Need advice on which camera for Event/Wedding videography.

[noirist]

You mentioned that low-light and autofocus were your top priorities. For better low light performance, you need a larger sensor and faster lenses. Larger sensor and faster lenses means shallower depth of field, which means more difficult autofocus. Most of the large sensor cameras you mentioned use contrast-detect autofocus, and they will hunt if you run them on continuous autofocus. So everytime your subject moves out of focus, the camera's autofocus will try to focus farther and closer to see which one is better. That appears as a very annoying autofocus "pulse" in the footage. So the bad news is that there's no free lunch -- you can have great low light peformance or you can have great autofocus performance but you can't yet have both.

That being said, some choices are better than others. The best large sensor choice in your original list is the A99 for three reasons. Firstly, it has the largest sensor in the list which means the most light gathering ability and the best low light performance. Secondly, it natively mounts the best lenses -- the Sony alpha lenses are much better than the Sony NEX lenses, both in optical quality (eg., resolution, distortion, etc) and in light gathering ability (ie., fstop). Thirdly, it has the pellicle mirror natively which means that it can use both contrast detect and phase detect autofocus during videos so it will likely have the best autofocus (most accurate with least pulsing). I'd recommend the A99 over the VG900 because you will have to use the LA alpha mount adapter on the VG900 to get the best lenses but you will not get the same autofocus performance as the A99 with it's native alpha mount. The downsides are that all the large sensor cameras in your list use line skipping to downscale their sensors to 1080p, which means they all have color moire and other ugly artifacts and none of them records a full 1080 lines of resolution.

Of the other cameras in the list, the GH3 and AF100 are good choices because you get a largish sensor, good autofocus, and a wide selection of good lenses (fast and high resolution). The AF100 has the better form factor but the GH3 will have superior low light performance (much better sensor) and superior autofocus (much higher speed contrast detect autofocus with less pulsing.) The GH3 can also record internally with much higher bit rates.

Personally, I would stay away from the NEX cameras with the APS-C sensors because you will be stuck using inferior NEX lenses with inferior (low speed) contrast detect autofocus. The A99 with the appropriate lens will give you better low light performance AND better autofocus performance. The GH3 will give you comparable low light performance, higher resolution (no line skipping and higher bitrates), and much better autofocus performance.

There's also a lot to be said for the professional video cameras. They have smaller sensors (bad low light, good autofocus) but they also come with very fast zoom lenses (eg., f1.6) which greatly improves the low light performance.

The low risk approach is to use a professional video camera. They're designed for professionals who want to make movies, like yourself! The DSLRs are designed for hobbyists and professionals willing to tinker to save a buck. Being a professional is all about risk minimization. You want to produce a good product with the greatest possible certainty. That's what the professional video cameras are designed to do. Using a DSLR comes with too many risks, like a critical shot is completely out of focus or the autofocus is pulsing or the sound is borked when the groom says "I do" or whoops the bride's dress is covered with horrible color moire.

One final thought - if you're going to be handholding the video camera, I'd also include optical image stabilization as one of your top criterion. Nobody wants to look at shaky footage of their own wedding.

 

[Exact]

Wow, 4 canon xf100? Do you zoom in and out? I like the XF100 wide open and not zoom at all, that is where it shine but if the bride and grom 15ft away and the church is dark, it's grainy footages.

Not sure what you mean by zoom in and out There are no cheesy zooms in our videos The only zoom that can make it to the final edit would be in a really long church where there is a zoom from close to wide as the B+G are leaving, which slowly reveals all the congregation while keeping the couple a reasonable size in the frame (and o course in focus - which is much harder on a DSLR).

In terms of are we ever not wide.... of course. If we shot everything at the widest then we'd have some pretty boring cuts. The secret is not to be too quick to up the gain in-camera and to push it a little more in post. There seems to be a lot more latitude with the XF100 @ 4:2:2 and Colorista II than we had with the HMC150s AVCHD. We can easily add lots of mid gain in post and not get noisy. In fact, I'd say almost every camera has some mid boost in post on inside shots, and I'd rather stay at 0db and boost in post than go to 6db and have to de-noise.

We generally have at least one of the XF100s unmanned, so that needs to be frames and focused appropriately, so zoom is essential.

Having on-board NDs means we can run from inside a church to outside and press the auto iris as we're moving. By the time we are ready to sit the tripod down the camera has figured things out close enough that we can press the auto iris again to shut things down and lock them in manual mode, making minor adjustments to taste (i.e don't blow the dress!). But we NEVER, EVER run the camera in full auto mode. Inside that would give you wonderful bright scenes but the noise would be horrific! So, full manual for exposure at all times - except the auto iris to make adjustments while you are running, but turn it OFF before we start filming. But then, we'd do this with any camera, assuming it had NDs.

Personally, I wouldn't buy a video camera without built in NDs. Period. Using external NDs on the DSLR is a major PITA.

In terms of colour, we rarely get funky either, unless specifically asked to, so it's more a case of get the colour right then balance between al the cameras. As I said before, being able to set a kelvin temperature white balance, and have it absolutely consistent between all cameras saves a LOT of time in post. The HMCs used to drive me nuts because no two cameras were ever the same.

For noise reduction and how we apply it, as with anything else it's generally on a case by case basis. We shot some speeches a couple of weeks ago in a marquee and we had no choice but to use video lights (which I almost never do for speeches) and we were still at 6db. In this case we ran the entire thing through noise reduction and it took about 13 hours to render. Other times we may only apply to one angle if that particular shot (e.g. church front) didn't have enough light and we had no choice but to increase gain. So there is no overall rule - it's on an as-needed basis. Even then, most of the time the clients would never complain, but we know it's nosier than we'd like so we'd treat it.

 

[The Irish TRex]

Did you ever shoot with both the HMCs and XF100s? Would love to see a side by side comparison in a real world (wedding) situation. I'm not looking into getting the XF100's or anything but it'd be interesting to see a sample clip. I will be buying 3 new cameras next year (ideally at under $5k each) so I'm currently doing all my homework on what will work best for my style. Do you have a sample pre/post noise reduction, color grading shot you could share? Using HMC's I rarely go past +6db for obvious reasons. But I do use lights at Receptions if the couple has decided not to have their Wedding professionally lit (which is about 70% of the couples we shoot here in Southern California). The one's that do have it lit professionally we don't even use gain and it looks phenomenal. As I go into my 4th year doing this and my prices have doubled, etc. my couples have bigger budgets so I'm recommending more and more that their Reception be lit if possible (by more than just ugly orange ceiling lights). But I can't exactly force them to do that. I agree with your assessment about boosting less in camera and more in post, but I'm guessing that a 4:2:2 camera would make that more of a true statement. In post I often bump up the highs, not the mids. Maybe I should do more of the mids like you do. I just found it to wash out more than when I raised the highs (eventhough technically the mids are targeting the skin tones, etc. that I'm trying to raise). I add a bit of saturation which helps but I'm interested to see what others do.

Regarding ND's, did you use variable ND's? Nothing beats an on board ND filter for sure. But I'm curious if when using your DSLRs having a variable one would help a bit.

Finally, I'm of the belief that zooming at the slowest speed is an effective style choice at the right moment. I zoom actually quite a bit during Weddings. Not randomly though. And NEVER faster than the slowest crawl I can possibly do. The reason I do it is because we shoot 60p all day and then I edit on a 24p timeline to reduce the video look. But much of what we shoot is slowed down in post for their Highlight montages. And a slow zoom, slowed down even more to 40% can look really nice at the right moments. But again, that's just my style. I've seen it done VERY poorly or and it looks amateurish where it takes you out of a moment and makes you realize there is someone working a camera and it does look cheesy, but I think it can be very effective as well. Most DSLR shooters cannot achieve a slow smooth zoom so its not something they are "used" to seeing and it may throw them at first even if its done well. Much like I was originally thrown by DSLR shooters that often have very shallow DOF shots that hunt for focus where the subject goes in and out of blurriness. But now, that has almost become an artistic choice to add to their style as a result of what their cameras can do that other smaller sensor cameras cannot.

 

[Gary Huff]

I used a XF100 for event shooting (not a wedding) once and found it to be slightly frustrating because I prefer multiple control rings instead of a single one with a toggle switch. Outside of that, I can't say anymore, other than that it puts out a nice image. I would prefer the XF300 for myself, but not at that price.

 

[noirist]

Here's some evidence that continuous contrast-detect autofocus during video recording works better at higher frame rates:

http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2012/10/continuous-af-during-video-with-gh2.html

 

[Exact]

Did you ever shoot with both the HMCs and XF100s? Would love to see a side by side comparison in a real world (wedding) situation.

No, we sold all the HMCs before we got the XF100s, shooting DSLR only in between. We bought the XF100s because of all the short comings of using DSLR only in many different situations. However, we have been back to shoot in some of the same locations and the XF100 produces much nicer results. YMMV.

Do you have a sample pre/post noise reduction, color grading shot you could share?

Sure. Let e find some for you. I've just archived the last wedding to tape and deleted it from the HDD so I'll have to grab something and post later.

But I do use lights at Receptions if the couple has decided not to have their Wedding professionally lit (which is about 70% of the couples we shoot here in Southern California). The one's that do have it lit professionally we don't even use gain and it looks phenomenal.

Kinda jealous! The idea of having a wedding professionally lit here is a bit of an alien concept. Not done one with any professional lighting at all - not one.

As I go into my 4th year doing this and my prices have doubled, etc. my couples have bigger budgets so I'm recommending more and more that their Reception be lit if possible (by more than just ugly orange ceiling lights).

Budgets here are constantly being squeezed..... not going up

Maybe I should do more of the mids like you do. I just found it to wash out more than when I raised the highs (eventhough technically the mids are targeting the skin tones, etc. that I'm trying to raise). I add a bit of saturation which helps but I'm interested to see what others do.

When you raise the mids a lot you need to add saturation until it looks right. That's where I found the HMCs really fell apart and got noisy

Regarding ND's, did you use variable ND's? Nothing beats an on board ND filter for sure. But I'm curious if when using your DSLRs having a variable one would help a bit.

Yes, we have some 8 stop vary-ND filters that we use on the DSLRs, but when you are using a hood they are a pain, and when you're not using a hood you have to be very careful with flare.

Finally, I'm of the belief that zooming at the slowest speed is an effective style choice at the right moment.

Yes, it's that very slow zoom out that we add as the bride and groom are coming back down the isle to leave the church. Anything fast is tacky, but I see lots of people doing it!

 

[Exact]

I used a XF100 for event shooting (not a wedding) once and found it to be slightly frustrating because I prefer multiple control rings instead of a single one with a toggle switch.

As I said before, this is my one pet hate of the XF100. It's something that doesn't get in the way as much as you would think, but I prefer the switch in the focus position and usually zoom with the rocker (since I rarely zoom while filming it's not an issue), but my son (who is full time shooting with us) prefers it in the zoom position (and switches to focus mode when needed) so if we happen to swap cameras during a shoot we both get frustrated that the switch is no longer in our preferred position!

We borrowed an XF300 from Canon prior to buying the XF100s. The XF300 is a gorgeous camera. I would love 4 of them if I had the choice, but they are bigger, heavier and more than twice the price!

 

[Johnny B]

If you look at the specs, there is very little difference between the Vg20 and 30. If I were buying a VG, I would look at a closeout or used 20 since the new model brings price reductions with no change in IQ. For instance the VG20 body is now listed at $1288 on Amazon and the kit with the 18-200 lens is $1799, which is the price of the body only on the VG30 and its not even available yet. Looking at tests of the Nex5n and the new 5f and 6 (same sensors as the Vg20 & 30) there is no difference, the new cameras brought feature upgrades and the on sensor AF. I'd rather get the VG20 + lens for the price of the 30 body, unless the new powerzoom is a must have, but that'll set you back $2698 for the same image. Just my .02, YMMV

As of right now though I do really want/prefer the zoom rocker. But I'm contemplating going VG20 for the cheaper price and cutting zoom out of my style. Tough choice still for me though because of the upgraded on sensor AF you mentioned. That is what makes me still heavily consider the VG30 over the VG20.

Even at 6db (equal to around ISO1600 on Canon 5D2 when I did side by side tests) this camera is very usable.

We spent a long time with HMC150 cameras (4 of them) and their low light capability was terrible compared to the XF100s, as was the focus and LCD.

I didn't have a lot of time to play with the XA10's so I still am gonna keep trying them out. I have a couple of weddings this month that Im gonna continue renting the XA10's for and further test their performance.

We went from HMC150s to shooting mostly DSLR (5D2, 7D etc) and while the DSLRs were certainly better in low light, large sensors cause al sorts of focus problems when you have to stand back and zoom in. For sure, the DSLR shot from the back of the church was nicer (low noise) and the shallow DOF was wonderful EXCEPT it's impossible to have the couple and the guy taking the ceremony in focus at the same time. At ISO 1600. f2.8 @ 200mm gives you about 6 inches DOF. That's not enough enough to keep both B+G in focus if they aren't stood exactly the same distance from you. Getting both B+G in focus during the rings from a side shot is also fairly impossible. You have to choose on or the other.

We now shoot with a mixture of XF100s (x4), HF G10 (x1) and DSLRs (Nikon D800s). The LCDs are much better than the HMCs and you can actually use them for focusing!

That is why I originally mentioned that I don't need shallow depth of field and that it would just be a bonus. But like you and Trex mentioned focusing/autofocus issues will be there with larger sensors which is disappointing because I really want both low light performance and nice crisp autofocus. I cant have my cake and eat it too. But Exact, the idea of working with a mixture as you stated does have its appeal. At this point it seems that APS-C is the largest sensor I would want if its not too large for my style of shooting but maybe I should go m4/3 or even smaller but then there goes the low light performance.

The XF100 is a great workhorse camera and the noise from 6db is perfectly acceptable and can be pushed quite hard in Colorista II, especially if you are willing to wash it through Neat Video. The image is sharp enough that even after noise reduction it still looks great on even a large TV. As ever, it's how you process things that matter most.

I hope after a few more experiences with the XA10 that I can get good results as well.

The major downside for the XF100 is that it doesn't have 3 dials at the front to independently adjust focus, zoom and iris, so you get to choose two of the three and flick a switch when you want the other one.

As of now I don't mind not having the three dials as I have not been spoiled yet by a camera that has them. But I am heavily considering the Panasonic AC90 which i believe has three manual rings. Any insight or thoughts on that camera would be appreciated.

If you are shooting with multiple cameras then one of the first thing I look for is the ability to set the kelvin colour temp. We never, ever, not once got a good match on the HMCs but the XF100s match perfectly when set to the same colour temp. Not sure where Sony is on this now.

Good to know.

Yes, the DOF was super shallow even with a crop sensor. Also, as the B+G walked back down the isle you either had to ride the focus (and be damn good at it) or you had to use something with a great hyperfocal ability (e.g the 14L) to keep the B+G in focus.

This is the type of thing I want to avoid. Im not saying I wouldn't be able to ride the focus but i don't want to chance it. I want both B+G in focus at all times. I don't need shallow depth of field, I want event style recoding performance from a camera. Just with great low light performance lol.

We noticed th crop cameras were also significantly more noisy than the 5D2 once you got past ISO1250. Anything above 1250 on the 7D and I was wanting to run Neat Video!

Good to know.

Back to the DSLR vs XF100 (or any other camcorder) I've been in situations where frankly video cameras won't hold up, where I've been shooting at 24mm, f1.4 ISO 3200 and it still being too dark.

That would suck and I want to avoid it. But still want a camcorder form factor lol

As you will be well aware, while adding lights would help, in a wedding reception bar, middle of the afternoon, lights would kinda kill the atmosphere and you would be pretty unwelcome. However, we found that taking both DSLR and video cameras was both a blessing and a curse. Apart from lugging twice as much gear around you were also debating which to use as soon as light drops. Video cameras are far easier to use (or set and leave running as a high/wide catch all camera) and audio is sooooo much easier to handle!

Exactly. But again maybe a mix of both like you said but that would be eventually. Right now Im looking for just one camera to start with and that being either a camcorder(and which one) or a DSLR(which for what i need, I would probably only consider the GH2 or GH3).

We rarely use the DSLRs now, except for when we really 'want' the shallow DOF. None of our clients are saying we have to have (or not have) DSLR, and all seem quite happy with the results from the XF100.

I would love a workflow that doesn't use DSLR's if I dont need to. I just want a crisp event coverage autofocus image that performs in low light.

You mentioned that low-light and autofocus were your top priorities. For better low light performance, you need a larger sensor and faster lenses. Larger sensor and faster lenses means shallower depth of field, which means more difficult autofocus. Most of the large sensor cameras you mentioned use contrast-detect autofocus, and they will hunt if you run them on continuous autofocus. So everytime your subject moves out of focus, the camera's autofocus will try to focus farther and closer to see which one is better. That appears as a very annoying autofocus "pulse" in the footage. So the bad news is that there's no free lunch -- you can have great low light peformance or you can have great autofocus performance but you can't yet have both.

Yeah I figured. That sucks

That being said, some choices are better than others. The best large sensor choice in your original list is the A99 for three reasons. Firstly, it has the largest sensor in the list which means the most light gathering ability and the best low light performance. Secondly, it natively mounts the best lenses -- the Sony alpha lenses are much better than the Sony NEX lenses, both in optical quality (eg., resolution, distortion, etc) and in light gathering ability (ie., fstop). Thirdly, it has the pellicle mirror natively which means that it can use both contrast detect and phase detect autofocus during videos so it will likely have the best autofocus (most accurate with least pulsing). I'd recommend the A99 over the VG900 because you will have to use the LA alpha mount adapter on the VG900 to get the best lenses but you will not get the same autofocus performance as the A99 with it's native alpha mount. The downsides are that all the large sensor cameras in your list use line skipping to downscale their sensors to 1080p, which means they all have color moire and other ugly artifacts and none of them records a full 1080 lines of resolution.

Yeah I agree that the A99 is nice but at this point out of my price range. Especially since Id have to buy more equipment to get a DSLR ready to shoot video. On top of that, now you mentioned moire and aliasing lol. Those are bad on a brides dress.

Of the other cameras in the list, the GH3 and AF100 are good choices because you get a largish sensor, good autofocus, and a wide selection of good lenses (fast and high resolution). The AF100 has the better form factor but the GH3 will have superior low light performance (much better sensor) and superior autofocus (much higher speed contrast detect autofocus with less pulsing.) The GH3 can also record internally with much higher bit rates.

See now you are getting me excited about the GH3. Now can I put the GH2 in this same category? Or are you praising the GH3 only? The Gh2/GH3 have caught my attention since the beginning of my search and are at the right price point, but one of the major concerns I had, primarily with the GH2 only since idk about the GH3, is the jellow image and rolling shutter. But I plan on using tripods for just about everything/moment in a wedding which i imagine helps a lot for it. The other thing is I loose the auto zoom rocker which again might not be a big deal as long as I use the right primes. The last problem with the GH line is that Id have to buy a hand full of new lens, and I imagine like any dslr, it requires a few accessories to get it to the same form factor as a camcorder. Ex xlr, audio, focus, etc. But I really really like the idea of a couple of GH3's set up right and I'm open to suggestion on what equipment I would need to achieve that with the GH3. Obviously, duel system recording with a Zoom H4N. Also, even though the AF100 is out of my price range, I didn't know that the af100 had continuous autofocus worth mentioning. On top of that doesn't the af100 only have one lens that gives it autofocus?

Personally, I would stay away from the NEX cameras with the APS-C sensors because you will be stuck using inferior NEX lenses with inferior (low speed) contrast detect autofocus. The A99 with the appropriate lens will give you better low light performance AND better autofocus performance. The GH3 will give you comparable low light performance, higher resolution (no line skipping and higher bitrates), and much better autofocus performance.

Sucks about the nex line because I really like the idea of them. But if the autofocus is unreliable and the nex lens options aren't there then It is indeed hard to choose them. The a99 sounds great but out of my budget and the potential problems u mentioned are true with me.

There's also a lot to be said for the professional video cameras. They have smaller sensors (bad low light, good autofocus) but they also come with very fast zoom lenses (eg., f1.6) which greatly improves the low light performance.

Tell me about it. You're not making it easier to make a choice lol. Its clear that we cant have everything or at least that I cant due to my personal wants and style of shooting. So the question now is which camera mixes all of these elements together the best and is that still the best option to go or is the better option choosing a camera that excels more in either low light or in fast autofocus and deal with their respective problems/downfalls accordingly?

The low risk approach is to use a professional video camera. They're designed for professionals who want to make movies, like yourself! The DSLRs are designed for hobbyists and professionals willing to tinker to save a buck. Being a professional is all about risk minimization. You want to produce a good product with the greatest possible certainty. That's what the professional video cameras are designed to do. Using a DSLR comes with too many risks, like a critical shot is completely out of focus or the autofocus is pulsing or the sound is borked when the groom says "I do" or whoops the bride's dress is covered with horrible color moire.

One final thought - if you're going to be handholding the video camera, I'd also include optical image stabilization as one of your top criterion. Nobody wants to look at shaky footage of their own wedding.

That sums up entirely my train of thought about this and why I prefer a camcorder form factor and why I'm having such a hard time choosing.

Personally, I wouldn't buy a video camera without built in NDs. Period. Using external NDs on the DSLR is a major PITA.

Yeah but anything with built in ND's is out of my budget.

I used a XF100 for event shooting (not a wedding) once and found it to be slightly frustrating because I prefer multiple control rings instead of a single one with a toggle switch. Outside of that, I can't say anymore, other than that it puts out a nice image. I would prefer the XF300 for myself, but not at that price.

Yeah the sound of three rings is nice. Again anyone have any thoughts on the AC90 and whether or not I should be considering it and how it could compare against the other options and an XA10? ..lol oh would'nt I love an XF300 too gary lol

EDIT: One other thing about the GH3. How long is the battery life from the batteries it uses? There are wedding ceremonies the are loner than an hour sometimes and that is yet another reason why I like camcorders, the battery life. Now as long as the gh3 gets good battery life or has a good battery pack available then there shouldn't be a problem but I don't thing the gh2 had a good sturdy reliable battery pack. Can any touch on this?

 

[Exact]

You do keep mentioning the XA10. I assume you know that while it shares the sensor and glass from the XF100 cameras, the use and results are totally different....!

 

[Johnny B]

Oh i didnt know that. I thought that they gave the same results but that the XF100 just gave you more accessible manual control buttons on the outside. How and why are the results different?

 

[Exact]

Oh i didnt know that. I thought that they gave the same results but that the XF100 just gave you more accessible manual control buttons on the outside. How and why are the results different?

Well.... they are different enough to be considered totally different cameras (which of course they are). Perhaps we should have gone to the Canon forum for this

The XA10 uses the same sensor and lens, but that's where it ends. All the processing done in side the camera is completely different. The colours are slightly different (much more saturated) and of course it records 4:2:0 to AVCHD (without timecode) whereas the XF100 is 4:2:2 to MPEG2 50mbps (with timecode).

While you can mix the two cameras (and we often do), they are most definitely not the same 'look' straight out of camera. Even if you set the white balance to be the same you will need to desaturate the AVCHD footage by at least 20% before you begin colour matching. The reds are much more saturated and the blacks are more crushed. You will never get absolute match. Would I want it to be my only camera? Hmmmm...... I guess I could get by with it if I had to.

The native gain is also lower on the XA10, meaning we'd often need to add 6db just to bring it up to the base 0db of the XF100. Having said that, at 6db the XA10 shot is quite acceptable. Get it past around 9db and I start to want to noise reduce. Past 18db and it starts adding internal noise reduction.

Since we've been talking about gain and noise reduction over the last couple of days I found out that a gig I have in a few days is going to require filming a black couple getting married (with mostly black congregation) at 3:30pm in a relatively dark church with poor lighting - and it's going to be raining outside with likely heavy dark clouds!

So I've been doing something I should have done a long time ago, and that's creating some custom camera profiles for the XF100 in Neat Video (I had them for the HMCs, just never got around to the XFs) and I have to say that with the custom profile, 12db is perfectly usable, so I'm now going to see how far I can push it and still get an acceptable 1080p video. 12db without Neat Video is (to my eyes) totally unusable, but with the Neat Video custom profile and careful use of the sliders I just don't see a problem. More than a year after starting to use the XF100 and avoiding 12db, I'm thinking I may use it more! Sure this is going to mean leaving the computers crunching away at the NR over night instead of the usual couple of hours for export, but if it means the difference between getting a good video or not, it's a no brainer.

Now, what about the XA10? Well, it's got built in NR that frankly smears things once you hit 18db (which we'd need to match the XF100 12db), so I'm hesitating to use that one. Straight out of camera the high gain (18db+) of the XA10 looks better than the XF100, right up until you start looking closely. The XF100 noise is "fixable" but the XA10 detail is gone and you'll never get it back.

For the price, the XA10 is a great little camera. I don't want to be too down on it at all. It certainly has it's uses, especially as a fixed, unattended discreet camera. However, it's a little gem when it comes to hand holding. Remove the handle (for better balance) turn on the power IS and you have an amazingly easy to use walkabout hand held camera (carry the camera base in your palm rather than holding with hand in the side strap) and with some love from either Warp Stabilizer (Premiere Pro or After Effects) or Motion Stabilize it can look just as good as any Steady/Glidecam. It takes a little practice, but this is something we love about it. With the handle and shotgun on it's too top heavy and unbalanced!

The LCD is different. The focusing system is different. The menus are completely different. The controls are completely different. It uses different cards, different codec, different batteries, different lens hood but the same lens cap Yay!

Seriously, they are different cameras and not the same at all.

 

[Johnny B]

Well.... they are different enough to be considered totally different cameras (which of course they are). Perhaps we should have gone to the Canon forum for this

Sorry lol. It started as an NEX topic and technically it still is as I am trying to choose a camera. You guys are helping a lot. Anyone have any thoughts on the AC90 in comparison or should I probably just start a new thread? But thanks for clarifying for me the differences of the cameras. Very helpful.

 

[Johnny B]

As mentioned in this thread, larger sensors with shallow dof arent really good for fast sharp continuous autofocus in video, and it will supposedly slowly hunt for focus. That being said, can anyone tell me what do cameras benefit when they have 3 chips in them? Example: Three 1/3 or 2/3 sensor camcorders? Can I assume/hope that I would get better low light performance without the extreme shallow dof which in turn gives good continuous autofocus? If so then how would the low light performance on a three chip camcorder compare to a large sensor like aps-c or full frame? Can any one explain it to me and let me know if my assumption is drastically incorrect. Thanks.

 

[noirist]

The big advantage of 3 chip cameras is that they can potentially provide full resolution in all three color channels with a small sensor size and relatively good low light performance. The camera uses a prism to split the incoming light into three colors, each of which goes to a separate sensor. Let's say each sensor is 1920x1080 pixels. Then you would get a full 1920x1080 measured resolution for red, green, and blue. So the advantage is big depth of field (from a small sensor size) plus high measured color resolution (from the 3 sensors) and high efficiency (no wasted light). To get comparable resolution from a single sensor of the same size with a color filter, you'd need many more (smaller) pixels but then some of the light is wasted due to the color filter. You can get decent low light performance on a small sensor with a fast lens, which is less expensive to manufacture to given optical tolerances for smaller sensors than larger ones.

You will get the best low light performance from a large sensor camera and fast lenses. But it will be much heavier and much more expensive to manufacture to achieve high measured resolution with little distortion.

As mentioned in this thread, larger sensors with shallow dof arent really good for fast sharp continuous autofocus in video, and it will supposedly slowly hunt for focus. That being said, can anyone tell me what do cameras benefit when they have 3 chips in them? Example: Three 1/3 or 2/3 sensor camcorders? Can I assume/hope that I would get better low light performance without the extreme shallow dof which in turn gives good continuous autofocus? If so then how would the low light performance on a three chip camcorder compare to a large sensor like aps-c or full frame? Can any one explain it to me and let me know if my assumption is drastically incorrect. Thanks.

 

[Johnny B]

So the advantage is big depth of field (from a small sensor size)

How does it affect the continuous autofocus in 3chip camcorders?...thanks for the info. I appreciate it.

 

[noirist]

Small sensor means big depth of field means easy autofocus.

How does it affect the continuous autofocus in 3chip camcorders?...thanks for the info. I appreciate it.

 

[Johnny B]

Hey all,


Im back for some more much appreciated help and advice. After more extensive research I have realized that for my needs and workflow I need a traditional video camera as a primary. I need unlimited recording time, reliable autofocus, low light performance, and audio capabilities. I already own two 5dmk ii that i plan to slowly ease into my workflow for manual focusing shots and the controlled moments in a wedding. I now just need a good reliable continuos autofocus video camera. But unfortunately Im still up in the air as to which video camera to get. The only interchangeable lens camera I am still considering is the NEX EA50. Other than the EA50, I am looking at video cameras with fixed lenses. BUT which ONE! Lol. I mentioned originally that my budget was around the $3000 range tops and many cameras within that price range, XF100, AC90, etc seem great for what i need but is the low light of video cameras in that price bracket even usable compared to an aps-c sensor?

Someone suggested an FS100 as it would supposedly check off all the boxes on my checklist, but how reliable is the continuos autofocus on it in low light and with that very big sensor? And also how are the lens options for weddings in Sony's line? On a final note Ive realized that I need to throw budget out the window. Reason being, I've already been renting canon XA10's for a couple of weddings in the past month and Ill be renting again for a wedding this coming weekend, but when I compare the XA10 to a beautiful wedding shot by a competitor with dslr's and its low light performance, i am simply not happy with the low light performance of the XA10. That being said, I realized that i need to keep shooting weddings with XA10 and just save up to for which ever camera offers everything i need (if this camera exists). So i'll probably bring my budget up to the $5000 and keep using XA10's for the time being. I'm really intrigued by the FS100 but again how is the autofocus on it and more importantly what are the requirements, if any, to have continuos autofocus on it, and on the EA50? I would really appreciate help pin pointing a camera. Thanks again for all your previous responses and any other advice is welcomed.


Johnny

 

[Orguss]

If your expecting FS100 and Fs700 to do auto focus like the camcorder it's not going to be the camera you want.

 

[alaskacameradude]

Hey all,


Im back for some more much appreciated help and advice. After more extensive research I have realized that for my needs and workflow I need a traditional video camera as a primary. I need unlimited recording time, reliable autofocus, low light performance, and audio capabilities. I already own two 5dmk ii that i plan to slowly ease into my workflow for manual focusing shots and the controlled moments in a wedding. I now just need a good reliable continuos autofocus video camera. But unfortunately Im still up in the air as to which video camera to get. The only interchangeable lens camera I am still considering is the NEX EA50. Other than the EA50, I am looking at video cameras with fixed lenses. BUT which ONE! Lol. I mentioned originally that my budget was around the $3000 range tops and many cameras within that price range, XF100, AC90, etc seem great for what i need but is the low light of video cameras in that price bracket even usable compared to an aps-c sensor?

Someone suggested an FS100 as it would supposedly check off all the boxes on my checklist, but how reliable is the continuos autofocus on it in low light and with that very big sensor? And also how are the lens options for weddings in Sony's line? On a final note Ive realized that I need to throw budget out the window. Reason being, I've already been renting canon XA10's for a couple of weddings in the past month and Ill be renting again for a wedding this coming weekend, but when I compare the XA10 to a beautiful wedding shot by a competitor with dslr's and its low light performance, i am simply not happy with the low light performance of the XA10. That being said, I realized that i need to keep shooting weddings with XA10 and just save up to for which ever camera offers everything i need (if this camera exists). So i'll probably bring my budget up to the $5000 and keep using XA10's for the time being. I'm really intrigued by the FS100 but again how is the autofocus on it and more importantly what are the requirements, if any, to have continuos autofocus on it, and on the EA50? I would really appreciate help pin pointing a camera. Thanks again for all your previous responses and any other advice is welcomed.


Johnny

Autofocus on the FS100 with kit lens is pretty decent, BUT then it is not going to be great in low light as
the kit lens is F3.5 on the wide end to F6.3 on the telephoto end. You can get the Sony LA-EA2 adapter
and Sony Alpha lenses and that will give you Phase Detection autofocus, which quite frankly is pretty
stinking good, even better than a lot of camcorders as it doesn't 'hunt' like camcorders will. Plus you can
get fast A mount lenses. Of course this then locks you into Sony A mount lenses which may not have
the resale value and transfer over future cameras as well. But it's possible to get good fast lenses,
with very good autofocus with the FS100.

 

[aly324]

Hey all,


Im back for some more much appreciated help and advice. After more extensive research I have realized that for my needs and workflow I need a traditional video camera as a primary. I need unlimited recording time, reliable autofocus, low light performance, and audio capabilities. I already own two 5dmk ii that i plan to slowly ease into my workflow for manual focusing shots and the controlled moments in a wedding. I now just need a good reliable continuos autofocus video camera. But unfortunately Im still up in the air as to which video camera to get. The only interchangeable lens camera I am still considering is the NEX EA50. Other than the EA50, I am looking at video cameras with fixed lenses. BUT which ONE! Lol. I mentioned originally that my budget was around the $3000 range tops and many cameras within that price range, XF100, AC90, etc seem great for what i need but is the low light of video cameras in that price bracket even usable compared to an aps-c sensor?

Someone suggested an FS100 as it would supposedly check off all the boxes on my checklist, but how reliable is the continuos autofocus on it in low light and with that very big sensor? And also how are the lens options for weddings in Sony's line? On a final note Ive realized that I need to throw budget out the window. Reason being, I've already been renting canon XA10's for a couple of weddings in the past month and Ill be renting again for a wedding this coming weekend, but when I compare the XA10 to a beautiful wedding shot by a competitor with dslr's and its low light performance, i am simply not happy with the low light performance of the XA10. That being said, I realized that i need to keep shooting weddings with XA10 and just save up to for which ever camera offers everything i need (if this camera exists). So i'll probably bring my budget up to the $5000 and keep using XA10's for the time being. I'm really intrigued by the FS100 but again how is the autofocus on it and more importantly what are the requirements, if any, to have continuos autofocus on it, and on the EA50? I would really appreciate help pin pointing a camera. Thanks again for all your previous responses and any other advice is welcomed.


Johnny

All the Sony E-mount lenses autofocus very well on the FS100, fast and subtle and accurate. For very low light you can switch to the cheap E-mount 35mm and 50mm, both stabilized and quite fast at f/1.8. At f/1.8 and 24db the FS100 sees more than human eyes in the dark. Should be enough unless your clients are vampires...

Of course the camera can't read your mind in a complex scene and only tries to focus within a central rectangle, so you have to help it once in a while, especially when zoomed in. But this is the trade off of having shallow dof and good lowlight on a large sensor -- you can't have your cake and eat it too.

The EA50's image is a bit worse than the FS100 in lowlight, but autofocus functionality should be the same. In fact the EA50 even allows you to pinpoint an area on the touch screen to autofocus on.