C500: C500 + Zeiss Master Prime for Wedding

Surf it Mike said:
Apologies IMO. This thread is a case of over delivery ........seriously 1 masterprime to cover a whole wedding ? There are far more appropriate lens systems for coverage of a live event in available light than 1 masterprime . ( as nice as it is ) .

P.s to hire this lens you will need insurance certificates , references and some form of history within the industry, certainly within Melbourne & certainly within Aus.
Click to expand...

You are quite correct.
 
Policar said:
Ask Ozu and Polanski.

Extremely gutsy choice.

Insane, possibly.

Terrible, possibly.

Brilliant, potentially.
Click to expand...
Of course he could do anything he choose, there is NO one way, but bare in mind this is not fiction this is a documentary style shoot at best (documentary could actually be more controlled than a wedding), I actually shot a documentary once with only one lens, but I still used a zoom just in case, and also as I said, I had more control and if something didn't work, we knew we're shooting 20 days, so we could just shoot the same thing again on a different day!

As for the filmmakers you mentioned, as far as I know Polanski never shot any of his films with only one lens, but he does like to choose 3 main lenses and stick with them for most part (actually been in a Q&A session with him a few years ago).

Ozu did shoot mostly on one lens, but not 100%, I've watched 6-7 films by him and some of them do use other lenses (but very little).

Both of them like to BUILD there own sets and not shoot on Location which makes life much easier as lensing is concerned :-)
 
One of the disadvantages of renting is you don't allow yourself time to 'play' and explore. Any camera over $3k (some under $3k) will make lovely images that you can create beautiful videos from. I suggest you commit to something and shoot with it for a year. This will put the gear questions out of your head and let you focus on the art and storytelling. For event work, the Cinema EOS cameras have a lot of advantages (on-board NDs, pro audio, nice AF, and more). Regardless, go with what seems to be the best combo for you and stop wondering. Just go shoot. A lot. Shoot a video every week.

-gl
 
If you are still convinced to use the C500 for weddings let me offer one thing that may dissuade you incase you are not already aware. There is no side handle attached to the body like there is on the c100/c300's. This would mean you'd have to be on some sort of support (sticks, monopod, etc) or a full shoulder rig setup. Personally I love having my camera on the shoulder but for weddings space constraints may dictate how you operate and not being able to easily hand hold could become a factor.

Just my 2 cents.
 
oron cohen said:
Of course he could do anything he choose, there is NO one way, but bare in mind this is not fiction this is a documentary style shoot at best (documentary could actually be more controlled than a wedding), I actually shot a documentary once with only one lens, but I still used a zoom just in case, and also as I said, I had more control and if something didn't work, we knew we're shooting 20 days, so we could just shoot the same thing again on a different day!

As for the filmmakers you mentioned, as far as I know Polanski never shot any of his films with only one lens, but he does like to choose 3 main lenses and stick with them for most part (actually been in a Q&A session with him a few years ago).

Ozu did shoot mostly on one lens, but not 100%, I've watched 6-7 films by him and some of them do use other lenses (but very little).

Both of them like to BUILD there own sets and not shoot on Location which makes life much easier as lensing is concerned :-)
Click to expand...

Polanski would often shoot with one lens, place it as though it were a character, and if it didn't work, he'd use a wider one. But I think he often worked with about two or three lenses even if he strongly leaned on one.

Didn't know Ozu mixed it up.

I think it's an insane idea to shoot a wedding on an Amira in the first place, let alone with cinema glass, especially when the top wedding guys in the US are still dSLR I think, but I have no experience in wedding videography. I'd guess a couple C100s and 24-70mm on one, 70-200mm on the other, and maybe a C camera on a gimbal would make sense for very high end work.

But a single lens emphasizes place over perspective, and the Amira does have a sick image. You could make for a very intimate, cinematic look that no one is doing. Hence, insane. But each cut would really feel like a shift in place and not perspective, and you'd have to get so close to the action you'd feel like you were there. Could be a really cool style, but seems impossible to me for event, you'd get in the way. Also harder to move smoothly with such a big camera... something on a Ronin would be way cooler.

Still I can't pretend the Amira doesn't have better highlight roll off and performance under mixed lighting than anything else. I also can't pretend that the videos posted look any better than dSLR footage to me, excepting the nice slow motion, and dSLRs have huge advantages as regards camera movement.
 
Last edited:
I think people are getting hung up on the Amira choice.
It was an experiment, and won't be used again.
It is not a useful camera for weddings and, no we didn't know it well enough to do it justice.
Yes, we are inexperienced enough that our shooting, even on a great camera, does not rival fully fledged professionals.
We are at the start of the process and will make mistakes along the way.
 
Truth be told, unless your clients are all really high profile, I would go with multiple "lesser" cameras and lenses than one expensive camera and couple of lenses. You could do so much with things like a GH4 or step up to a Sony FS7. Just looking at the prices for new masterprimes, you could buy a whole lot of "lesser" systems and extra gear, and hire two more people for a few days of shoots for the price of a single masterprime. Going for the best you can get can be a good idea, but in this case I think you would do better with a bunch of used C100 cameras and a decent set of primes and zooms. Heck you could probably do really well with a bunch of hacked GH2 and some decent old Canon FD lenses, about $300-$350 for each body and has been shown to shoot decent HD video.
 
Greg_E said:
Truth be told, unless your clients are all really high profile, I would go with multiple "lesser" cameras and lenses than one expensive camera and couple of lenses. You could do so much with things like a GH4 or step up to a Sony FS7. Just looking at the prices for new masterprimes, you could buy a whole lot of "lesser" systems and extra gear, and hire two more people for a few days of shoots for the price of a single masterprime. Going for the best you can get can be a good idea, but in this case I think you would do better with a bunch of used C100 cameras and a decent set of primes and zooms. Heck you could probably do really well with a bunch of hacked GH2 and some decent old Canon FD lenses, about $300-$350 for each body and has been shown to shoot decent HD video.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that lesser cameras are the way to go and spend more money on crew (i.e. gaffer).
 
spinkscapes said:
Yes, I agree that lesser cameras are the way to go and spend more money on crew (i.e. gaffer).
Click to expand...
No, no. No gaffers and no sounds guys at weddings. That's silly. Wedding videographers. People who do more than just one job and are really good at filming weddings. Dedicated crew positions are for big sets.

If I had a dedicated gaffer on a wedding, after his lights were setup and we were filming, I'd be looking at him thinking, "Why isn't he doing anything"? Then the bride would be looking at him thinking, "Why isn't he doing anything?" Then the police would come and kick him out for being a wedding crasher. Plus he was probably dressed like a gaffer.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
No, no. No gaffers and no sounds guys at weddings. That's silly. Wedding vdeographers. People who do more than just one job and are really good at filming weddings. Dedicated crew positions are for big sets.

If I had a dedicated gaffer on a wedding, after his lights were setup and we were filming, I'd be looking at him thinking, "Why isn't he doing anything"? Then the bride would be looking at him thinking, "Why isn't he doing anything?" Then the police would come and kick him out for being a wedding crasher. Plus he was probably dressed like a gaffer.
Click to expand...

Well if that's the case perhaps I need to train myself in proper lighting techniques.
I've seen Shane Hurlbut's online videos. Are there any others you'd recommend?
 
Eric Coughlin said:
No, no. No gaffers and no sounds guys at weddings. That's silly. Wedding videographers. People who do more than just one job and are really good at filming weddings. Dedicated crew positions are for big sets.

If I had a dedicated gaffer on a wedding, after his lights were setup and we were filming, I'd be looking at him thinking, "Why isn't he doing anything"? Then the bride would be looking at him thinking, "Why isn't he doing anything?" Then the police would come and kick him out for being a wedding crasher. Plus he was probably dressed like a gaffer.
Click to expand...

A lot of my friends do G&E on reality and it's a lot of work. Not just swapping out fixtures, but also hiding kinoflos and rigging them up safely with pole cats and whatever. They are awesome at their job on features and equally so on reality.

For very high end weddings, I'd have to assume the same luxury could be afforded, even if I've never heard of a gaffer on wedding videos before.
 
Yeah, you can't do weddings if you're not willing to learn video, audio, lighting, and stabilization. For dedicated roles, look to other types of video production work on bigger sets.

"How to light a wedding dvxuser" into Google search. "Lights for weddings dvinfo" into Google search. "Lighting for weddings dvinfo" Google search.

Preps are mostly natural light. You often make sure the windows are open, sometimes turn off the inside lights if the windows are bright enough to avoid mixed lighting, or if the indoor lights are bright and good, maybe you close the blinds, again, to avoid mixed lighting. I've dabbled in using lighting (such as a Lowel Tota with an umbrella to quickly light up a room) for preps, but found it to be too much hassle for the most part.

For the ceremony, you'll rarely use additional lighting. I've used lights during a ceremony maybe 3-5 times out of a hundred weddings. One time the ceremony was on a stage which was a little dark, so no one noticed our lights which were coming from a second story balcony above all the guests. Another time it was at a super dark aquarium. Most of the time you're in a church (they don't want lights), or outside (yeah, not bringing HMIs), so lights just aren't practical for a ceremony.

Reception is where you want to use lighting. I have an Arri 650, two Lowel Pro 250s, and a Dedolight 150w (great light). When I work with my main secondary shooter he brings a couple extra of his Arri 650s which work better (they're brighter and have better control with the barn doors and focusing) than the Lowel Pros but cost more, are larger, and weigh more, so then we'll have three Arri 650s. I put two or three lights on 12 foot stands, aim it at the dance floor and often change the angle to aim it at the location of the toasts later. Use the focusing and barn doors to try to avoid blinding the guests in their seats. Lately I've been using two lights for the formal dances; three gives me too many shadows when I'm walking around on Steadicam. For speeches I try to stick with a basic three point lighting setup, key, fill, and hair light, though it's common that there isn't room for a hair light.

That is my setup with two shooters. When I'm by myself I just use a couple on-camera lights as I find that if I have to walk away from my camera to adjust lights without a second shooter to back me up I may miss a shot.

I use my three C100s for weddings. Next Saturday I'm doing a two day Indian wedding with my primary co-worker who has four C100s, so we'll probably bring all seven C100s. Why not? Much better than having one C500, at least for event work. For higher end commercial work I'd probably rather have one C500. I have a C300 Mark II on pre-order which I'll be using at weddings with my three C100s, but the C300 Mark II is much better suited for weddings than the C500 since it has a side handle, better internal recording, 15 stops of dynamic range, and various awesome features such as the improved auto-focus which does wonders for event work (assuming you're not using cinema glass).
 
Policar said:
A lot of my friends do G&E on reality and it's a lot of work. Not just swapping out fixtures, but also hiding kinoflos and rigging them up safely with pole cats and whatever. They are awesome at their job on features and equally so on reality.

For very high end weddings, I'd have to assume the same luxury could be afforded, even if I've never heard of a gaffer on wedding videos before.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure Joe Simon, Ray Roman, Stillmotion, and other big wig and well known wedding companies didn't get in the regular habit of doing that. I did hear rumor of a wedding where they went to the trouble of swapping out bulbs and such, but in the top end of the wedding market I'm pretty sure that is very uncommon. I believe Joe Simon typically uses just two or three Lowel Pro lights and he's often considered one of the best wedding videographers in America.

I guess you said "could be afforded." Yeah, the bride could afford it, but she probably doesn't want it. Hence why you don't see gaffers at weddings. There's possible and there's practical.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
No, no. No gaffers and no sounds guys at weddings. That's silly. Wedding videographers. People who do more than just one job and are really good at filming weddings. Dedicated crew positions are for big sets.

If I had a dedicated gaffer on a wedding, after his lights were setup and we were filming, I'd be looking at him thinking, "Why isn't he doing anything"? Then the bride would be looking at him thinking, "Why isn't he doing anything?" Then the police would come and kick him out for being a wedding crasher. Plus he was probably dressed like a gaffer.
Click to expand...

I mostly disagree Eric. If a crew member is standing around and it's an actual problem, or dressed inappropriately, that's the person in charge of the project's fault. Of course you'd only bring in a gaffer in certain situations - but there are still different levels of productions within weddings. Some attention seeking brides would love a small crew running around, trying to be stealthy, adding to the perception that their event is more important, cooler, or whatever. For a higher end wedding, and if the situation suits, there could easily be a dedicated gaffer for a few ambitious set ups, or to help overcoming natural light problems etc. They could maybe even set up then leave (half day?). On a smaller production, they'd still help in similar ways that they're used to on bigger sets, but then also help like a production assistant would.

As far as no sound guys at weddings - if you find some of the best wedding videos out there, I bet the sound guys who worked on them would be insulted if you told them you could've achieved the same results without them.

Most wedding videos are a smashed together shot compilation with music underneath, then good enough sound to get through the ceremony/speeches, then another montage. I have no doubt countless couples are absolutely thrilled with this formula for their wedding. If the wedding videographers are content with this type of production, then at this point I agree, a gaffer or sound guy at a wedding is silly.
 
I can't speak for every top of the line wedding company out there, but the ones I know of which I mentioned (such as Joe Simon) I am quite sure do not hire dedicated audio or lighting professionals for their weddings. I have spent a good amount of time viewing the work of the best wedding video companies, and also attended In[Focus], a conference where most of the best wedding videoraphers attended and the best of the best give talks on how they film weddings, and again, I don't recall mention of gaffers; a little bit on dedicated audio guys, but I gathered most of the videographers were doing it themselves, and in the case they had a dedicated audio guy, it wasn't someone with Sound Devices mixers, Schoeps mics, Lectrosonics, etc., it was just someone (not an actual audio professional) with basic wedding video audio gear (Zoom H4n, Senheisser wireless, pocket recorders) who had been assigned to audio for the day.

If gaffers and pro audio techs was really something that high end weddings had with any kind of frequency, then I'd think we'd hear about it more. I'm not saying it hasn't happened; I'm saying that the best wedding videographers in the world do not typically use gaffers and audio pros because they know it is not as practical as doing it yourself with your small crew of videographers in a wedding environment.

Now sure, there are cases of televised weddings such as Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones where a full crew was hired, but I doubt that any of the crew on that were full time "wedding videographers."
 
spinkscapes said:
I've been meaning to ask if that is usable?
I've only ever used manual focus.
Click to expand...
It's very useful on the C100 and is twice as useful on the C300 Mark II. If the only thing about the C300 Mark II that was better than the C100 was the auto-focus improvement I'd still be tempted to buy it. For $10,000 I now have a means of pulling focus on my Steadicam in a run n gun environment where a wireless follow focus and assistant would be impractical (not to mentioned a wireless follow focus can cost you $10,000 not including the AC). Very important for the way I work.

Wireless follow focus still has advantages of course, but only on shoots where an AC is practical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top