is this overkill? guest comment on my camera.

[lindsey holland]

C Jo Gough - "Why not just grab a frame from the video ::: that's how I see the next wave of photographers".

 

That's exactly the thing that will see videographers putting wedding photographers out of business. If a good videographer, who knows how to frame a shot well, can freeze any moment of it as a high resolution print, stills for weddings will be redundant. The only thing, in that case, that would save it is the fact that wedding photographers are able to get lots of different angles and move much more quickly from shot to shot than a videographer does. We don't have to wait in each place before moving to the next.

 

As for taking "800 or more photos, for one event....(being) like a video production", I don't see that at all. Occasionally, I've covered a full day wedding with my husband and the total shots have racked up to the 800 mark. We then edit through them and put together an album that's a mixture of candid and posed shots. Taking lots of candids is not the same as leaving a video rolling - we'll shoot one guest that we see laughing and within moments be looking for the next, the next. During confetti we'll fire off lots of shots whilst moving from high to low angle, back/forth within seconds. That's not like leaving a video rolling. Generally, we're far, far more active than videographers - you have to be to get the different angles.

[fotografz]

Not the same concepts C Jo. If a still shooter does 1000 frames in 8 hours, a video shoter will do more than that in 1 minute. 4 hours of video = 350,000 frames. There is no

substitute for picking the right moment to shoot a still. That hasn't changed since the 1930's and HCB's "Decisive Moment."

 

Back to Bob's original question is it "over kill?"

 

Is a 2 card shooting, weather sealed, faster AF, high meg crop ability camera with a high count pro spec shutter over-kill?

 

???????????????????

[dave_shilling__sacramento_]

I think he was just saying that the 5dmk2 has the same general mpix and ISO capabilities for much less cash.... i agree.. since its not out yet, its obviously smalltalk. I would love to shoot the video just for fun and post it up on my blog. One more way to separate yourself from the pack.

[cjogo]

LINDSEY & MARC ::: Yes > I was being a little facetious ...but, there are some novice shooters that tend to shoot " streamingly" and hope to pick one from the 15 frames ~ to print. They hold their subjects in a filibuster~! I am all into capturing the "decisive moment" but, maybe be a little more decisive :-) Now, with many taking advantage of the lower light capabilities > of the new breed of cameras ..at least a machine-gun bursting flash will not be in the eyes of the all the beholders. I have fellow shooter that goes through a Nikon flash tube at least once a year.

[savagesax]

Well C Jo, thats the first for me, hearing about someone replacing the flash tube. Did the tube burn out or was there a shift in color temperature.

[cjogo]

BOB :: Actually burnt the tube -- think they are the NKN 800 series

[fotografz]

If you read the manuals, these flashes cannot be used endlessly without consequences. If I recall correctly, Canon put a

limiter on their later model flashes like the EX-II which will shut down the flash when in danger of frying it. You then have to

wait for it to cool down. Not sure of all the details, but it was something like that.

[StuartMoxham]

I can remember many photogs here being upset when video teams would shoot some stills at weddings. And now I see photographers talking about shooting video. Remember also its not just video its sound as well.

[markonestudios]

I once assisted our church videographer to shoot one Sunday morning. That sole event officially confirmed my lack

of desire to do video :) So I've no intention of doing video anytime soon. As for the original question posed, I

think it was probably a camera geek suffering from a case of acute sourgrapeiosis ;-) I think whatever will

<br>1. Capture your subject in the way that you will be pleased,

<br>2. Yield customer satisfaction

<br>3. Keep your bank manager at bay

<br>would suffice. If, for you, that's a 1Ds3, that's fine and dandy :)

<p>You should have mentioned you have in your truck a H3D as a backup along with 2 8x10 view cameras for the

formals :-)

[blairhall]

<p>I think if they can improve on the stabilization... they might have something. I watched the video on the

link that was posted and the one thing that struck me was the DOF and focus tricks you can do with a still camera

lens. On most wedding videographer-used cameras, either the lens is fixed or if you have interchangable options,

it's usually just a wide-angle version... and NONE of them are fast enough or long enough to generate a nice

shallow DOF. Here where I work we use two of the high-end prosumer Sony video cameras and the lenses are pretty

lame. For shoots that I want to get all artsy with, I rent an attachment that allows me to use 35mm camera

lenses... but it's still a pain, because it's essentially a McGuyver job and there's still limitations.</p>

 

<p>Do I think the two shall ever become one (wedding photography and wedding videography)? No, and to be honest,

I would probably only ever use a video function on my SLR as some kind of novelty... But to me, the breakthrough

here is the imaging flexibility of still lenses married (no pun intended) to an HD video capture device, without

having to go through hoops or use 3rd party adapters. If they wind up putting that into an actual camcorder,

I'll happily drop my Sony gear, line up and buy a couple of those for my day job!</p>

<p>Blair</p>