Suggest Camera and Lens for weddings

tunesmith1801 wrote on 6/6/2009, 7:16 AM

I have a 3 chip canon consumer camera. Can't remember the number right now but it is about 6 years old and is still producing good results. I want to start shooting weddings and events. I use Vegas for editing and I want to hear your suggestions for the best bang for the buck HD camera and lens.
I have seen some very good results from others with the Canon HV (I think) series.

Thanks - Jim

Comments

jrazz wrote on 6/6/2009, 10:30 AM

I use 4 HVR-A1U cams by Sony for weddings. They are small and great for events. The negative about these cams is that they use CMOS sensors and are not the greatest in lower light. However, there are some plugins that help with noise reduction for video if the grain gets too bad.

Overall, I have been very pleased and they have been very dependable and worth the investment.

j razz

tunesmith1801 wrote on 6/6/2009, 2:09 PM

Is this an HD camera ? Do people ask for HD when you talk with them about the project? Is there a site I can go to to see whatis being done for weddings?

Thanks - Jim

JackW wrote on 6/6/2009, 4:32 PM

www.weva.com

It's primarily for wedding videographers, with a handful of event people thrown in. You'll learn a great deal the first couple of years if you go to their annual convention. There's a good forum for wedding related issues, too.

Jack

DRuether wrote on 6/9/2009, 3:22 PM

For "tunesmith1801"...
I used to shoot weddings and events, and the Mini-DV camera of choice was the Sony VX2000/VX2100/PD150/PD170 for a smallish camcorder with excellent picture quality and outstanding low-light range (see my comparisons here - http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/camcorder-comparison.htm). While the tiny Canon HV series, even with one chip, "blows away" the VX2000/etc. picture *IN GOOD LIGHT*, it cannot handle lighting below about medium-bright night-time house lighting, so it is useless in the usually quite dark receptions (more on it is here - http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm). I have not tried the newer
3-chip camcorders, but Sony has an HD one reputed to almost reach the low light level of the VX2000, at least while shooting at 1/30th shutter speed (which looks FAR better with HD than it does with Mini-DV), and with great care with motion, successful footage can be shot even at 1/15th with HD. I have more articles on video here - http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/articles.html#video.

DGates wrote on 6/9/2009, 3:48 PM

HD wedding cams that the pros use are:

Canon XH-A1 (been around for awhile. Not great in low light)
Sony EX1 (best in low light, but very expensive)

I just bought a Panasonic HMC150. It does well in low light.

Brad C. wrote on 6/9/2009, 4:08 PM

+1 for the HMC150

http://modernmemoryfilms.blogspot.com for some examples. Everything on page 1 is from the HMC.

DRuether wrote on 6/10/2009, 7:42 AM

There is much to like about the Panasonic HMC-150 (lighter than most similar cameras, goes wider than most without attachments, excellent picture, very good low light range, reasonable price for what you get, etc.), but it does record AVCHD, with all that that means both positive and negative (no dropouts - but card failures are possible, and it is VERY difficult to edit its 24 Mbps AVCHD material without first transcoding it to another format and accepting the resulting loss at that point, or buying relatively VERY expensive editing gear that can handle it as-is). Great camera but with editing difficulties vs. an alternative that shoots tape that is MUCH easier to edit but which is a bit riskier in the shooting (but which also provides an additional good method for archiving finished videos - on tape).

Brad C. wrote on 6/10/2009, 3:28 PM

What's difficult about editing 24p AVCHD? (I'm not asking this with an arrogant tone)

DRuether wrote on 6/13/2009, 10:56 AM

To "Brad C."
HDV (tape) HD can be edited very easily with average-quality computer gear (a medium speed dual-core or quad-core processor, XP, and two gigs of RAM - nothing "bleeding edge"), and a half-sized (but "full-size", "full resolution") preview window will be sharp and smooth-running. With 24 Mbps AVCHD (don't bother with 17 Mbps AVCHD if you want to generally equal the quality of HDV), using the same gear, the preview will run unacceptably roughly, with much hesitancy. Going to a very fast fast quad core will improve things, but something even better is required to make editing this material practical/pleasant. One solution (in addition to expensive "bleeding edge" gear) is to transcode the AVCHD material at input (suffering the transcoding hit then, and slowing the input speed to something similar to HDV transfer). At this point, though, why bother? HDV is easy to edit, easy to archive, can produce very high quality results, and likely your current gear can handle it nicely. In time, AVCHD may make sense given its shooting and transfer ease, but why suffer with its current editing difficulties...?
--DR

DGates wrote on 6/13/2009, 11:30 AM

That's why I chose to transcode with $100 software, as opposed to worrying about getting an expensive, bleeding-edge computer to edit natively.

Economically, it just makes more sense.

zstevek wrote on 6/13/2009, 11:37 AM

For wedding events go with a camera that is good in low light (very important IMO).

Sony VX2100 is a great camcorder for low light receptions, if you are looking for a SD camcorder I would recommend this one to you.

I have 5 camcorders, none of them touch the results I get with the VX2100 in low light.

DGates wrote on 6/13/2009, 11:51 AM

This being 2009, the person should be getting an HD cam. They don't even sell the VX2100 anymore.

Don't get me wrong, I used VX2100's for weddings for years. Loved 'em.

richard-courtney wrote on 6/13/2009, 4:23 PM

I don't shoot weddings for a living but I will say HD is the best format from now on.
I did do one for a friend and for the first dance used a DOF adapter and received many compliments on the look. Used a still from it for the slipcase graphic.