Why is the 20mm so expensive now?
- Thread starter d1rockwild
- Start date
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Is that where you'd use a 20mm f/1.7... to get all that black expanse...
Somehow 200-250mm comes to my mind... and living with f/4-f/5.6, and hope the lights near the altar are bright enough...
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
If you don't have the GH1, keep in mind the 2x crop...the 20mm isn't a wide angle lens on the GH1...it's essentially a "standard" focal length lens.
Plus it's less "in your face" when you don't have to use a massive blinding camera light with the 20mm....you can use your cigarette lighter for fill.rogar-BigGrin(DBG)
Ok, forgot that it was that small.
Also, it occured to me... when you way 'wedding photographer', does that mean 'mostly stills', 'combo stills video', or 'mostly video'.
In the olden days it was pretty clear distiniction when someone said 'photographer'. But since the advent of small video cameras, some still photographers have been adding 'video' for accents.
So, in the case of using the GH1 as a 'video' camera, given that there is a rather high shutter speed, relative to how low one can go
with a still camera, sure an extra stop on the lens 'is better', but I still would not call a f/3.5 lens 'useless'.
The condition where such a consideration is really significant, is when during the recpetion the house lights are down to a few foot candles worth of power...
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Without qualification, the first post appeared to be a 'statement of fact'.
If given a choice between a f/1.7 and a f/2.8 or even an f/3.5 (like my standard lens for weddings was...), sure I'd take the f/1.7.
Would I jump through hoops, and pay more for the lens, if that was the only benefit... well, given that such lenses were available when I was doing more weddings, and I never saw the absolute benefit for f/1.7... obviously I chose to stay with what I had, and occasionally have to shoot at 1/10 or 1/8 second sutter speed...
The lens I did pay big bucks for was for short focal length and better rectilinear correction... (that is less distortion because of the short focal length...)
There may be grounds when using the GH1 in video mode, and since the minimum sutter speed would be 1/24 at 24 fps, sure an extra stop of light will help.
But again the original poster didn't specify whether the GH1 was being used as a still camera or in video mode.
d1rockwild
Well-known member
never said it was useless. only one person has.
I'm a wedding videographer...if somewhere I said photographer I apologize for the confusion.
I only do video at weddings for a living, and only take pictures for fun...now mostly with a point-n-shoot camera. I think the whole "fusion" thing is a complete load of BS...but that's just me. I have a 1-week turnaround on my wedding videos, and not much time to do anything too gimmicky...my stuff is dirt cheap and pretty basic.
I never realized we had so many wedding videographers on this forum. Awesome! I retract my original statement saying the kit lens is useless for receptions and sucks for ceremonies. I say everyone go for it...and best of luck to you. The 20mm f1.7 is hard enough to find already. :tongue:
Here's a recent "highlights" clip. There's a few pre-ceremony shots with the kit lens, but I kept putting it back in the bag. It would get virtually NO image of the B&G at the "altar"...so I was forced to shoot the ceremony with the 20mm and a manual OM 50mm f1.8...which is a HUGE PITA when shooting by yourself.
The reception portion was almost entirely with the 20mm, except for a few "detail" shots done with the 50mm. (Also note, this compressed online version is WAY darker than the actual Blu-Ray version.) I used a VERY minimum of light at certain points in the reception, and no lights for any of the candid shots:
Faith Poison Wedding Video
I'm a wedding videographer...if somewhere I said photographer I apologize for the confusion.
I only do video at weddings for a living, and only take pictures for fun...now mostly with a point-n-shoot camera. I think the whole "fusion" thing is a complete load of BS...but that's just me. I have a 1-week turnaround on my wedding videos, and not much time to do anything too gimmicky...my stuff is dirt cheap and pretty basic.
I never realized we had so many wedding videographers on this forum. Awesome! I retract my original statement saying the kit lens is useless for receptions and sucks for ceremonies. I say everyone go for it...and best of luck to you. The 20mm f1.7 is hard enough to find already. :tongue:
Here's a recent "highlights" clip. There's a few pre-ceremony shots with the kit lens, but I kept putting it back in the bag. It would get virtually NO image of the B&G at the "altar"...so I was forced to shoot the ceremony with the 20mm and a manual OM 50mm f1.8...which is a HUGE PITA when shooting by yourself.
The reception portion was almost entirely with the 20mm, except for a few "detail" shots done with the 50mm. (Also note, this compressed online version is WAY darker than the actual Blu-Ray version.) I used a VERY minimum of light at certain points in the reception, and no lights for any of the candid shots:
Faith Poison Wedding Video
@ exactly 1:24-1:25 there is a weird vertical line that flickers right on top of the lady in the wheel chair.
The same flicker happens many times through out the video as well.
Also imo the Music is mixed too loud and does not mix well with the background audio, I think either or should have been chosen and not both imo.
Wedding videography is something that does not hold my interest (no disrespect).
Last edited:
I hear ya...wedding video doesn't interest me much either....but when the unemployment checks dried up, making $60K a year in a bad economy to work two days per week DOES interest me. Making crappy home movies of my girlfriend riding the subway and calling it "filmmaking" on DVXUSER just doesn't seem to pay well.
rogar-Happy(DBG):I hear ya...wedding video doesn't interest me much either....but when the unemployment checks dried up, making $60K a year in a bad economy to work two days per week DOES interest me. Making crappy home movies of my girlfriend riding the subway and calling it "filmmaking" on DVXUSER just doesn't seem to pay well.
:violent5:
Excellent post!!!!! I understand you 100%. I as well with my friend like doing more creative things, but many times unless you have that big break the money seems to never come.
Doing weddings is a Weekend event and you get paid good money. I respect and truly understand what you mean, but my creative side hungers for much more. Make money, pay your bills, and take care of the family.
Luckily you found a good job where you can make money and I applaud that, I'm trying to find my angle and pray to be blessed
peace