GH5 How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

[Thomas Smet]

To each his own. One of the studios I shoot for mandates that we not use lighting for the sake of the subjects, which is partly what got me considering the dynamic in the first place. And I'd say that about 40% of the time, either the venue or the photographers will ask me to turn my lights off a half hour into the night. I also get a lot of questions from the brides in prep about how obtrusive my equipment will be, and they're always happy to hear that I won't be using a light on my camera. It intimidates people.

Having people react to your camera is not just about on-camera light. If they notice I'm filming them without a light, they react anyway. the light just makes it happen a lot quicker. The thing about using a flash is that by the time they realize you're shooting them, you're already done.

You're not going to convince me that I'll get the same action from people with and without lighting them, especially with an on-camera light. I've seen the results both ways. it's the difference between performing and being.

^^ and that last point is probably the primary difference between my sensibility and that of other photographers and videographers I shoot alongside. I'm more concerned with capturing genuine emotion and documentary behavior. I see a lot of people setting up pretty shots and directing the subjects like actors. I don't think it works. When I review the footage from my angle of a set-up that the photographers direct in that way, I cringe. Maybe the subjects hit some nice angles and poses, but you can instantly tell that their minds are elsewhere and the chemistry isn't happening right then. The point doesn't apply as much to dance floor footage as to the rest of the day, but I think the mindset is reflected in how you capture both. I've watched stuff from other shooters on youtube that had very pretty set-ups and just seemed fake as hell. And about half the couples express an interest in capturing authenticity and avoiding fakery in our discussions beforehand.

In any case, I have to be prepared to shoot without lighting because it may not be permitted. So, I usually shoot both with lighting and without. Regarding where you light from, on camera light will always be hard, flat, sourcey, and contribute to sweat shine. I agree that even then it can be beneficial, but only if you can't light from somewhere else and anyway it will definitely influence your subject.

Grug was shooting scenes for a feature at ISO 12800. I mean...lol, dude. Anyway, while the texture of underexposed ISO 25600 footage probably can't be improved, I think a simple curve can improve the look of the contrast in post. Plus, I dont think the low light stuff is actually blotchy. It looks similar in texture on dvxuser to the ISO 640 stuff I posted, so I think it's mostly a compression issue. The wide shot of b/g on shoulders is from a super flat profile in order to handle passing dj lights, which obviously weren't happening in that frame. And again, your on camera light would accomplish nothing from that distance, not without blowing out the foreground anyway. I had 2 lights around the floor that I had turned off by then. finally, if you're adding on camera light at 10% output, you're probably not going to be lifting your ISO anyway but just reshaping the light on the subject. So it seems like a moot point regarding high ISO performance.

Also, who said that videographers get less respect than photographers? The photographers treat me with a great deal of respect, especially since there are many aspects of the craft they find challenging and unfamiliar. And the clients treat me with money and love. Just pulling out your gimbal with a field monitor and wifi smartphone controller on wrist will earn you a lot of respect.

I never directed anybody to do anything. I was always 100% candid and just captured what happened as it happened. It was always the photographers that would tell people to stop moving, stand here, do this, wait ten minutes for their assistant to get a battery out of the car or whatever.

Yeah photographers would sometimes ask me to turn off the light but I don't think its right that they get to dictate how I shoot and nobody can tell them how they can shoot. The photographers I worked with on a regular basis got over their bias and quickly learned to go with the flow. Many will ask to turn off the camera light just because they don't want to deal with it or they don't want to adapt. Not for any real reason.

Of course brides are going to ask about you being obtrusive. Thats what they know to ask for and they don't really fully understand the difference. Its your job to explain the difference of the look vs some unfounded concern they have when they hear the word camera lights. They have very little to no experience in weddings. they may have been a guest before and maybe they saw a rude videographer using a light in a really poor way but that doesn't mean they fully understand what's going on. They all didn't want a light for me either until I showed them the difference. then they wanted it and were happy they had it. Nobody gets excited about having a light glaring in their face like they just got pulled over after a night of drinking. Its the outcome that matters the most however.

That video lives forever. The brief annoyance by a few guests last seconds.

In my twenty+ years shooting video (since 1996) I have never had any subjects on the video act any worse with or without the light. A few people may cringe every now and then if I was hasty and turned the light on fast and abruptly in their face but that was a mistake on my part. When moving around the dance floor and the light is already one very few if anybody ever reacted to the light being there.

I agree ISO can be nice. Thats kind of the beauty of it and Dual Native ISO. On the varicam Dual Native ISO wasn't invented as a cleaner way to jack up the ISO and not use any lights. It was a way to use the second native ISO to use lower light output during an indoor production. Not to eliminate lights but not have to require massive 2000 watt type output lights. It was a way to incorporate existing lighting on the set and use the added light to work with it. Smaller and easier to place lights could be used with equal performance to the outdoor shots. Same for an on camera light. The point isn't to crank it to 100% so you can use ISO 100. Its to use a ISO of 800 or 1600 and add a bit of fill to make it pop. It also helps separate the subject from the background. Its ironic that FF users want the DOF to separate the subject from the background but then not care about the light not helping with that. If I am shooting a guest pretending he's as good as Michael Jackson I do want him to be brighter than the crowd of drunk people behind him cheering him on.

 

[Tom Roper]

Earlier this year I was hired to shoot a video guest book, not the ceremony, not reception, toasts, dances, just capture well wishes. They said I could set up an area to bring people in which I've seen done but still felt awkward, or I could rove from table to table and get them.

The way it works usually when there are 2 shooters, immediately after the ceremony, one shooter stays with the photographer for the family photos and wedding party photos while the other shooter grabs some rather meaningless b-roll of the cocktail hour. He usually shoots this with a gimbal, walking the floor. To me these shots are boring if not ending up on the cutting room floor. When I shoot by myself it would be impossible to completely do both, so I made a decision. The family photos and wedding party photos are really the purview of the photographer. She shoots all the families together, then one, then the other, then the boys, then the girls, then the groom's side, then the bride's side etc. I decided as a videographer I didn't need to be there for all that. For my shots it would be enough to have them all together, and then move on to the cocktail hour while there was some time left, but instead of just candidly roving among strangers shooting meaningless shots of people sitting at round tables, that I would now actively engage them, go to each table, prod them into expressing their well wishes and gratitude to the married couple, i.e. every wedding should get a video guest book included.

So there is a difference between creating memories for the married couple, and creating a cinematic highlight reel for the videographer comprised of poses and directed action that he uses to promote his craft. I think ideally, you should try to have a little of both, but I have the interests of the couple at the forefront.

 

[ahalpert]

.

I agree ISO can be nice. Thats kind of the beauty of it and Dual Native ISO. On the varicam Dual Native ISO wasn't invented as a cleaner way to jack up the ISO and not use any lights. It was a way to use the second native ISO to use lower light output during an indoor production. Not to eliminate lights but not have to require massive 2000 watt type output lights. It was a way to incorporate existing lighting on the set and use the added light to work with it. Smaller and easier to place lights could be used with equal performance to the outdoor shots. Same for an on camera light. The point isn't to crank it to 100% so you can use ISO 100. Its to use a ISO of 800 or 1600 and add a bit of fill to make it pop. It also helps separate the subject from the background. Its ironic that FF users want the DOF to separate the subject from the background but then not care about the light not helping with that. If I am shooting a guest pretending he's as good as Michael Jackson I do want him to be brighter than the crowd of drunk people behind him cheering him on.

Manufacturers don't decide what you can do with the tools they give you. For example, on the Bollywood scene Grug mentioned that he shot at ISO 12800, he was shooting driving scenes at night. He used the high base ISO to get an exposure on the homes and street they were driving through, and he used a small led for fill inside the car set at 1% with about a dozen layers of diffusion. So, it was very much about letting the background dictate the lighting level and working with environmental lighting.

I'm very happy to be able to shoot at 1/120 f/2.8 with the same configuration otherwise as before. I can shoot slow motion if I want and I'm not shackled to using a fast lens wide open.

And as I mentioned - I light my dance floor, toasts etc at least 50% of the night if I'm permitted to. I just use lights on stands rather than on camera. I sometimes set a light on stand during prep, and I use lights for my tabletop rings/details set-ups. Not using an on-camera light during couples portraits etc is a stylistic choice, and not one that has ever caused friction. Working with environmental lighting is an artform in itself.

If you can work with the lighting at a venue, you can often find very interesting and pretty looks. Sure, you can still add frontal fill, but it will be supplemental.

I mean - these venues aren't lit with candles and weak tungsten bulbs because they can't afford stronger lighting. It's about setting a mood. I shot a wedding a couple months ago where hardly any guys were dancing the whole night. And then I packed up my lights a half hour before I finished, and all the guys came out. My lights weren't even that bright! So maybe you think to yourself, "this is great. Nobody is altering their behavior because of my camera/light." But the fact is that you don't know what would happen without you.

I think you misunderstand me when I talk about people reacting to the camera and becoming self-conscious. It's not necessarily about stiffening up. Sometimes they consciously get more into what they're doing for the sake of show. It's just about disturbing their natural behavior and losing the fly on the wall approach.

Also - why would brides know about asking about being obtrusive? I've never heard that that's a thing. But I have heard from guests who said that they appreciated the way i shot the reception. One showed me a phone photo of the last wedding they went to. There was a wall of cameramen, tripods and lights right in front of the couples table during toasts. You couldn't see the couple or the person giving the toast. So many couples (and priests) thank me after the day for being discreet. It's our job not just to capture the day but to help create it.

Re: selective focus vs lighting - I remember reading the DP for attack of the clones (iirc) talking about how they used alternating planes of dark and light in the frame to create separation because they were working with deep focus. His clear implication was that it was a greater consideration and need because they couldn't take advantage of selective focus. I'm not saying you can't do both. But doing one diminishes the need to do the other, at least with regard to subject separation from the background.

 

[ahalpert]

So there is a difference between creating memories for the married couple, and creating a cinematic highlight reel for the videographer comprised of poses and directed action that he uses to promote his craft. I think ideally, you should try to have a little of both, but I have the interests of the couple at the forefront.

Is that shot from that wedding? Or I guess not since you said it was just a video guest book shoot?

These are the interesting questions to me in terms of style. What style do you want to employ and how does the fashion and sensibility of these videos evolve over time?

Everything we're shooting will eventually look old-fashioned. The same has happened and will always happen in proper cinema and TV. And it's fun to think about what these videos are, what purpose they serve, and how they should be and can be shot. And to try to move the ball forward and advance the style of what's made.

And yeah, i only ever get a little bit of cocktail hour footage because they only ever use a little bit. Who cares? But it's good to get something. Different couples are radically different, as well, in terms of wanting to memorialize and showcase the expense of the day and the lavishness of the party.

Along those last lines - more and more photographers are saying to me that they don't shoot rings or dress shots anymore because couples aren't interested in details tableaus. But then i get to a more materialistic or rich couple's wedding, and the photographer they've hired is doing the full spread of details shots. and of course, the couples select a shooter who excels in their area of interest.

I may have miscommunicated about directing the couple. I participate in the photographer's staging for couples portraits, and I throw them direction myself. I just find that, like in documentary, you can't tell them to give you or perform an emotion. You have to coax it from them and create the conditions for them to think and feel a certain way that will come out on their face. It seems to be an easier task for photographers since they only need a split second of smile or emotion.

 

[Tom Roper]

Is that shot from that wedding? Or I guess not since you said it was just a video guest book shoot?

It is a wedding day frame grab from my GH5S on a gimbal after the wedding party photos 7/24, with the 12-60mm PanaLeica, not a video guest book. It's unrelated to the body of how I normally do the couples shoot, but the bride and car together with the photographer directing the action was the opportunity the bride was presenting. The photographer was incessantly barking instructions to her getting the right pose. That was her craft. I would characterized the style of that wedding as "gangsta." It's probably worth a behind the scenes look on YouTube. This photographer knew what she wanted and how to ask for it, and the bride knew how to give it. How much will be used? I can only speculate.

These are the interesting questions to me in terms of style. What style do you want to employ and how does the fashion and sensibility of these videos evolve over time?

That's a great question because the fashion and sensibility of my style if you call it that did evolve over time, but is not reflected in that particular frame grab. If I am the only shooter, I don't have other shooters jumping into my shots. In that case I can remain a little farther away and use lens magnification to get in tight, for separation, bokeh. And I have to confess it is influenced by the choice of lens and camera. The P6K with Canon 85mm F1.4L creates flattering images for me, the portrait length, speed, sharpness open, and soft bokeh all work, not to mention it's the only EF mount in that length that is optically stabilized. But if there is a 2nd shooter and he's not respectful of the other shooters, then I have to move in close to defend my shooting angle and I'll use the GH5S on the gimbal. But I'd rather stand back and not buzz the couple.

And yeah, i only ever get a little bit of cocktail hour footage because they only ever use a little bit. Who cares? But it's good to get something. Different couples are radically different, as well, in terms of wanting to memorialize and showcase the expense of the day and the lavishness of the party.

That's another reason for spicing it up with well wishes. It's harder to cut when the couple is receiving personalized messages. It would be like reading somebody's mail and discarding it without giving it to them. So I have come around to a logical conclusion, that there is more value to the video guest book than static shots of groups of the family and wedding party that are duplicates of what they are getting from the photographer.

Along those last lines - more and more photographers are saying to me that they don't shoot rings or dress shots anymore because couples aren't interested in details tableaus. But then i get to a more materialistic or rich couple's wedding, and the photographer they've hired is doing the full spread of details shots. and of course, the couples select a shooter who excels in their area of interest.

That's interesting. I haven't run across photographers that don't shoot rings and dresses. I try and get them because it's easier to edit out bad shots than include what you didn't get in the first place. I just never know, so it's by default that I will. And the same goes for shooting video of the signing of the marriage certificate. It's hard for me to believe how important some couples think that detail is, that some include the certificate signing into the ceremony itself.

I may have miscommunicated about directing the couple. I participate in the photographer's staging for couples portraits, and I throw them direction myself. I just find that, like in documentary, you can't tell them to give you or perform an emotion. You have to coax it from them and create the conditions for them to think and feel a certain way that will come out on their face. It seems to be an easier task for photographers since they only need a split second of smile or emotion.

I do when the photographer is not there. For example, I will stage a shot of the best man helping the groom into his jacket, followed by the others one by one giving him hugs.

 

[ahalpert]

Here's an on-camera light that burned me. At one of the recent weddings I posted from above, the 2nd photographer for some reason used an on-camera continuous LED for the sparkler send-off. He put it up right before we shot, too, throwing my camera settings into a tailspin. I think it works from a distance:

then it starts to get hot and sourcey:

then unusable imo:

and, of course, forget about close-range:


they should have put it high above and behind us on a stand to get a more even distribution of light. (of course, they only need a single frame or two from the middle...) but in any case, I think they robbed the scene of the magic that the sparklers provide as practical illumination:


I wouldn't argue with any Tom in favor of using light on a stand. I just think that you need to be prepared at these events to shoot without on-camera light, whether your light is on a stand or you can shoot in low ambient levels. Yes, the issue above is not a problem for a b-roll shot at fixed distance where you can set your light level just for that shot. But you need to be ready for all the various needs of the night.

I also like the look of candlelighting, which here I'm shooting on a telephoto from too far away for on-camera light anyway:



My point was just that it can be beneficial to be able to shoot in low lighting levels for documentary and event work. You may not always be able to light your subject, and even when you can, you may just want to shape the lighting without raising the overall level enough to bring your gain back down where you want it. So, while I think M43 cameras are great, I think they have disadvantages here. But I wouldn't be shooting with a Sony that couldn't do 10-bit and full readout. Everybody decides what their technical priorities and non-negotiables are.

 

[ahalpert]

It is a wedding day frame grab from my GH5S on a gimbal after the wedding party photos 7/24, with the 12-60mm PanaLeica, not a video guest book. It's unrelated to the body of how I normally do the couples shoot, but the bride and car together with the photographer directing the action was the opportunity the bride was presenting. The photographer was incessantly barking instructions to her getting the right pose. That was her craft. I would characterized the style of that wedding as "gangsta." It's probably worth a behind the scenes look on YouTube. This photographer knew what she wanted and how to ask for it, and the bride knew how to give it. How much will be used? I can only speculate.

Yes, well, determining and delivering the style of what the couple wants is an important part of the job, I suppose. Different people want different things. I filled in a few times for a videographer who does fast edits on the beat to hip-hop music and seems to service an exclusively African-American clientele. All slow mo, lots of wide-angle low-angle. Emphasis on clothing and jewelry. Like a rap video. I see a lot of photographers do elaborate poses, and it works for their shots, or they wouldn't have gotten hired.

But if there is a 2nd shooter and he's not respectful of the other shooters, then I have to move in close to defend my shooting angle and I'll use the GH5S on the gimbal. But I'd rather stand back and not buzz the couple.

Haha defend your angle. I know what you mean, although I probably take the opposite approach. If there are a lot of cooks in the kitchen then I'm usually on a telephoto zoom backing off and to the side to look for 3/4 angles against alternative backgrounds. And asking the photographer to occupy their angle now and then when I see something particularly good that I want to steal.

I pride myself on being easy to work with for other shooters. I see it as a collaboration. Some people see it as a competition. They are not much fun to work with. Anyway, I sort of feel like the still photography takes precedence for most of the day except for the especially moving, talking parts, and I'm fine with that.

That's another reason for spicing it up with well wishes. It's harder to cut when the couple is receiving personalized messages. It would be like reading somebody's mail and discarding it without giving it to them. So I have come around to a logical conclusion, that there is more value to the video guest book than static shots of groups of the family and wedding party that are duplicates of what they are getting from the photographer.

I've delivered these well wishes on request a couple times but I haven't considered making it a staple of my coverage. Food for thought... Agreed that static group shots are not that useful. Usually it seems that only one or two of the full bridal party or family make the edit.

That's interesting. I haven't run across photographers that don't shoot rings and dresses. I try and get them because it's easier to edit out bad shots than include what you didn't get in the first place. I just never know, so it's by default that I will. And the same goes for shooting video of the signing of the marriage certificate. It's hard for me to believe how important some couples think that detail is, that some include the certificate signing into the ceremony itself.

I think it may be a sort of "Brooklyn" photographer thing. One recent occurrence was Brooklyn-based photographers shooting a lesbian wedding who told me that their clients don't want those shots anymore. Another time this year was at the wedding of a college-educated organic farmer. I asked the photographer if she was going to shoot the rings and she said something dismissive like, "I haven't shot a rings shot in over 5 years." or something. But I shot it anyway because I have a PhD in CYA.

Of course, I'd be happy if those details shots went away. Personally, I'm more interested in sweet candid moments and experimenting with camera moves around the dance floor. I'd rather be delivering something like a home movie but with good composition, exposure, stabiilty, focus....

 

[ahalpert]

Btw my favorite wedding cinematography is definitely Melancholia

 

[stoneinapond]

So who’s still interested in the GH6?

 

[Bassman2003]

I have no idea if I am or not. Wait and see is the only thing left...

 

[stoneinapond]

I have no idea if I am or not. Wait and see is the only thing left...

I should have included a smiley. You're right, although it shouldn't be too long now.

 

[Bassman2003]

I would guess it is still months away.

 

[Ron Evans]

I think for the things I do the new Black Magic Studio cameras are more interesting. I have the Olympus 12- 50 Power zoom so that would work well I think. Will have to see what all the specs really come to the first introduction.

 

[NorBro]

I think for the things I do the new Black Magic Studio cameras are more interesting.

How would you record with them? (Wondering about your studio/setup.)

 

[Ron Evans]

How would you record with them? (Wondering about your studio/setup.)

The interesting one for me is the 4K Plus as I have no need for all the SDI and studio connections.An improved Pocket 4K with 7" monitor really. I use now two Atomos Ninja V for my GH5S and GH5 so for the Studio camera I would only need a USB C drive like a T5. Same as all the other BM Pocket cameras . I could record BRAW on that and even backup to one of the Ninja with Prores from the HDMI 2.0 . I always shoot on tripods. I shoot theatre so no studio. I would of course turn off the nice big light on the front permanently. The attraction is good performance ( looks similar to the GH5S ), real knobs and buttons to set with 7" monitor. Dual USB C for connecting drives and/or the remote controllers announced at the same time. A lot of camera for the price.

The zoom controller looks really interesting with lots of custom buttons too. As I mentioned I have the Olympus 12-50 that appeared in their demos. Not a great lens but I do use with the GH5S so I would expect similar performance. Works Ok with LANC controller on GH5S or GH5. Not used a lot as it does not ramp control so a bit simplistic. Not useful for zooming while recording. Hope the BM controllers are more sophisticated with ramp control. Maybe BM will encourage another power zoom lens as there are only 4 at the moment.

 

[NorBro]

Sounds good. They look like nice cameras. I wish they still had internal batteries inside them, but they took them out years ago because they were problematic for flying.

 

[Ron Evans]

I always use external batteries when I shoot anyway so they are actually more convenient to power than the GH5's. With the GH5II being able to power from USB C it is actually more convenient than either the GH5 or GH5S I have now. Making sure things have enough power to run for 2 or 3 hours is a cause of some concern at times. Being able to run from a big battery with USB C is very useful or in the case of the Studio cameras a 12v input from D-Tap.

 

[DLD]

BTW, off its financials, Panasonic's digital camera division accounts for about 1/3rd of 1% - or .33% in decimals - of its total revenues.

 

[Zim]

So who’s still interested in the GH6?

It's hard to tell until we get more details. $2500 will be too much. For me the GH5II could meet my needs and even with the GH5II I'd like to see it $200 or $300 cheaper.

 

[stoneinapond]

It's hard to tell until we get more details. $2500 will be too much. For me the GH5II could meet my needs and even with the GH5II I'd like to see it $200 or $300 cheaper.

Understood.

It will need to offer some unprecedented m43 features to command such a price, but in comparison to say the prices of the Sony a1, or Canons offerings (not talking about sensor size but about the vertical positioning of the camera models by various manufactures), the sum could well be justified and prove to be a bargain for those interested in the format.