Administrators Andrew Reid Posted February 22, 2014 Administrators Share Posted February 22, 2014 The FS100 is underrated. Ergonomic design is not bad. It just has too many buttons (which you can ignore) and a dopey gain switch with 3 assignable ISO levels rather than direct ISO control, and it lacks built in ND... but I always went to mine for convenience and all-round performance, great in low light, when I didn't want large file sizes or small sensors. Check it on eBay... going cheap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 89e2bdf5797fbbdc17c2cc6da1413fa0 Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Being a very happy Nikon D5300 owner, I simply can't imagine buying a 5DIII to shoot non-RAW footage with. I know you're invested in Canon so it makes sense in that way, but the 5D is nearly 4X the price of the D5300 and the image is near-identical, with the 5300 being slightly better in low-light, has much better dynamic range and full 1080p 60fps. RAW on the 5D is amazing, but if you're mainly buying it to shoot stock - ouch, that's a big price tag for what you're getting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxotics Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 RAW on the 5D is amazing, but if you're mainly buying it to shoot stock - ouch, that's a big price tag for what you're getting. Yes, seems like what Andrew is saying too. Buying the 5D3 for stock video shooting is a waste of money. To answer another comment, I shot an event and had Magic Lantern on a camera and the screen went crazy. It could have fixed it in 2 minutes if I have 2 minutes. Events give no time to think. It's hard enough to get the shot you want when you know what's coming hours in advance. That's one thing I love about Panasonic's cameras. I had a G5 (lowly camera, but still) and they said cameras weren't allowed. It was more of a legal bullshit thing and since it was my niece I was going to bend the rules a bit. I was able to do with the G5, IN THE DARK, and I barely knew the camera. It worked really well. NO WAY I would have gotten usable footage from the 5D3 (for starters, it would have stuck out like a sore thumb). A full-frame sensor camera like the 5D3 is maximized for photography. For VIDEO, I don't feel they have the same low-light benefits as smaller sensor cameras, though Andrew would know better than me. You don't want to forget that for video, DSLRs in general, are a pain in the ass. But if you need a DSLR, then as Matt said, they why not go for the latest in the consumer line because, all things considered, they give the best bang for the buck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dafreaking Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Ahh... Magic Lantern saved my butt while using it with my lowly 600D/T3i at an event. Quickly changing ISO, WB amongst others was a god send. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 89e2bdf5797fbbdc17c2cc6da1413fa0 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 If I was starting out in wedding videography now and wanting to keep my spending down, I'd be seriously looking into whether the new Panasonic sensor was good enough in low light. If it is, then I'd probably go for a GH4 and GX7 combo, with a mixture of AF MFT glass and fast primes on Speed Boosters. In fact if I was in your position I'd be looking into swapping my entire system I think. The GH4 is going to be really hard to beat for professional work on a low-scale budget, both on features and image. But MFT has always seemed to have low light limitations, so I'd have to confirm the GH4/GX7 have significantly improved in that way for wedding shooting (apparently they have). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael1 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 I don't know anything about shooting weddings, but wouldn't a camcorder be more reliable for this task? Most DSLRs have maximum time limits in firmware, and some overheat, which would prevent turning it on and leaving it on. I guess a BMCC would be OK if you have an external power source. They have an internal fan as I recall, and an SSD would give hours of recording time. The low light performance during the reception could also be an issue, along with trying to focus. FS100 could be a good bet. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 No matter how good a GH4/DSLR camera is, I would choose a C100 over it for a wedding shoot. You would never understand the huge difference it makes in ease of use compared to stills cameras until you've worked with one. Ergonomics simply work out of the box, every single button is exactly where it should be, ND filters are a switch on the camera body, ISO performance that makes you able to shoot a dark scene with a slow zoom lens! audio super easily handeled and a extremely high efficient codec that gives both very good images and tiny file sizes. It's the perfect camrra for the job. Believe me look no further. If I were to shoot a wedding I would take a c100/300 put a stabilized general purpose lens like a 24-105 L, and forget about everything else Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noa Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 If I were to shoot a wedding I would take a c100/300 put a stabilized general purpose lens like a 24-105 L, and forget about everything else Around these parts a c100 is 6 times the prize of a gh3 and the c300 15 times the price. They are better camera's to use overall but when you do weddings the pricedifference is not easy to justify as they do not provide 6 to 15 times better image, if you mainly would do corporate shoots then such a camera could be a requirement. The reason why dslr's are so popular is because of their low price and look they can provide that a small sensor videocamera, even if it's it's much easier to use, is not capable off. The c- line from canon is overpriced for what you get, then panasonic has definitely set the bar on price/performance for their new gh4, that one would also be my next weapon of choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dafreaking Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 I too am eagerly awaiting news on the low light performance of the GH4. Though I'd love a C100 I can't justify spending soo much money just as yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal Garnier Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 If you have the budget, I'd definitely go for a C100. There's a reason why so many people use it. Low light performance is excellent, dynamic range stunning and the camera just seems to be built for run&gun use. Imagewise it comes pretty close to the Black Magic cameras, but without all the quirks (ergonomics, internal battery, display, filesize, ...). My co-shooter for weddings upgraded his 7D to a 5D MkIII and that camera is great in low light too, much improved moire and aliasing, but still not as sharp and defined as a C100 (it's also half the price). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noa Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 It mostly comes down to budget, I rather invest in quality glass and just replace the camerabody every 3 years, my lenses will outlast my camera's by many years. It's a fact that canon camera's/lenses are much more expensive then what Panasonic offers, if you have the money to burn, then sure go for the best and most expensive but I can shoot quality footage with panasonic as well for a lot less money and still be able to charge the same amount I would when I would have a c100/300. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stab Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 I shoot weddings on a GH3 + prime lenses. (+ SpeedBooster) I know I'm not making it easy for myself, but I just love the footage that I'm getting and it's worth the hassle. Plus it's relatively cheap, filesizes are managable and it grades pretty nicely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Around these parts a c100 is 6 times the prize of a gh3 and the c300 15 times the price. My advice for the C100 comes from the OP saying he can in fact afford it. And my opinion is that if a wedding videographer has the money to buy a C100, he should do it. It just makes life SO much easier! It's "the" camera for the job. Nothing else rivals the C100/300 for that use. They deliver a combination of ease of use and image quality that no else is offering, others offer only one of those. That's why Canon are selling many whilst being overpriced (I agree they are) I am not a Canon fanboy, in fact, I hate Canon, and wish they would offer more, and lower their prices, they're a profit-based soul-less company with no intentions of driving creativity. But as much as I hate it, it's the best option in this use. For other uses such as controlled environments/music videos/narratives, other companies like Panasonic and Blackmagic have exceeded Canon. And I am sure it's only a matter of time until they exceed Canon in the wedding/documentary use too. Very likely Panasonic will come up with something to compete with the c100/300 line, An AF200? I don't know, but until then, a C100 is an amazing tool for a professional wedding videographer, and well worth the price, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dafreaking Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 I shoot weddings on a GH3 + prime lenses. (+ SpeedBooster) I know I'm not making it easy for myself, but I just love the footage that I'm getting and it's worth the hassle. Plus it's relatively cheap, filesizes are managable and it grades pretty nicely. Could you elaborate on how you are making life tough for yourself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 89e2bdf5797fbbdc17c2cc6da1413fa0 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Surely there's also a small argument that if you stick a C100 in someone's face at a wedding, they're going to wonder if what's being shot is going to be broadcast to the nation or shown on a 60ft screen. That can affect how people react to the camera, and how inconspicuous you can be. I know the C100 is small compared to a standard ENG, but it looks pretty serious compared to a GH or 5D. It depends on what impact you're going for I suppose. Just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Surely there's also a small argument that if you stick a C100 in someone's face at a wedding, they're going to wonder if what's being shot is going to be broadcast to the nation or shown on a 60ft screen. That can affect how people react to the camera, and how inconspicuous you can be. I know the C100 is small compared to a standard ENG, but it looks pretty serious compared to a GH or 5D. It depends on what impact you're going for I suppose. Just a thought. The C100 is a really small camera, Matt. It's not much bigger than a 5D really. A 5D with the essential add-ons has the same impact as a c100. That's what I really love about the cinema line! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stab Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Could you elaborate on how you are making life tough for yourself? I carry a big bag with me all the time, with prime lenses. That means every time I think the situation asks for a different lens, I have to swap lenses. I carry an screw-on ND filter in my pocket all day, so whenever I move outside I have to screw it on. I do manual focus only so I have to stay sharp all day. On top of that I carry a Fig Rig and a Shoulder Rig with me and use an external monitor. On of our GH3's in on a tripod during the ceremony recording every minute of it, and we have to turn it back on every 30 min because of the recording limit. Life would be much easier with an camera that doesn't need a rig, has autofocus, a 16-100mm f1.8 zoom, build-in ND filters, no recording limit, a larger better screen with focus peaking, etc. Weddings are already tiring and stressful enough as it is, and I acknowledge that still-camera's with a video function in combination with prime lenses is not the best tool for the job in terms of easy of use. But, I do love the look of the footage, how long the battery last, the 1.4 apertures for shooting in dark area's, the slowmo, etc. You just simply can't have it all at this price point. Orangenz 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 89e2bdf5797fbbdc17c2cc6da1413fa0 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 The C100 is a really small camera, Matt. It's not much bigger than a 5D really. A 5D with the essential add-ons has the same impact as a c100. That's what I really love about the cinema line! Shows I shouldn't talk about things I know nothing about! I've never seen one IRL. Having googled a few images of people holding them I can see you're right. Surely the C100 is going to have to drop in price quite soon ... dafreaking 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dafreaking Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 I hope the GH4 is a rip roaring success and it gets Canon to up their game. Wishful thinking though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.