One of the questions I am most frequently asked is: "What is the best camera for IMAG?"
This question, though, typically has too many variables involved to just list off a single make and model.
What is your budget?
How are the cameras going to be used?
How far are they from the subject?
In the past few years, many of the things that make ENG cams good for IMAG have been added to Cine-style cameras.
These factors and more must be considered.
This subject has recently become muddied with large super 35 sensor cameras coming into their own, and especially with the recent uptick in cine-servo lenses that have been released.
Lately, the questions I get now focus around Cine vs. ENG. There are solid arguments to be made for either, so in this article I wanted to compare the two, to clear up a lot of the misconceptions about why one would be preferred over the other.
The misconceptions
The first main difference between Cine-style cameras and ENG cameras, is the look. There is certainly a difference between the way an ENG image looks compared to a Cine. The main factors affecting this are the frame rate and depth of field (DoF). Most Cine-style cameras have 24 frames per second as an optional frame rate. Many, if not most, ENG cameras can do 24 frames as well, so from a technical standpoint this is a non-issue.
The real difference comes between the two types with DoF. Now there are lots of things that contribute to DoF; distance to subject, focal length, and aperture to name a few. If you do the math, in most cases, the shallow depth of field can be achieved by ENG style cameras. I would contest that in most live production environments, a shallow DoF is not necessarily a good thing. In a controlled environment, a properly used shallow DoF can look amazing, and can be very powerful. However, when it's someone walking around on a stage, a shallow DoF usually means that if your subject moves, they will quickly be out of focus.
The other misconception in this debate is the sensor size. While the Cine-style cameras feature larger sensors than ENG cameras, this does not mean they are more sensitive in low light environments. For this, I go to my friend Tom D’Angelo, a volunteer at Calvary Chapel Old Bridge in Old Bridge, New Jersey, and an Emmy-nominated video director. In a recent post on Church Tech Leaders Network (CTLN), he put it this way:
"The common misconception comes from still photography, not video production. Why? The additional light sensitivity (if any) is a function of how many photosites are contained on the two imager sizes being compared. If you have an imager which is physically size "X" (let's say for sake of argument 26.7mm diagonal, or APS-C, and 6 mega-pixels) and you compare that to imager "Y" (43.3 mm diagonal, or 35mm Full Frame) with the same photosite density but a larger square-millimeter footprint; then yes, by nature of the imager becoming larger the photosite count will increase proportionally and as a result of the photosite count increasing the imager has become (relatively speaking) more light sensitive. Again, this is fine in the laboratory, or when taking stills
However with cameras shooting video, Unless the video capture and output resolution are also increasing relative to the imager size changing (example, going from 1080HD to 4K HD), the number of photosites is not necessarily increasing simply by going from one imager square-millimeter physical size to another imager size. If you have 2,073,600 (video) photosites across a 2/3" imager and 2,073,600 (video) photosites across a Super35mm imager, there is no benefit in light sensitivity."
You can find the rest of his post and other great information on CTLN Church Tech Leaders, or at Tom's website, ControlBooth.TV.
ENG Benefits
There are some compelling reasons to use ENG-style cameras for IMAG, which have little to do with the image look. Many of these reasons revolve around form and function. ENG cams typically have optional studio controls which are imperative in most cases. These controls move the focus and zoom control from the camera itself to the tripod handle, which results in less handling movement during operation. A servo motor attached to the lens, powered from the camera, makes this possible. Typically, it also keeps your operator from having to contort himself around a tripod to reach both controls and the viewfinder simultaneously.
In many cases in the church, the cameras are moved to the back of the room, to not encroach on the audience. Moving the cameras further from the subject amplifies every little bump and movement, which is why, in my mind, these are non-negotiable when it comes to IMAG.
Even off the tripod, ENG-style cameras feature a servo driven lens, meaning there is a rocker switch that controls the zoom. So, if you are using the camera in a handheld situation, putting it on your shoulder puts the zoom and focus controls in a great location. Unlike a DSLR lens which requires one hand on the zoom and one hand one the focus, making it difficult to hold the camera. Also, the servo adds the benefit of smooth consistent zoom movement. This is much harder to achieve by turning the zoom ring on a DSLR lens.
Lastly one of the main benefits of the ENG style cameras is the camera control unit, or CCU. This allows most of the major controls for the camera-like color balancing and shading to be moved off the camera body, and to a remote. The benefit here is that in a multi-cam situation, all the camera remotes can be positioned at a calibrated monitor and one person can ensure all the cameras look the same throughout the event.
Cine Benefits
Not that long ago, I would have said there are no benefits when looking at Cine-style cameras. They look different and some people would argue that Cine looks better. However, in the past few years, many of the things that make ENG cams good for IMAG have been added to Cine-style cameras. The cine-servo lens is the most obvious in this recent development. This brings the form and function of an ENG-style servo to a Cine-style lens. So, from a user standpoint, these cameras are becoming more similar.
Also, Canon released about three years ago the RC-V100, which is a paintbox that can be used with all their Cine cameras. This is huge for fans of Cine-style cameras for IMAG. I think this, more than anything else, makes these cameras viable for IMAG. The RC-V100 takes the control to another level by adding zoom and focus controls which are not typically seen on CCUs. These controls are only available if the lens has a servo. This means standard DSLR lenses will not be able to utilize these functions, but the camera painting features will still work.
I would say there is not an absolute right/wrong answer here.
However, I see many people dive head first into the "large sensor camera for IMAG," because they think it looks better, without realizing there are more variables at play. While the DSLR lenses look good, they are far harder to use in an IMAG environment. The shallow depth of field is maybe what you want, but if the result is that your pastor is never in focus, it's not a good trade-off.
I know there are professionals out there with the right knowledge and skillset that could mix both these cameras at an event get them looking very similar. I have been doing this for over 10 years, and I feel it's hard enough to get all my cameras to match when they are the same make and model.
As is usually the case, the tools don't make the artist.
If you have a compelling reason for using Cine-style cams, great. However, "because (insert megachurch name here) does it" is not a compelling reason.
Also, if that church is doing it, they have someone on staff who has the knowledge and skillset to know what they are doing and why. I'm not saying Cine-style cameras have no place in live production environments. Far from it. I have seen both ENG and Cine cams used for IMAG, and I have seen both done very well.
What I am saying is, if you are debating which way to go, you probably don't have enough knowledge to make that decision. Start surrounding yourself with people who do, and be sure you do extensive research, and are aware of the ALL the variables at play before you decide.