wedding trailer, mixed footage 60d, 7D & t2i/550d

[aituv]

7D on steadicam merlin w/ tokina 11-16 2.8
t2i/550d as main on tripod
60d as "b" camera on monopod

lenses used:
tokina 11-16 2.8
sigma 30 1.4
canon 50 1.8
canon 85 1.8

this was my first time shooting with a 60d (borrowed from a friend), and I gotta say I love the t2i and 7D way more. for some reason i didnt like the new wheel controller nexto the display, also its weight couldnt balance with any of the lenses used on a monopod (t2i is WAY better), the lock wheel on top is also not a good idea in my opinion. yes the only thing that helpful was the flip out LCD. top lcd is useless for me in video mode. noise is the same as t2i in same settings, no improvement. anyone debating between t2i and 60d i recommend the t2i taking price into account and what you get out of it.

on vimeo:
http://vimeo.com/15935957

 

[Exact]

Pretty good stuff. I'm interested in your thoughts on the 60D. We are shooting with 7D & 5D2 as well as standard HMC camcorders. The one thing the HMCs allow me to do is place the camera very high or very low and swivel the LCD for viewing, something that's not so easy with the 7D, 5D2 and of course the T2i.

 

[ajcourtney]

agreed exact about the articulating screen - that was the biggest selling point for me over the 550d...BUT, i have read that the 60d has a metering problem in video mode when using physically adpated manual lenses. apparently, a properly exposed scene according to the meter will be overexposed by ~3 stops.

aituv, can you confirm this behavior in movie mode?

 

[aituv]

Pretty good stuff. I'm interested in your thoughts on the 60D. We are shooting with 7D & 5D2 as well as standard HMC camcorders. The one thing the HMCs allow me to do is place the camera very high or very low and swivel the LCD for viewing, something that's not so easy with the 7D, 5D2 and of course the T2i.

i would def ditch the hmc for the 60d

 

[aituv]

agreed exact about the articulating screen - that was the biggest selling point for me over the 550d...BUT, i have read that the 60d has a metering problem in video mode when using physically adpated manual lenses. apparently, a properly exposed scene according to the meter will be overexposed by ~3 stops.

aituv, can you confirm this behavior in movie mode?

yep, i had it set to -2 for proper exposure

 

[Exact]

i would def ditch the hmc for the 60d

If it weren't for the unattended camera at the front in a tiny church recording for > 60 mins I'd certainly consider it - but there are times when that is the only camera that can get the money shot and no one is allowed to stand there to keep pressing the record button every 12mins

 

[life4eva]

If it weren't for the unattended camera at the front in a tiny church recording for > 60 mins I'd certainly consider it - but there are times when that is the only camera that can get the money shot and no one is allowed to stand there to keep pressing the record button every 12mins

The photographers at the wedding make it happen, you should as well with an HDSLR. It's not hard at all to make sure you record the most important shots. Also to talk to the op, it just takes "TIME" to get used to a new camera. The 60d is just different than a t2i in it's simple basic function modes, but it's simply a more well built prosumer camera.

The 60d is a better "picture" camera + video than the t2i. While yes the video quality is nearly identical it's more about the simple key functions, iso, manual audio, manual white balance, lcd, etc. that just make it a simple upgrade over the t2i. T2i body is like $750 new and the Canon 60d $1050. So that $300 imo is well worth it and still less than a 7d ( $1499 )

 

[Exact]

If it weren't for the unattended camera at the front in a tiny church recording for > 60 mins I'd certainly consider it - but there are times when that is the only camera that can get the money shot and no one is allowed to stand there to keep pressing the record button every 12mins

The photographers at the wedding make it happen, you should as well with an HDSLR. It's not hard at all to make sure you record the most important shots.

No they don't......

While some churches allow photographers and video at the front, most of the smaller churches do not and many simply don't have room for any one to stand there even if the vicar was willing to let you. In the smaller churches we are lucky if there is room for even a fixed video camera, with the photographer and videographers stuck at the back of the church and unable to move at all. In this case you need a camera that can run for an hour at the front without anyone needing to keep pressing the button every 12 mins.

To give you an idea of space, three of the churches this year didn't even have room for the Bride's Father or the Best Man to start at the front either!

 

[aituv]

All the talk about "keep pressing record" is absolutely useless. if you're doing traditional wedding videos, dslr is useless. Never in my experience have I shot anything at the ceremony lasting over ~5 min. We specialize in wedding films lasting from 20-45 min long and this allows us to shoot more for the picture/scene/moment rather than worrying about getting everything. So far never had a problem regarding time limit.

 

[Exact]

All the talk about "keep pressing record" is absolutely useless. if you're doing traditional wedding videos, dslr is useless. Never in my experience have I shot anything at the ceremony lasting over ~5 min. We specialize in wedding films lasting from 20-45 min long and this allows us to shoot more for the picture/scene/moment rather than worrying about getting everything. So far never had a problem regarding time limit.

I completely understand this - but if it's a tiny church/venue and you simply can't get and front shots without a static camera continually rolling - you can't just get the first 5 mins and nothing else. If all you get is a back shot and the couple never turn to face each other for rings and vows (I've had it happen) then all you get is the back of their heads - just like uncle Bob.

With this in mind, I like to keep a safety camera running at all times (at the front). I'm seriously considering selling all my HMCs and buying just one Canon XF305 and using DSLRs for the rest.

 

[aituv]

I completely understand this - but if it's a tiny church/venue and you simply can't get and front shots without a static camera continually rolling - you can't just get the first 5 mins and nothing else. If all you get is a back shot and the couple never turn to face each other for rings and vows (I've had it happen) then all you get is the back of their heads - just like uncle Bob.

With this in mind, I like to keep a safety camera running at all times (at the front). I'm seriously considering selling all my HMCs and buying just one Canon XF305 and using DSLRs for the rest.

in all aspects with a DSLR you can do what HMC can do. Never mind better low light, and variety of optics to choose from. I personally would NEVER leave something recording at one spot for more than a few minutes, but if you are doing this it is very possible with a DSLR. remote trigger.

 

[Exact]

I personally would NEVER leave something recording at one spot for more than a few minutes, but if you are doing this it is very possible with a DSLR. remote trigger.

Maybe you never get in to tiny venues where you simply can't get a front OR side shot with a manned camera. Lucky you

Show me a reliable wireless remote trigger that will trigger video on a DSLR and give you enough feedback to KNOW it's actually recording No wires.... can't run wires 100 feet down the isle or under the pews etc. It needs to be wireless and 100% reliable with feedback.... without this a camera needs to be running continuously.

Now, can it be done without this safety camera? Yes or course, but if once in a while you can't get the money shot from the back or the side (because there is no 'front' position and no 'side' position to stand at, and people are in the way when filming from behind), what exactly do you have that you can give to the couple to show their vows or exchange of rings? Don't think it never happens, it does, it has (more than once), and there is nothing about a DSLR that can change that. That front camera has saved me more times than I care to remember.

So, this is not a criticism of DSLRs (or your personal shooting style), as I said I want to use DSLRs more and more, but I can't agree with the idea that there is NEVER a reason to leave a camera running at the front, even when there is no room to stand there. Somewhere in those 60 minutes of recording will be those precious 2 minutes that you really needed but couldn't get from the side or behind. While some people will get lucky and never come across these circumstances, it's a fair bet that most videographers / filmmakers / cinematographers (or what ever people what to call themselves) will come across this situation once in a while and there is simply no substitute for a backup plan It's too late afterwards to quote the contract clause that says if you can't get the shot it's not your fault, the day is gone and you missed the shot.

--- Back on topic ---
Now, coming back to the opening topic, I'd like to hear more about the 60D, how the LCD performs how reflective it is in sunlight, how good the high ISO is (say 2500+) for dark venues. As a 4th / 5th camera it may be the one camera that can be positioned high enough and still be able to see what it's taking without having to resort to HDMI cables and field monitors.

 

[life4eva]

Seems to me that you are shooting the wrong kind of weddings..... If I were getting married I would make sure the videographers and photographers captured everything perfect. They are there for a job and everything must be done to insure they get their proper shots. Judging the ops work I would like someone like that to shoot my project. We need the key highlights of the day, not some 2+ hour footage that no one will want to watch again....


Now regarding the 60d, it's only $1000+ dollars just go and buy one.

 

[ajcourtney]

yep, i had it set to -2 for proper exposure

thanks...so you can just permanently set the exp comp to -2 and the meter will then function correctly forever, right?

 

[aituv]

Seems to me that you are shooting the wrong kind of weddings..... If I were getting married I would make sure the videographers and photographers captured everything perfect. They are there for a job and everything must be done to insure they get their proper shots. Judging the ops work I would like someone like that to shoot my project. We need the key highlights of the day, not some 2+ hour footage that no one will want to watch again....


Now regarding the 60d, it's only $1000+ dollars just go and buy one.

its personal preference, i personally-as well as my clients-want something you can enjoy with your future children, or when friends/family come over, etc... no way i want to bore myself or someone else with, like you said, 2+ hours of footage. its much more enjoyable, and more movie-like.

 

[Exact]

Seems to me that you are shooting the wrong kind of weddings..... If I were getting married I would make sure the videographers and photographers captured everything perfect. They are there for a job and everything must be done to insure they get their proper shots. Judging the ops work I would like someone like that to shoot my project.

.

Not every one spending big bucks on a wedding has a local church the size of a cathedral, especially if they live in a rural village where the church was built in the middle ages (say A.D. 1200) before photographers and videographers (and even the USA, Canada and Australia) were even thought of. They get married in their local church because they want to.

Imagine the only way to get the shot you wanted was from a position you were not allowed to go to.

We need the key highlights of the day, not some 2+ hour footage that no one will want to watch again....

The shot (for the key highlights) CAN be got with a fixed camera but not by some one standing there. Now what? It doesn't matter if you want the 2 hour 'boring' edit or 'only getting the highlights'. If you can't stand there with your camera it's all academic. So how do you capture those highlights if you can't get a manned camera in there? You guys seems hung up on what footage could be thrown away (so no point shooting it) but completely miss the part about actually getting what you "need" without being able to stand there.

its personal preference, i personally-as well as my clients-want something you can enjoy with your future children, or when friends/family come over, etc... no way i want to bore myself or someone else with, like you said, 2+ hours of footage. its much more enjoyable, and more movie-like.

I completely agree about the highlights vs the boring stuff..... but how do "you" get the good stuff without standing there with a camera? In a situation where there is physically no room to be there what would you do? Please don't insult me by telling me by telling me I'm capturing more boring stuff than I need (that I will throw away in post) or I'm doing the "wrong kind of wedding". Think about how you would (as a professional) deal with a situation where the celebrant at a large and expensive wedding said to you and the photographer :

• Only 1 camera allowed
• You have to stay at the back
• You cannot move at all (if you do I will stop the ceremony and you will have to leave)
• You cannot make any sounds (no clicking on shutters etc)
• No discussions - those are the rules - If you disagree with this you can't come in at all !
• Since the wedding is 'tomorrow' the couple can't change venues

It's happened three times this year at large weddings in small (wealthy) village churches where the Vicar has previously had bad experiences with other so called 'professionals' moving about, being 'distracting' and generally 'spoiling the ceremony'.

In one of these instances the couple barely turned their bodies to face each other during the vows and exchange of rings, pretty much staying forward facing. The rings (or hands) could not be seen from the back, not to mention half a dozen of the family stepping out in to the isle (about half way down) to better see the proceedings themselves (with their own point & shoot cameras!) completely blocking the rear camera's view. We can't run down the isle and push them out of the way, you would have already missed the shot AND got in your own camera's way too, and remember, YOU weren't allowed to move anyway.

So, without being condescending and telling me that this particular £40K ($65K) wedding is the 'wrong kind of wedding' (awesome reception afterwards), what exactly do you have to offer them as a shot of the vows and exchange of rings other than the one from the 'fixed front camera' that ran for an hour, even though you only pulled the vows and exchange of rings from the footage? Ignore the boring stuff that will be thrown away from that camera, that's too easy a distraction for you to get hung up on. How would you have got the money shot for your exciting highlights only feature, "something you can enjoy with your future children, or when friends/family come over" if you can't put a man at the front to get it, there is no room for side cameras and you can't get the shot from the back? It's too easy to get hung up on "I only shoot the bits I want" and forget that sometimes you need to capture more than you want just to get the little bits you will actually use.

It's not about whether you shoot for the exciting highlights or a boring 2 hour cut that no one will want to watch, it's about capturing the moment so that you actually had 'something' to show.

If your next wedding put you in this situation, what's your backup plan? It's easy to say "it won't happen to me", but as a professional, what if it 'does' ? One day, if you do enough weddings, it will.

 

[life4eva]

Lol, seems like the wrong wedding to me. IF it is a 65k wedding I HOPE your getting paid serious bucks to shoot there. Also if this is the ONLY way to film then just setup a camera then and let it record till it blows up. Personally I would not do a job like this as my art and overall vision is more important, especially ( at least here in the U.S. ) where you are able to record freely with less restrictions.

Also the Panasonic Gh2 is coming out next month, that camera has unlimited time recording ( size of your memory card ) so maybe you should buy that instead of these Canons

 

[Exact]

Personally I would not do a job like this as my art and overall vision is more important, especially ( at least here in the U.S. ) where you are able to record freely with less restrictions.

Oh, those are the EASY weddings to do.... almost any one could do those weddings and produce great works of art.

It sounds to me like you just wouldn't get the shot on the harder ones then. No problem. Let's move on because we're clearly not discussing like for like situations.

BTW - I won't be buying a GH2

 

[aituv]

Oh, those are the EASY weddings to do.... almost any one could do those weddings and produce great works of art.

It sounds to me like you just wouldn't get the shot on the harder ones then. No problem. Let's move on because we're clearly not discussing like for like situations.

BTW - I won't be buying a GH2

Exact, now I see your side in a greater detail. However, I agree with life4eva on the subject of pay - it better be good, usually you as the video/cinematographer needs to be free with art you create as well as the footage you capture, quite frankly in this situation you are the one being stepped over and on. Under no circumstance I would even consider signing contracts with a client with such ceremony regulations. I already could see that the final product won't be something I specialize in (meaning no slider/dollies allowed, etc). But again, if they're getting married there because the place truly means something to them, I of course would charge accordingly. The only thing i could think of at the moment, is set up as much of a wide angle as I can (at highest resolution) to have everything important in the shot and do most of the cropping/panning in post to at least create something "cinematic". And even then, keep this portion as short as possible in the final film...

life4eva, as far as GH2 goes, thats a very stupid suggestion you are giving. after someone has been shooting with a canon for a while, and i'm assuming has lots of accessors for it and never mind all the glass, it would be a very very dumb move to go for the gh2. keeping in mind its not even released, and who knows how many issues it could have. overall canon has earned my trust and they continue to amuse me with their release, i look nowhere else