Need a good workhorse lens for GH3 for concert shooting

A

AndersonSoundRecording

Member
Howdy folks.

I am completely new to the whole "choosing a lens" thing, so any help here would be appreciated.

I'll be shooting mostly classical music concerts, where adding lights won't be an option and ambient lighting is often less-than desirable.

So what I think I need is a fast lens (<f2.8) that also has the ability to zoom a bit (I might have to set up farther away and/or closer than I'd like sometimes). I understand that primes are cheaper and in some cases better, but I think I need this versatility since it won't always be possible for me to setup where I need to be just for the sake of the shot. Images should be sharp and clear. Autofocus is probably a must.

I''m willing to drop a little bit of money on this, so somewhere in the $1k to $1.5k range wouldn't make me blush, as long as it's worth the investment. Cheaper is better of course, but if I can keep the total cost of the camera under $3k, that would be grand.

Thanks!
 
Are you going to single camera shoot an entire event, or use multiple cameras?

Is audio going to be handled by separate audio recorder and then synced in post, or are you using your camera for primary sound recording?
 
If you want faster than 2.8 with a zoom, it's really down to the olympus f/2.0 14-35, but it won't be long enough if you need to set up from further off, as you indicate. If you really want zoom, I think you'd be better off with the 35-100, it's 2.8, but it's good wide open.
 
Is there a reason why you are using a DSLR for this type of shoot?

Honestly there are certain types of productions where a traditional video camera is better suited. For $3000.00 you can buy a really nice 1/3" HD video camera with a fluid zoom lens that can be zoomed while shooting with very clean professional results. You will never find a DSLR zoom lens that will handle that well. A 1/3" video camera will be as sensitive if not better than a slow DSLR zoom lens. Not to mention reliable audio in camera and just an overall more professional experience.

If you had two or three cameras at these type of events you can pull off a great video but with a single camera forget about it. I have been doing video for over fifteen years and have yet to find a great way to shoot these types of videos with a DSLR. I recently sold a couple of my lenses to buy the 14-140 lens. It helps a lot since it has the range but it is very dark and nowhere near what a video camera can do for zooming while shooting. If you are new to these types of cameras I can guarantee shooting these types of events is going to be a chore for you and mistakes will be made. Lots of them.

If you went the f2.8 zoom route you basically have to buy two lenses and even then don't have a lot of reach. If you are shooting from a balcony or from the back of an auditorium you are going to need a lot more reach than 100mm. Getting one of the newer 1/3" video cameras with a 20x zoom is really the best way to go here.
 
My suggestion would be to buy a second video camera instead of trying to shoehorn $2000.00 worth of only marginally more sensitive glass. Having a. Second camera will allow you to shoot in many different situations. DSLR for more scripted work and video camera for live video work.
 
Thanks Thomas - all very good points.

I am actually going to do a head-to-head comparison with this camera and two camcorders - the AC-90 and the XF-105. From the footage I see, and the features, I suspect the AC-90 will be the camera that wins out, but I find the DSLR-type to be a compelling option.

I've got the sound side of things well-covered. I need a camera to offer video in addition to my sound services, since that seems to be the way the business is evolving.

Eventually, I will have a two-camera package, and I figure it will probably be a dedicated camcorder for a locked-down static wide shot and a DLSR for roving close/artsy shots.
 
A DSLR can work very well as a locked down as well if you need it wide. Wide shots locked down are great. It is when you are stuck somewhere and need to get the camera closer to the action that a DSLR falls on its face.

Don't get me wrong I love my GH3 and sold off all my other equipment to build up my DSLR tools but I know there are certain shoots that it just will not work very well for if I have to shoot it on my own.

The ac90 is a great camera but may not be much better than a DSLR with a slow zoom lens in terms of brightness. You would be better off with a video camera with a good 1/3" sensor. Have you looked into the new Canon video cameras. If you don't need the HD-SDI version they are pretty affordable have a killer zoom lens and are 1/3". XA20 or something like that. There is also a consumer version hf30 or something like that. Same guts minus the XLR audio.
 
Thomas Smet said:
The ac90 is a great camera but may not be much better than a DSLR with a slow zoom lens in terms of brightness. You would be better off with a video camera with a good 1/3" sensor. Have you looked into the new Canon video cameras.
Click to expand...

This is the same thing I'm encountering. I've been considering a new AC90 but the sensor is so small I doubt it will be bright enough. I've also been looking at a used Panasonic AG-HMC150. It uses the same chipset as the HVX200A and HPX170 but in the AVCCAM format recording to SD cards, as P2 is way out of my budget. But is a five year old camera going to be worth it? There isn't much else in the $2000 range other than a ton of old HDV cameras at 1440 resolution and recording to tape. No thanks. I went that route years ago and I won't go back to tape.

So what's your suggestion for a good, inexpensive 1/3" ENG camera? A used AG-HMC150 or something else?
 
XA-20 looks great, but not yet available. I've seen things shot with the XF100/105, and not been overly impressed.

What the AC90 lacks in brightness, it seems to make up for in clean gain. Some of the shots I've seen boosted 18 or 20 dB were rather impressive. Not that I have such a great eye, but the things I'm looking for (moire and noise) are not there, whereas the large single-sensor cams seem to suffer from these things.

An XF105 is part of the shootout. If it wins out over the AC90 in the two scenarios I have planned, I'll definitely be giving these types of cams another look.
 
Keep in mind 18db on the ac90 is about as bright as a good 1/3" at 0db. So yes it can be clean but not as clean as 0db. You may also not want to go much further past 18db on the ac90 so having a 1/3" means being able to go beyond what the ac90 could see in the dark.

Very impressive camera with the clean gain but a 1/3" with equally clean gain will be that much better. I had the Panasonic hmc40 which is the early brother to the ac90. Great camera but eventually I had to get rid of it since its main purpose was shooting concert and lecture type events and the bad lighting was killing it. While the ac90 has much cleaner gain I would still prefer to be able to shoot at 0db or a low gain level.

No doubt a video camera is going to have a different look than a DSLR. That is when compared to optimal material. You really need to compare footage from a video camera and DSLR in the same shooting situation. Any quality advantage you may feel a DSLR will have is chucked out the window once you hit limitations of using a DSLR for those type of shoots. Either you get the range of a super zoom and deal with a high level of noise and still not have a wide range of reach or you deal with the slight quality differences of a video camera and at least what you are shooting is consistent. Also keep in mind DSLR zoom lenses tend to not have the same level of quality as prime lenses. So a cool looking feature film shot with nice primes on a DSLR with careful lighting is going to look very different than that same DSLR using slower limited zooms with native ambient light.

DSLRs are amazing tools but it takes a lot of work to get consistent results in multiple situations. A video camera is designed for consistency which is something that is critical when shooting something like concerts or lectures.
 
It sounds like the Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 will be your best bet if you decide to stick with the GH3 for your camera choice.

Another option is renting a camera. Usually, I'm a huge fan of buying instead of renting mainly because I'm a gadget guy like most people on the forum, BUT I've been seriously considering renting instead because you can get a lot more camera for less investment. If low light is an issue, you might think about renting a Canon C100 which I've seen tests of and is a beast in low light plus supposedly very nice to work with on event shooting. I could be wrong as I haven't used it myself, but renting a camera will give you more options and also not stick you with a camera setup that is less than ideal for your needs.

Hope this helps,
Andy
 
I'll throw my recommendation in for the Lumix 12-35 f2.8. Not the FASTEST lens, but overall a very excellent performer. I've actually found filming concerts that there's often more light than you think there's going to be (stage lights, etc). I've even had good results with the slow-ish f4.0 14-140 lens.

The 12-35 also gives you the versatility to use the ETC crop mode for a longer focal length... AND it has built-in lens stabilization. It's a spendy lens ($1100 ish), but I'd say it's worth it for what you're doing.

I've personally grown very comfortable with my GH2 for filming everything from short films to every day life... once you know the camera well enough it's an extremely flexible tool.

Best of luck!

Aaron Sternke
 
Here's a video I made from a recent family trip to Disneyworld... 95% of it was done with the 12-35mm (the other 5% with the 14-140). There's a few low-light shots scattered throughout the video. This was just a quick run-and-gun / shoot whatever I can video, and I think the 12-35 did well.

https://vimeo.com/52632553
 
If you can get close to the orchestra ( i.e. you can shoot on the orchestra stage ) then the Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8 lens would be my first pick.

If you have to shoot from the audience seats, then I would look at the Lumix 35-100mm f/2.8 lens, and maybe this Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED lens with a Micro 4/3 adapter. ( no AF, no stabilization, but it's fast and has a long reach )
 
Definitely not a DSLR shoot. Even if you do used the preferred zoom 35-100 Lumix the zoom capabilities while shooting are clunky and not suitable. There's no advantage at all in my opinion. I have a Sony Z5 with a 20x zoom (I assume you're not too close) that I would recommend, or any video camera in fact. Maybe if you want to use a DSLR as a second cam up close for creative shots, but that's about it.
 
Canon J15x9.5B lens for GH2 or Gh3

Canon J15x9.5B lens for GH2 or Gh3

AndersonSoundRecording said:
Howdy folks.

I am completely new to the whole "choosing a lens" thing, so any help here would be appreciated.

I'll be shooting mostly classical music concerts, where adding lights won't be an option and ambient lighting is often less-than desirable.

So what I think I need is a fast lens (<f2.8) that also has the ability to zoom a bit (I might have to set up farther away and/or closer than I'd like sometimes). I understand that primes are cheaper and in some cases better, but I think I need this versatility since it won't always be possible for me to setup where I need to be just for the sake of the shot. Images should be sharp and clear. Autofocus is probably a must.

I''m willing to drop a little bit of money on this, so somewhere in the $1k to $1.5k range wouldn't make me blush, as long as it's worth the investment. Cheaper is better of course, but if I can keep the total cost of the camera under $3k, that would be grand.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
I would consider the Pany 25mm f1.4 lens. I love this lens and bought two of them for my 2 camera reception shoots. If you can squeeze it in, buy another GH2 and set one up in the ETC for close ups and the GH3 for the
moving camera
 
I would consider the Pany 25mm f1.4 lens. I love this lens and bought two of them for my 2 camera reception shoots. If you can squeeze it in, buy another GH2 and set one up in the ETC for close ups and the GH3 for the
moving camera. Don't discount the performance of a DSLR, but use your imagination to take advantage of these camera's.
 
I also strongly suggest something like renting the Sony EX1/EX1r/PMW-200 for live events. Especially if it's a one camera shoot. Without 2 cameras, you have zero room for errors, and there are always errors. With 2 cameras you can cut to the other angle, and even better with 3/4 cameras. Best use for DSLR/M cameras like this is for locked down wide shots IMO. Here's a 4 camera shoot I did using 2 EX1 cameras at 45º from stage, a hacked GH3 as the locked down wide shot in the center of the room, and an HMC-150 hand held at the stage. Audio captured as 12 discreet tracks from the board, then I mixed them in my studio later. Any on-camera mic will sound like crap with a lot of audience sound (unless they are quiet). And IMO the image quality of the EX1s just killed the other 2 cameras.

But I understand if you just have your one camera and you just want to do your thing. Personally I wouldn't take a gig in that situation, knowing what I know now. There will be stress...
 
Chadfish said:
an HMC-150 hand held at the stage
Click to expand...

That's great to see three different cameras in use at an event. What procedure did you use to try to get the HMC150 to match the other cameras. I just bought a used HMC150 and I'm trying to get it to match my Canon t2i -- actually just trying to get the best image out of it. I posted a thread here with samples of the footage: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?308898-Settings-to-Match-HMC150-to-Canon-dslr

Perhaps you could take a look and give me any feedback? Thanks, Chadfish.
 
rszebras, to me, having used a T2i before, it seems like the T2i is harder to match to other cameras. I always get a red shift with that camera. But it was borrowed, and I was probably doing it wrong. For me, since the EX1 cameras had the best image/color, I just tried to match the other cameras to those - in post. I did a WB under the spotlights on the stage before the show with all 4 cameras, so they were relatively the same. The non DSLR cameras don't have ISO etc, they just have gain. So I set the gain as low as they would go (-3db) and went for it. I don't know if the 150 has a low of -3db or 0db. To me the GH2 looked washed out compared to the EX1s, ad the HMC-150 has lower resolution with it's 1/3" chips (the EX1s have 3x 1/2" sensors) But basically I did a WB and then used a 3-way color corrector to match in post. Pretty simple and non scientific. I didn't create any special picture profiles. For my EX1s I use the Vortex Media picture profile, which is basically just designed to give decent looking video off the camera with mellow, but realistic colors, as apposed to something more flat and milky looking for more grading leeway. Being it was a low paying gig of an hour long concert, I didn't want to get into high render times using something like Magic Bullet Looks to force everything into a "Look" which is a good trick when matching disparate looking footage.

I think it's a lot more tweaking to try to match not only 2 different brands, but two different types of cameras than to just wrench the crap out of it in post to make it match LOL! I think if you start with decent WB, and good exposure you can do a lot to match the stuff, especially if someone is wearing white. To me, I see a big difference in the image quality between the cameras rather than the color, but to the civilians watching, it probably blends pretty good.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top