of whatever size, must be a pro.

Considering it's feasible, though not necessarily wholly practical, to cover an event with a pocketful of GoPros, in 4K at that if they're Black edition and especially if one or two have replacement lenses for longer shots, it's probably a good thing!

Your next downsize?

Dave

Steve Burkett September 8th, 2015 12:01 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
A few years back when I showed the couple my camera gear at a pre-booking meeting, they were a little concerned and I had to explain in detail why my GH3 and GH2's were capable of obtaining Professional footage. I also use to occasionally get the Groom or male guests come over and comment on how technology is getting smaller these days, but haven't had that conversation for several year. I think so many shoot with DSLR's these days that its taken for granted. Even in the Corporate world, I'm finding acceptance of DSLR size camera. Mind most are ignorant of video. Photography though gets more snobbery, perhaps as more people have taken it up as a a hobby. A recent Wedding where the Photographer used what looked like an old fashioned film camera, but actually a more recent digital from Fuji, got a few comments from Guests particularly the hobbyist Photographers so he said, but he preferred the camera, so he let them pass.

Chris Harding September 8th, 2015 01:14 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
I must admit that moving from a shoulder mount camera to a DSLR sized machine did make me wonder about whether guests or the couple might question the professionalism of the gear but no-one said anything...in fact I can count on one hand where even grooms have asked what we shoot with.

I actually saw another post elsewhere Steve regarding the guy with the "brownie" camera which is in fact a Fuji as you point out ...it looked like he was using a pop up flash only but in fact it was a full TTL flash that fits on the hot shoe. As long as the photog gets results so what? If you put a Sony A7 next to a 5DIII with a huge tele lens it also looks amateur but really who cares.

I used to have a photog friend who took all his cameras to a bridal interview and spent more time telling the bride how good they were instead of concentrating on what he was going to cover on the day!!!

Noa Put September 8th, 2015 01:26 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Harding (Post 1897430)
Gosh, in the old days if you didn't have a "TV station size" camera on your shoulder and a stills camera with a honking great tele lens up front, you were not considered a professional!!

I think it's us videographers that are concerned about not being taken serious if we are using a small camera, wedding clients never have cared what gear you used and they are happy we are being so unobtrusive now, with the right small dslr/lens combo you don't need to add light and you can mingle in a group without being noticed, try doing that with a shoulder camera that has a big videolight on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Harding
Has anyone found any issues with using smaller equipment and get a comment "Is that what you are using for my wedding?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett
A few years back when I showed the couple my camera gear at a pre-booking meeting, they were a little concerned and I had to explain in detail why my GH3 and GH2's were capable of obtaining Professional footage.

My guess is that you get this comment because you show the gear first, right? :) I always show my demo's first and then show them the camera that produced it, I have been doing that to show why I am able to get so many shots of people behaving natural and being unaware they are being filmed. It's because of the size of the camera, the fact that they are so light sensitive so I can shoot from a distance without having to use any light and that the size of the camera has no impact on image quality is something they can see before I show my gear. The only reaction I get is like "wow, really?" I never had to defend my camerachoice to my clients, it only takes away any prejudice they might have of that obtrusive cameraguy sitting on their lap all day blinding them with his light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Harding
I found even people are getting used to having a DSLR pointed at them and they realise it's video and don't pose for a photo!!

My experience is totally the opposite, if they see me they very often pose, everyone thinks I"m taking photo's which I think is normal because I am carrying a photocamera.

Steve Burkett September 8th, 2015 02:20 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Noa Put (Post 1897451)
My guess is that you get this comment because you show the gear first, right? :) .

Er wrong. They got my sample DVD and saw my videos on the Internet before meeting me. The Bride was into Photography, but the look on her face when I produced my GH3 was not a reassuring one. A sort of 'is that it' kind of look, with a touch of, 'couldn't you afford a proper camera'. We were having a good conversation before then, but she became a bit more hesitant in booking me after that reveal. After the meeting, I sent her some literature on DSLR filming, citing examples of use in TV's and Movies and after a few weeks she decided to book me. Bare in mind she travelled 90 minutes to meet me at home, so she was obviously keen. It was showing her those cameras that almost scuppered the booking. My only case mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Harding (Post 1897450)
As long as the photog gets results so what? If you put a Sony A7 next to a 5DIII with a huge tele lens it also looks amateur but really who cares.

Problem for Photographers is the number of Guests who perhaps have an interest in Photography and the money to buy great gear. Okay we know that its more how you use the gear that matters, but if some guests start judging the Photographers camera, or feel its inferior to their own setup, its not always creating the right impression. Would be like a guest turning up with a C100 at a Wedding and frowning at my GH4.

Noa Put September 8th, 2015 02:39 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Quote:

but she became a bit more hesitant in booking me after that reveal. After the meeting, I sent her some literature on DSLR filming, citing examples of use in TV's and Movies and after a few weeks she decided to book me.
I find that a weird attitude from that client, if your work is good, what does it matter what you use to shoot it on, if I would have a client that would be hesitant in booking me because of my gear I would suggest her to find someone else with a bigger camera.

Peter Rush September 8th, 2015 02:43 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Harding (Post 1897430)

Has anyone found any issues with using smaller equipment and get a comment "Is that what you are using for my wedding?"

Chris I had exactly this a few weeks back - almost to the word when the groom turned up and I was filming with my A7 - granted it looks dinky when teamed up with the Zeiss 24-70 which is physically a pretty small lens

A Little off topic Noa but you mention shooting with the GH4 a lot handheld - do you have a rig at all or is it simply just the camera?

Noa Put September 8th, 2015 02:48 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett (Post 1897454)
but if some guests start judging the Photographers camera, or feel its inferior to their own setup, its not always creating the right impression. Would be like a guest turning up with a C100 at a Wedding and frowning at my GH4.

Would you be intimidated with a guest standing next to you with his c100 at a wedding while you are holding a gh4 with a 12mm? I wouldn't care less what people think of me, they can judge me on my work instead, I use a little handicam at the ceremony as my main camera standing in a position where everyone in the church can see me holding it, so what? :)
When you shoot corporate video I can understand a client would not appreciate you turning up with a little camera, especially when they pay a lot of money and that it would take a lot of convincing that it might not be about the size of the gear but weddings is totally different.

Noa Put September 8th, 2015 02:49 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Rush (Post 1897456)
A Little off topic Noa but you mention shooting with the GH4 a lot handheld - do you have a rig at all or is it simply just the camera?

Always handheld with a stabilized 42,5mm without any rig, the only time I put it on a tripod is during the speeches.

Noa Put September 8th, 2015 02:58 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett (Post 1897454)
After the meeting, I sent her some literature on DSLR filming, citing examples of use in TV's and Movies and after a few weeks she decided to book me.

I never ever would do that, you are using the wrong reasons to convince a client. I only would show her more from my own work, if that doesn't convince her then I don't want to work for her.

Steve Burkett September 8th, 2015 03:15 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Noa Put (Post 1897457)
Would you be intimidated with a guest standing next to you with his c100 at a wedding while you are holding a gh4 with a 12mm? I wouldn't care less what people think of me, they can judge me on my work instead

Which is fine as long as they see the finished video. If they don't, then my work will be judged by how I work on the day, including the equipment I use. I'm not saying that you need a massive camera to appear Professional, and Weddings as you say are different to Corporate in expectations, but at a recent Wedding I had a Guest come up and shake me by the hand, having been impressed by how I worked that day, which I think is better for my Business image than being quietly mocked behind the scenes for small gear.

Now I'm pretty confident in my work and ability to deliver, but if a Guest did bring in a C100, I would certainly be mindful of the competition, which is something I rarely have shooting video. Intimidated, no, aware yes.

Steve Burkett September 8th, 2015 03:23 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Noa Put (Post 1897459)
I never ever would do that, you are using the wrong reasons to convince a client. I only would show her more from my own work, if that doesn't convince her then I don't want to work for her.

Well don't knock it, it worked, the Bride was grateful for the information and the Wedding went fine.

Noa Put September 8th, 2015 03:32 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
I have seen your work Peter which I find good and if a client would doubt you because of the camerasize then believe me she is not worth convincing, it's all about what you deliver, not what you use to deliver it on.

Quote:

Which is fine as long as they see the finished video. If they don't, then my work will be judged by how I work on the day, including the equipment I use.
Even if they don't see the video and lets say they get married and are looking for a videographer, they will ask the couple to know what their impression was and if they don't, then that's their bad luck :) I actually don't want to work for people that would doubt me because they don't see me setting up a few heavy duty tripods with shouldermount camera's and having a dedicated soundguy with a boompole.

Steve Burkett September 8th, 2015 04:01 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Noa Put (Post 1897465)
I actually don't want to work for people that would doubt me because they don't see me setting up a few heavy duty tripods with shouldermount camera's and having a dedicated soundguy with a boompole.

I don't think you need go that far to impress and in fact going that far could have the opposite reaction. Regardless of whether you feel its important or not, or whether its an issue or not, I'm sure our gear is judged by some at the Weddings we film. I agree we shouldn't let that affect our way of work nor worry about its quality, but just saying it happens and that how we're viewed as Professionals are based accordingly, as wrong as it is of course. Its not something that troubles me, just an observation pertinent to this thread.

Roger Gunkel September 8th, 2015 04:33 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
I have used small cameras at weddings for many years to be fast and unobtrusive, so am interested to see that others are going down the smaller route. The only comment I have ever had about the small size of my cameras was from a photographer who had 3 full frame DSLRs and a collection of lenses draped around a harness. He was quite derisory and questioned whether I had ever done it before and what I thought I was going to end up with. I was amused when I delivered the video to find that the family were not only very disappointed with his pictures, but also had an album made with stills I took from the video.

I have also never shown equipment to a client and only twice in thirty years been asked about it, although I sometimes get asked about how many cameras I use. I also frequently take bookings based on recommendations from previous clients because of how inconspicuous I am. I am sure some get booked for the opposite reason, but for me, small size and portability is very important.

Interestingly I was at a big wedding show at the weekend where there were another 4 videographers, which is quite unusual around here. One of them had his big cameras, tripods, quadcopter and slider as the focal point of his stand. There were very few potential brides looking at his stand and in my experience they are much more interested in what they will get, not how it is done.

Roger

Peter Rush September 8th, 2015 04:37 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
I find that downsizing from my EA50 (once described by Noa as looking like a bazooka lol) to something way smaller and compact is a very good selling point which my couples appreciate.

A smaller camera such as the A7s allows me to mingle more with the guests and yet still remain unobtrusive. It allows me to film people in a more natural way as they are less likely to be aware of my presence and finally, with this particular camera, it allows me to film without a video light, again filming people behaving more naturally as they are rarely aware they are being filmed.

A bit like a video ninja!

Chris Harding September 8th, 2015 04:44 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
I never take cameras to a bridal appointment and they never ask about gear either. I also never take samples to an appointment (slight lie cos I do have a DVD in the case but never offer it to them) Brides seem to want to know what I will cover and then they book me ..end of story. However I do have tons of samples on my website and also camera specs too (you have to look hard to find them) so when brides call me they have seen the work and simply book me...I just assume they have made up their minds after seeing the website. I prefer it that way as I'm not the best salesman in the world! In fact most calls/emails read "We would like to book you for Saturday 15th January 2016" .. that's what I prefer so the appointment is purely a meet and greet and discussion of details!

Steve Burkett September 8th, 2015 05:26 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Aside from 1 Bride who was into Photography and gear, none have been interested in my equipment or requested to see it as this Bride did. Style of filming has come up, particularly of late. Cinematic or documentary. Really its the Groom who shows more interest in the how. I never show gear at a show. Only samples. A slider looks quite boring compared to the footage you can get from it, so why have it there.

At Weddings, it''s usually guests, some who dabble in video, others professionals in a different area of work, who will approach and show interest in my gear. Most of the time I find it irritating as I'm busy working, but occasionally a useful chat can be had. New contacts etc. I've had a fair few more this year than previous as I've been using a slider and a jib at most Weddings and the male Guests do pick up on it.

Kyle Root September 8th, 2015 07:43 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Yeah I don't think anyone cares.

Although, I will admit, I wonder what guests think when I'm running around setting up my stationary cameras (Nikon V1, Nikon Coolpix A, and a Canon Vixia Mini). lol

Jeff Pulera September 8th, 2015 08:09 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
I started shooting weddings in 1992, and have never had a shoulder-mount camera. Began with Sony Hi8 HandyCams then VX-1000 MiniDV 3-chip, then VX-2000 (x3), then Sony and Canon HDV units. I think maybe 1 or 2 clients ever commented about the camera size and it was never an issue after explaining the technology to them (3-chip digital), and also mentioning how it allows me to be more unobtrusive and more easily get different angles and such in tight spots like limos, dressing rooms, etc.

The Bride and Groom are really pre-occupied on their wedding day and have seen and liked my demo footage already, so the technical aspects of the gear are not a concern at that point.

So in response to the thread title, it would have been more a more timely a decade ago perhaps ;-)

Thanks

Jeff Pulera
Digital Vision

Chris Harding September 8th, 2015 08:10 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Funny...I usually set up an action cam on a light stand at ceremonies and guests ask more questions about that than any other camera. They think it's so cool to have a GoPro shooting the ceremony in wide angle. That's the smallest camera and yet attracts the most attention!!

Steven Shea September 8th, 2015 12:42 PM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
I rely heavily on the GH2 and have never gotten any comments are sideways glances. Old people still stop to pose, thinking it's a still camera.

Now that I've added the blackmagic pocket to the mix, that gets a few curious looks and questions, but more in the sense that people think it's neat how small technology is getting.

The funniest is on some corporate gigs where I'd pull out the GH2 and then use my old HMC150 as an audio recorder. That confused some people.

David Barnett September 8th, 2015 03:03 PM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
TBH I've found a bit of a reverse effect, using my rather bulky Z5U. I've had a few looks at it like 'Oh, you don't shoot DSLR'. Mostly from grooms/groomsmen. I figure they either work somewhat in a related field having knowledge of where videos been going lately, or they've attended a previous wedding where the videographer shot using one. Anyway I feel like they're poo-pooing me a bit for it, never had comments, just glances & such.

I have a VG900 for my b-cam, which is interchangeable lens. I'm considering slowly going over to that for all bridal prep & dancefloor footage, and the keeping the Z5U for the Ceremony & speeches/dances due to its XLR & zoom. I only got the VG900 a year ago so finally settled in on all its settings & have a couple usable lenses to select from.

Peter Rush September 8th, 2015 04:03 PM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Shea (Post 1897527)
I rely heavily on the GH2 and have never gotten any comments are sideways glances. Old people still stop to pose, thinking it's a still camera.

Now that I've added the blackmagic pocket to the mix, that gets a few curious looks and questions, but more in the sense that people think it's neat how small technology is getting.

The funniest is on some corporate gigs where I'd pull out the GH2 and then use my old HMC150 as an audio recorder. That confused some people.

Last wedding i used my NEX-EA50 as audio recorder and A7s as main video camera!

Chris Harding September 8th, 2015 06:28 PM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
I was experimenting when I still had my EA-50's and had a rail under the camera with a large matte box up front. It was a disaster and the already front heavy camera was made worse by the matte box and almost topped 5kg!!

What made me decide to change was a guest looking at one camera on the table and saying "That video camera is so 80's style!!"

Steven Davis September 8th, 2015 08:29 PM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
1 Attachment(s)
This i what look like, my other camera is on a tripod. My client I delivered to the other day likened us to a television production, it was a complement thank goodness.

Danny O'Neill September 9th, 2015 02:15 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Couples never (ok, rarely) cared about how big our gear was. The only people who ever thought it was relevant were videographers. If anything they would prefer it to be small.

Remember just a few years ago when you visited most wedding video websites. The first thing you saw wasnt a video of what they do but a great big picture of their 'broadcast' quality camera on a £2000 tripod. Because people thought that people would see that and say "Wow, hes serious, must book" when in truth people got scared and walked away. Although I still see it to some degree, you goto a wedding fair and the video booth has a tiny TV showing what they do but they proudly have their camera sitting on a tripod for all to see. I just sink my head into my hands.

When we got our C100's we tried to get used to working it without the side grip to keep the size down but couldnt get the speed of operation high enough so relented and accepted the handle.

If your resisting the DSLR revolution because your afraid people wont take you seriously...

Roger Gunkel September 9th, 2015 04:13 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Davis (Post 1897566)
This i what look like, my other camera is on a tripod. My client I delivered to the other day likened us to a television production, it was a complement thank goodness.

The word unobtrusive comes to mind ;-)

Roger

Steven Davis September 9th, 2015 08:36 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Hey Roger,

That's what we are, unobtrusive. We've been called invisible. We get the shots we need. The photographers in our area are the obtrusive ones.. lol.

Steve Burkett September 9th, 2015 08:56 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Davis (Post 1897619)
Hey Roger,

That's what we are, unobtrusive. We've been called invisible. We get the shots we need. The photographers in our area are the obtrusive ones.. lol.

Perhaps guests in your neck of the woods are desensitive to the colour black. :)

Great camera you have there... for corporate work. I think I'd rather mine be a tad smaller for Weddings.

David Peterson September 14th, 2015 09:07 PM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett (Post 1897454)
Problem for Photographers is the number of Guests who perhaps have an interest in Photography and the money to buy great gear. Okay we know that its more how you use the gear that matters, but if some guests start judging the Photographers camera, or feel its inferior to their own setup, its not always creating the right impression. Would be like a guest turning up with a C100 at a Wedding and frowning at my GH4.

Which is funny because the GH4 is a better camera than the C100! ;-)

Chris Harding September 14th, 2015 11:17 PM

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!!

Steve Burkett September 16th, 2015 01:33 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by David Peterson (Post 1898184)
Which is funny because the GH4 is a better camera than the C100! ;-)

As a GH4 user, you won't hear any argument from me on this, but I must admit for my Corporate jobs the GH4 can be limiting. I'm hoping the GH4r will help as the recording limit is the main stumbling block why I can't use it for Corporate.

Matthias Claflin September 16th, 2015 11:13 PM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by David Peterson (Post 1898184)
Which is funny because the GH4 is a better camera than the C100! ;-)

Oh I hope this was a joke...

Steve Burkett September 17th, 2015 12:13 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthias Claflin (Post 1898423)
Oh I hope this was a joke...

My GH4 is definitely better than my af101a. Image quality is miles better, but ease of use too, which is odd for a larger proper video camera. No touch screen is a real minus, plus despite all these buttons, I can only assign 3 ISO values to the gain switch. Obviously this can be customised in the menu, but compared to the gh4 where I can press the ISO button and scroll through the entire range very quickly, its quite limiting. White balance is also restricted by the 3 toggle switch and no kelvin values to be found. Now I think the C100 knocks the spots of the af101a, but some of my critisms apply. Lack of touch screen for instance. With the GH4r out, I plan to sell my AF101a and put the money into buying a couple of them. For me small is beautiful. :)

Chris Harding September 17th, 2015 12:18 AM

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!!

Nigel Barker September 17th, 2015 07:35 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett (Post 1898425)
My GH4 is definitely better than my af101a. Image quality is miles better, but ease of use too, which is odd for a larger proper video camera. No touch screen is a real minus, plus despite all these buttons, I can only assign 3 ISO values to the gain switch. Obviously this can be customised in the menu, but compared to the gh4 where I can press the ISO button and scroll through the entire range very quickly, its quite limiting. White balance is also restricted by the 3 toggle switch and no kelvin values to be found. Now I think the C100 knocks the spots of the af101a, but some of my critisms apply. Lack of touch screen for instance. With the GH4r out, I plan to sell my AF101a and put the money into buying a couple of them. For me small is beautiful. :)

The AF101 was the most disappointing camera I have ever owned. The image was OK but ergonomics were the thing that really put me off using it. I ordered when the AF101 was announced but here was a long delay before the cameras actually shipped by which time I had also bought a GH2 which delivered slightly better quality video for a fraction of the price. OK the ergonomics of the GH2 weren't wonderful either as it was so small & fiddly but it wasn't a great awkward lump with awkward controls.

Matthias Claflin September 17th, 2015 10:06 AM

Re: Camera size no longer important?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett (Post 1898425)
My GH4 is definitely better than my af101a. Image quality is miles better, but ease of use too, which is odd for a larger proper video camera. No touch screen is a real minus, plus despite all these buttons, I can only assign 3 ISO values to the gain switch. Obviously this can be customised in the menu, but compared to the gh4 where I can press the ISO button and scroll through the entire range very quickly, its quite limiting. White balance is also restricted by the 3 toggle switch and no kelvin values to be found. Now I think the C100 knocks the spots of the af101a, but some of my critisms apply. Lack of touch screen for instance. With the GH4r out, I plan to sell my AF101a and put the money into buying a couple of them. For me small is beautiful. :)

Ah I see. I shot exclusively with the GH4 and C100 when I rented them both a couple months back. I typically shoot with Canon DSLRs but someone told me the GH4 (especially in 4k) was something I must try, so I rented them both for 10 days and 4 events. First, the C100 has built in ND filters, which if you care about the shutter speed (and many do not, which is fine), is a big plus. It does significantly better in low light (I found that I didn't need to add any light at the reception for the C100 but I had to with the GH4). The C100 does have Kelvin white balance. It has a lots of ISO options of course. It does not have a touch screen, which didn't matter to me because I used the viewfinder extensively while shooting with it (as a 3rd point of contact for hand held shots). I don't like the weight of the C100, but it does have proper XLR inputs and much better preamps than what I've seen in any DSLR. I found that I actually preferred the HD footage from the C100 over the 4k footage of the GH4 (when being viewed on my 1080 monitor). This may have had something to do with the compression of the codec, or maybe it's just how the GH4 is. I assume it'd be fantastic if you had an external recorder to record that 10bit 4:2:2 4k. All that being said, the C100 is WAY overpriced and weighs a lot more than a GH4, but I do plan on picking one up used if it comes down in price significantly over the next few months.

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.

Steve Burkett September 17th, 2015 10:34 AM

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 11:40 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network