GH2 GH2 Documentary Must-Haves

[Boncrek]

For interviews my set up is:

GH2 w/ Nikon 50mm f1.8 prime
Senn G3 wireless lav going into Zoom H4n
If outdoors I use a VideoMic (the older version) going into the GH2. Because I find you need a better base track than the built in mic for syncing with Pluraleyes.

For run n' gun shots you will definitely need a lens with OIS, especially with the M43 2x crop most lenses begin to shake pretty bad past 50mm. As well with the small/light form factor of the camera itself you need a nice sturdy lens to weigh it down for smoother shots (at least handheld).

I am seeing everybody recommend Lavs for sit-down type interviews but what about on-the-street interviews?
One more than one occasion I am tasked to capture interviews of people on the street for a non-profit organization.
I've been thinking Videomic Pro but I am rethinking it because the mic would be on the camera.
Would a dual system setup ehlp here as someone could hold the mic closer but out of shot?

 

[Boncrek]

For interviews my set up is:

GH2 w/ Nikon 50mm f1.8 prime
Senn G3 wireless lav going into Zoom H4n
If outdoors I use a VideoMic (the older version) going into the GH2. Because I find you need a better base track than the built in mic for syncing with Pluraleyes.

For run n' gun shots you will definitely need a lens with OIS, especially with the M43 2x crop most lenses begin to shake pretty bad past 50mm. As well with the small/light form factor of the camera itself you need a nice sturdy lens to weigh it down for smoother shots (at least handheld).

For Run n' Gun the Panny 14-50 OIS looks good but with its focus breathing it makes it less likely a run n' gun lens because I'd be focusing constantly.

 

[VidE]

On my Sennheiser G2 system, the transmitter pack took a mini plug from the lav. If the new VideoMic also has a mini you could always rig a boom pole with a holder for the transmitter pack to free it from the camera...? Just a thought.

 

[Roberto Hapsad]

I think you're referring to the rare occasions during documentary shooting where sync sound is required. For that, yes, any of the above suggestions are OK (Line in, hot-shoe mic with fluffy dog, Zoom recorders).But most sound on a doc is something else and I've found the following to be useful...1) For voice-over sound with atmos (background sound), try this: Get out of the wind and into a place without intrusive sound and read your paper straight into the camera's mic. As a guideline, a VU meter before you read should show 1/4 of the level before Zero db and when you read it should show minus 3 DB.2) For atmos alone, (and you'll need it), use the same technique and shoot some vision at the same time. This will help you position it on the timeline during edit.3) For voice-over in the above situation but when you've written your paper later, read it in a sound-room (no echo), into the camera itself if you want it to sound as if it was done in the field;4) for interviewing the talent for voice-overs, ditto.All these assume you are getting good sound with the camera alone. This has been my experience, even with tape cameras. But test yours first.These are the sound-recording situations which dominate documentary production. Using the camera makes things easy. The unobtrusive GH2 can be placed near the talent for an impromptu interview. Later, the vision track gives you a very valuable visual indicator for editing, reduces the need for extensive logging of sound files and reduces post production time.

 

[Boncrek]

On my Sennheiser G2 system, the transmitter pack took a mini plug from the lav. If the new VideoMic also has a mini you could always rig a boom pole with a holder for the transmitter pack to free it from the camera...? Just a thought.

Well I already have an NTG-2 so I wouldnt need to use the Videomic Pro for that setup.
The main advantage of the Videomic Pro is the size and weight as it is great for on-camera audio with a small cam like the GH2.
You cant use the EVF effectively with such a long mic as the NTG-2.

 

[woodcarver]

For Run n' Gun the Panny 14-50 OIS looks good but with its focus breathing it makes it less likely a run n' gun lens because I'd be focusing constantly.

I assume that you mean because you are hand held you will be focusing frequently. With most of these zooms under a grand you have to take the good with the bad. I elected to switch from the Oly 14-54 MkII because it makes noise when you focus and because it doesn't have OIS. I went for the Panny 14-50 which doesn't make focus noise and has great OIS but does breath badly and the OIS makes a bit of noise when it's on.
IMO focus breathing is more organic and less distracting than noise or jello. Of course, my choice would be totally different in a controlled, narrative environment.
Until they make a 14-140-like lens that opens up to at least a 2.8 (even if it's not constant) I don't think there will be any completely "right" choice for documentary work.

 

[Boncrek]

I assume that you mean because you are hand held you will be focusing frequently. With most of these zooms under a grand you have to take the good with the bad. I elected to switch from the Oly 14-54 MkII because it makes noise when you focus and because it doesn't have OIS. I went for the Panny 14-50 which doesn't make focus noise and has great OIS but does breath badly and the OIS makes a bit of noise when it's on.
IMO focus breathing is more organic and less distracting than noise or jello. Of course, my choice would be totally different in a controlled, narrative environment.
Until they make a 14-140-like lens that opens up to at least a 2.8 (even if it's not constant) I don't think there will be any completely "right" choice for documentary work.

Thats why the 14-35 looks like the lens for me especially with the ETC of the GH2. Decent wide to mild telephoto and all at a constant F2 aperture.
Its a variable prime thats sharp wide open and is silent when focusing too with a long 200 degree focus throw.
I was at first disappointed with the range but after I used a 5D MKII with the 24-70 lens I felt alot better about this lens.
The range was decent and with ETC you can add some real range if you're shootign far away.
The one and only complaint with this lens is the electronic iris but then again If I'm using it as a variable prime I shouldn't be changing exposure mid-shot.
I'd have the Heliopan Variable ND for that purpose lol

 

[woodcarver]

Yeah, it's a beautiful lens. Are you confident that it can be mounted on a shoulder rig or monopod without additional support? It's heavy.

 

[Boncrek]

Yeah, it's a beautiful lens. Are you confident that it can be mounted on a shoulder rig or monopod without additional support? It's heavy.

Members of this forum have said that they've mounted it without additonal support and it was fine.
Jan Crittenden also said that the m4/3 mount could hold about 2 pounds. So at 900 grams the 14-35mm with DMW-MA1 is just at the limit.

 

[Boncrek]

I assume that you mean because you are hand held you will be focusing frequently. With most of these zooms under a grand you have to take the good with the bad. I elected to switch from the Oly 14-54 MkII because it makes noise when you focus and because it doesn't have OIS. I went for the Panny 14-50 which doesn't make focus noise and has great OIS but does breath badly and the OIS makes a bit of noise when it's on.
IMO focus breathing is more organic and less distracting than noise or jello. Of course, my choice would be totally different in a controlled, narrative environment.
Until they make a 14-140-like lens that opens up to at least a 2.8 (even if it's not constant) I don't think there will be any completely "right" choice for documentary work.

I'm glad you told me about the focusing noise of the 14-54mm. It was a solid contender for run n gun but that electronic focusing was a deal breaker.

 

[Lpowell]

Members of this forum have said that they've mounted it without additonal support and it was fine.
Jan Crittenden also said that the m4/3 mount could hold about 2 pounds. So at 900 grams the 14-35mm with DMW-MA1 is just at the limit.

My understanding is those specs apply to mounting the Olympus 14-35mm f2 on an AF100. While the m/43 lens mount is the same as on the GH2, the AF100 has a much broader mounting plate surface than the GH2. In my judgment, the extended lens barrel of the 14-35mm would apply far too much leverage to the GH2's little tripod mount to be stable without additional lens support.

 

[Boncrek]

My understanding is those specs apply to mounting the Olympus 14-35mm f2 on an AF100. While the m/43 lens mount is the same as on the GH2, the AF100 has a much broader mounting plate surface than the GH2. In my judgment, the extended lens barrel of the 14-35mm would apply far too much leverage to the GH2's little tripod mount to be stable without additional lens support.

I see. Hmmm...this poses a problem indeed.
I'm gonna have to rethink my entire setup now.

 

[tflak]

My understanding is those specs apply to mounting the Olympus 14-35mm f2 on an AF100. While the m/43 lens mount is the same as on the GH2, the AF100 has a much broader mounting plate surface than the GH2. In my judgment, the extended lens barrel of the 14-35mm would apply far too much leverage to the GH2's little tripod mount to be stable without additional lens support.

I respect your opinion. But will just put it out there that I've been using the 14-35 for about 8 months; first with the GH1, and then the GH2 and now the AF100 - all without using any lens support and without any stability problems. I also have the 35-100, which came with a tripod collar. Obviously, Olympus feels the 35-100 needs support. One would think they would have also included a collar with the 14-35, if needed. Not saying that just because it didn't come with a collar it's never advisable to support the 14-35. But in my experience with these cameras, while it certainly couldn't hurt, it's not been needed.

 

[Boncrek]

I respect your opinion. But will just put it out there that I've been using the 14-35 for about 8 months; first with the GH1, and then the GH2 and now the AF100 - all without using any lens support and without any stability problems. I also have the 35-100, which came with a tripod collar. Obviously, Olympus feels the 35-100 needs support. One would think they would have also included a collar with the 14-35, if needed. Not saying that just because it didn't come with a collar it's never advisable to support the 14-35. But in my experience with these cameras, while it certainly couldn't hurt, it's not been needed.

This gives me hope!
Thanks for giving you're input here tflak
Question for you as a 14-35mm user: Is it worth the added expense? What are your impressions of it on the GH2 in video mode?

 

[JeremyNelson]

Strongly second earlier post on Senn G3 ME-4 or ME-2 lavs. Not cheap, but fantastic sound quality, and good frequency scanning has meant I can use them without monitoring when necessary (directly to camera). You definitely need to order the windsock with these though -- the foam works great in most situations and is still relatively easy to conceal, the fur blocks out some pretty serious wind (was shooting on a windy great lakes island without problem). For streeters, if you have the time, it still makes sense to use a lav -- even the best shotgun on your shoe will be not be better -- but the ME-4 and ME-2 both have great range so you can clip it belly button level, frame it out, and you're set -- takes five seconds and yields supperior results.

Re: Lenses, when I'm travelling light or in a rush, actually use the 14 mm prime -- ETC for tight interviews, or normal if I'm moving with the subject. I find AF is just too hard to do without, while the f 2.5 is enough to work indoors at iso 160 when using natural light from a window and flexfill. Also have an inexpensive 50mm f1.4 canon which is handy when there is more time and a tripod -- shallow DOF and softens the sharpness of the gh2 just a bit (long term will probably pick up a gh3 when it arrives, and shot two camera intvs, providing a wide and a tight that I can cut between to cover edits and cleaning up of sync).

Anyway, for what it's worth. Main point -- don't cheap out on audio. Good shooting can make use of almost any lens, but nothing can overcome bad audio.

 

[tflak]

This gives me hope!
Thanks for giving you're input here tflak
Question for you as a 14-35mm user: Is it worth the added expense? What are your impressions of it on the GH2 in video mode?

Sorry to have taken so long to reply. I actually bought this lens for video as I rarely take stills. It's a great lens for video on the GH2. If I lost it I'd buy another one without a second thought.

 

[Boncrek]

Strongly second earlier post on Senn G3 ME-4 or ME-2 lavs. Not cheap, but fantastic sound quality, and good frequency scanning has meant I can use them without monitoring when necessary (directly to camera). You definitely need to order the windsock with these though -- the foam works great in most situations and is still relatively easy to conceal, the fur blocks out some pretty serious wind (was shooting on a windy great lakes island without problem). For streeters, if you have the time, it still makes sense to use a lav -- even the best shotgun on your shoe will be not be better -- but the ME-4 and ME-2 both have great range so you can clip it belly button level, frame it out, and you're set -- takes five seconds and yields supperior results.

Re: Lenses, when I'm travelling light or in a rush, actually use the 14 mm prime -- ETC for tight interviews, or normal if I'm moving with the subject. I find AF is just too hard to do without, while the f 2.5 is enough to work indoors at iso 160 when using natural light from a window and flexfill. Also have an inexpensive 50mm f1.4 canon which is handy when there is more time and a tripod -- shallow DOF and softens the sharpness of the gh2 just a bit (long term will probably pick up a gh3 when it arrives, and shot two camera intvs, providing a wide and a tight that I can cut between to cover edits and cleaning up of sync).

Anyway, for what it's worth. Main point -- don't cheap out on audio. Good shooting can make use of almost any lens, but nothing can overcome bad audio.

I definately dont want to cheap out on the audio. I was lookign at the Sony UWP V6 recently. Its a competitor to the Sennheiser G3s. Audio quality has been said to be similar to the G3 (G3 is still better overall though) My reasoning in preferring the Sony is that it has headphone monitoring. Was going to use the XLR plug-In Transmitter on my NTG-2 and have it in a pistol grip shockmount. This would be held by the Interview/Host/Audio Guy closer to te subject. If the Host/Interviewer wants to be in the shot then they can use a Handheld dynamic mic and have it in the shot. What do you think?

 

[Boncrek]

Sorry to have taken so long to reply. I actually bought this lens for video as I rarely take stills. It's a great lens for video on the GH2. If I lost it I'd buy another one without a second thought.

Do you find the range limiting in anyway? What type of things do you shoot with it.
Cinema/Narrative work? Music Videos? What kind of NDs do you use with it as well.

 

[tflak]

Do you find the range limiting in anyway? What type of things do you shoot with it.
Cinema/Narrative work? Music Videos? What kind of NDs do you use with it as well.

I also have the 35-100 2.0 so have things pretty well covered from 14 to 100 at a constant 2.0 and rarely run into any limitations. I use these two lenses almost exclusively for 2 camera interviews and it's a killer combo. But also use them for just general shooting, documentary, wildlife, etc. I don't do music videos. That said, rarely pack the 35-100 if I'm just out and about due to the bulk and weight. If there's sufficient light I find the 14-140 kit lens tough to beat as a general all-around. But also have a Rokinon 85mm 1.4 for when I need something long in low light (great lens for the $) and the Panny 100-300 for telephoto which has super fast AF on the GH2 and is pretty cool with ETC.

Use a Singh-Ray Vari-ND (77mm, thin) which I like a lot after having tried multiple LCW variable ND filters which I found to give a noticeably soft image beyond about 50mm and often added a nasty color cast.