Jimbo

Seems a bit, well, noisy even at base.    Or is that bass?

Mine arrived yesterday, body only, so any lens advice would be more than welcomed.... I know, Iknow, I should have asked more questions.

I must admit I completely dislike at least 95% of other peoples graded shots. Not because I think I can do better, it's probably mainly (but not exclusively, see below!) a matter of taste. My own attempt, with explanation:

On top of Panasonic V-lut (usually not recommended) I desaturated the shadows and also (like mercer) added some blue to them, but not so much. Is her jacket really a very dark blue? I substracted some magenta globally, thereby unwillingly adding more green to the trees, but fortunately the muted shadow saturation counteracted this (don't like the green in any of the shots). I boosted the saturation of the midtones, I like vivid colors, but not to the degree that the image looks artificially colorized.
I admit I am not good as far as serious grading is concerned. I think I know a lot about it in theory, probably more than most here. If you say my version is terrible, you are probably right. Do better, show, explain.
The point of this rant is, people - including me - can't grade. So why are they considering log the Holy Grail? I'd rather have a picture style that spared me all those steps and just left some color correction (which isn't a matter of taste and an artist's "eye" but merely cooking by the book with scopes). I would really love if the skin looked better. It's not wrong, it has the right tones, but it has too few nuances to look really alive. It's a pity that the above face is not in 10-bit, I'm curious to see if that made a difference.

Looks good. Great job. The slog, g-film, settings you cooked up matched perfectly with the Ursa.

I have the lens and it is great when you want that soft cinema look, but it is terrible with light sources in the frame. Good for commercial work it is not.

Wanted to show everyone this. Recorded a interview entirely with a Voigtlander 40mm and SLR Magic Anamorphot. Think at least visually it turned out well, used stabilization a bit to excessively.
 
 

Great, albeit slightly erratic, advice @HelsinkiZim ;-)  Which Canons do you use? How do you find them? Yes, it is difficult to get colours straight out of camera that good with anything else.
I think you can still do beauty with C100, no? But there is something special with the colour and DOF (and inherent softness) of the 5DMkII which lent itself to beauty.

I have been filming weddings for 10 years. Ask yourself:
Am I beauty or am I documentary?
If you are beauty then go with full frame (doesn't matter by whom, get shallow DOF).
If you are doc, then get a c100.
Develop an instinct for schedule changes. eg. When everyone is going to the next room, and when. Even if on paper,, it always changes. Ask people where they are going and why.
Coordinate with the bride's best friend. Groom knows nothing and his friends are there to get wasted.
Develop a signal so your. B cam can. Go wide when u go telephoto eg. Ring on finger
Everything on slider, tripod or gimbal. Go hand held at your own peril.
Seek perfection.
Oh, and don't fuck up the dance by being embarrassed to light it.
 

Some nice D16 colour.....
 

I've shot with the pocket a lot. It is true, very filmic image, but if you mess up it can easily look really bad. Any moire or IR pollution and the image is instantly ruined. The F3 reminds me a lot of the pocket, but the larger sensor gives you less noise. I've never shot with the digital bolex but it really has that caked on color look that film gives you. So much richness in the saturation. 
Pocket would have trouble getting a look like this. I've seen good pocket footage, but nothing quite this good.
The frame shutter is huge, so motion is much different. Depends on what you're shooting, but that alone makes a huge difference. 
 

Received my GX85 last week in time for a Friday wedding and just wanted to share my initial thoughts on the camera (being a GH4 and GX7 owner) and a short teaser film I made for the couple I filmed with the camera on Friday. Heads up: this is the same post I put on personal-view to avoid any duplicate reading time ;-)
Firstly, operationally, this camera with its stabilisation is a gem. For a number of years now, every time I've wanted to go handheld at a wedding I've had to remove my baseplate and attach my Zacuto target shooter and z-finder (I don't keep the Zacuto baseplate on permanently as I value the GH4s flippy screen way too much). Weddings being as they are, this meant I only used my mini rig at strategic times of the day when the switchover meant I wouldn't miss anything. So having it built in meant I could go handheld whenever I wanted; and I did. I had it slung around my neck most of the day, operating my GH4 on tripod and mono as my A Cam and then choosing certain moments to use the GX85. As the day progressed I began using the GX85 more and more and it gave me a photography-like framing freedom to the height and angles I could get to without having to hoist up my beloved monopod or put my tripod down into low leg move. I can see the pitfalls of a device making shooting so easy... you get lazy... but on Friday I felt a freedom and creativity I haven't felt in a long time. I started looking with my eyes more knowing that my gear wouldn't stop me getting into position (and quickly at that).
And the quality of the stabilisation? Well, you can probably already tell from the videos that it's incredible. And where I wouldn't normally go handheld with anything over 25mm on my Zacuto, by the end of the day I had my Nikon 105mm and speedbooster (making it 75mm) and it was fantastic, allowing me to grab shots that normally I'd have to set a tripod up for. And with some practise I felt quite comfortable panning gently with it too, it doesn't come to a hard stop like the Olympus stabilisation seem to, it tapers off nicely.
I won't comment too much on image quality at this stage as I haven't had time to pore over the footage. My initial feeling is that in terms of DR, detail and colour it is on par with the GH4 with a slightly different colour signature. I feel it is definitely less noisy than the GH4 at high ISO (which is a boon for my work, although I'm really not afraid of noise as much as some people) but detail and DR like normal still seem to struggle once you hit 1600. Also, I don't think the slow-mo (50p/100 shutter on a 25p timeline) is as good as the GH4, doesn't seem as fluid. The GH4 has fantastic 50p. Again, please take this with a pinch of salt as I've scanned my footage for all of an hour and never have time or inclination to pixel peep (too busy editing bloody weddings!). It's just my feel.
Now the cons to the camera.... instantly the moment I took it out of the box and put it up to my face I was disappointed. I love the left-side EVF, it means guests can see more of my face and I can smile to put them at ease and more easily talk to the bride and groom if doing any direction. However, that damned left strap lug just sticks into my nose. The GX7 has the correct placement of this lug and I cannot believe Panasonic engineers changed it and then didn't think about the consequences. Anyone else notice this? I want to hold the camera to my nose for additional stabilisation and can't do it comfortably now. I can live with it, but found myself pushing the viewfinder upwards into my eye socket so I didn't have red marks on my nose all day. It's workable, but the GX7 lug placement was perfect.
Secondly, no battery charger included. You have to charge the battery in camera which is less handy when you want to have your second battery on charge while using the first. I do this a lot.
Obviously it's a real shame it doesn't have mic input, but I understand this isn't a pro model. I just have to choose wisely when I use it for my work until the GH5 comes out as audio clips are so important to the way I edit (I use natural, candid audio whenever I can, especially in my longer edits). However, I really will have so much pleasure using it for my work in the meantime, and it is now the perfect personal camera for me too.
So here is a mini teaser video I put together for my bride and groom from Friday. Shots 1, 2 and 4 at 50mm, shots 3 and 5 (cliff ones) at 75mm. Yes, I have slowed them down, but I would be more than happy (and will) use them at normal speed too. The 75mm on the cliff was a bit of a wow moment for me. With the wind the way it was, there is no way I would have been able to get the shot on a monopod that steady, and I would have never been able to get the variety of shots I did if I were using a tripod (there was no time for a tripod anyway). The GX85 is opening my mind up to new possibilities.
All shots straight out of camera, natural w/ -2 contrast, -4 sharpness, -3 NR:
 

That film looks great. Stone, Gosling and director of Whiplash shot on film... yes please.
I think there have been Alexa moments that I've wanted to scream PUT IT IN MY VEINS. Most recently in Sicario, and memorably in Drive and Only God Forgives too. I didn't enjoy the latter very much, but there are some scenes in there where the cinematography is just gorgeous.
But film sure is special. Here's a short from Sundance 2013 I fell in love with. It wasn't until this year when watching it again I realised it was shot on film:
 

Lol, any more of a typo, and we would have had a problem..
I looooved Whiplash. I had doubts when i heard about La La Land, but this could be crazy good
Something about that first scene especially, immediately told me it was film. Vibrant but "ungraded", with true blacks, that you'd at least struggle to get with the DR powerhouses of today

Me 
Sony F65 or Alexa are IMO the best you can get colour-wise on a digital camera.

Just watched Listen Up Phillip - shot on handheld 16mm. Beautiful colours and a real retro feel.
 

Jackie, shot on 16mm is also looking really really nice. More muted in comparison but not that dead muted Sony look everyone tries to defend. Looks so smooth. 
 

PUT IT IN MY VEINS

Hi Jimmy,
I've been shooting weddings for 5 years so hopefully I can help out a little.
I shoot with 2 x GH4s and a mixture of fast glass (adapted and native). The GH4s do a great job and I love the small size (as I'm very sensitive to being unobtrusive). However, I would suggest, as others have, that the C100 MkII is the dream camera for weddings and events if you can afford it. I've been very close to pushing the button a number of times but I'd have to switch my lenses and get a larger Glidecam and I'm not willing to take the financial hit at present.
The C100 nails lowlight, skintones, internal NDs, small file size and great audio, pretty much all the key elements to the technical side of weddings. But... I've seen people craft beautiful weddings films with pretty much every camera we discuss on these forums. You're A7sII is no slouch for this kind of work, although record times, reliability, battery life stopped me going down that route and sticking with the trusty GH4s which have never let me down. If there is a particular camera you just love shooting with, then you can make the technical limitations work.
Regarding size of C100, I wouldn't worry too much about that, even in the UK. It's not too big, and I think what's most important is the way you approach the filming. Some people won't like being filmed whatever camera you use, but an apology, smile and some self-deprecating humour will usually win over even the most vehemently shy/grumpy guests. Most people are fine.
I would suggest the other key area of investment is sound, especially decent lapel mics . Mic the groom for the ceremony (vicar/registrar too if they don't mind) and mic speaker for speeches individually if possible, or get them to hold a mic, or take a feed from the venue's PA system (if you are working at one specific hall then you should get this down pretty quickly!) I think killer audio from the ceremony and speeches is one of the areas that can boost your films to the next level, and the sound bytes can drive your highlights films too.
A few tips off the top of my head:
- Attend church/hall rehearsals where possible, good to ingratiate yourself with vicars (some have had bad experiences with photogs/video guys) and good to suss out all your angles ahead of time, and meet the close family and friends. Getting them onside can make the days so much easier.
- It's invaluable for ceremony, speeches and first dance to have a wide "safety" angle set up to cut too
- Editing is a real bitch when it comes to weddings, if you're like me you are going to feel that intensity to film EVERYTHING but every shot you take is going to have a knock-on effect with your editing pipeline. My footage is better when I shoot less and observe more; waiting, looking, for special angles and moments. Of course, sometimes you've just got to grab what you can given the day's timings.
- Don't overcomplicate your gear. I personally find it very easy to get bogged down into lens decisions, shall I go Glidecam now, shall I get the tripod out? Ultimately, I've found my best footage comes from when I'm stuck with a single lens (usually a prime) and I'm handheld or monopod and I'm just enjoying the filming.
Weddings isn't my dream work either, but wow is it a good place to learn fast, and work with footage that involves beauty, emotion and story... all key ingredients to narrative films. If you can handle weddings you can handle just about any filming environment too. Not to put you off, you'll be fine, but you have to get creative and think fast and plan ahead to get good shots in an environment you don't have control over.
If I can help any further with specific questions, feel free to message me or what not.

Thanks for all the great advice. It really is very helpful.
The C100 ii certainly ticks the right boxes and I have used the c300 on shoots, so know the system well (why the c300 didn't get 1080/60p, I'll never know).
I started out as a sound guy, so completely agree that will be a big part, some great tips on setup... thanks again to everyone!

That sounds really pleasant actually, the most stressful parts of the wedding video removed. Sign me up!

Weddings are kind of my bread and butter. Like most people here I started on Canon DSLRs, but eventually went mirrorless. While I've shot quite a few with the GH4 and A7s i/ii, my tried-and-true favorite combination for weddings for the last 2 years or so is my NX1 with a battery grip (battery life for days!) on a benro monopod. The 4k is fantastic, the 60p is excellent and the 120p is very good. For glass, probably 99% of the time I'm using either the sigma 18-35 or the rokinon 85mm. I have an SLR magic variable ND with xume magnetic filter holders, so I can just clop it on and off any lenses i use in half a second, very convenient for the running and gunning of weddings. Who needs internal NDs when it's that easy. 

For steadicam shots, lately I keep an NX500 with a rokinon 12mm on a zhiyun crane ready to go in my bag when I need some cool camera movement. I've pared down my wedding kit so that I can carry it all with me all the time(peak design everyday messenger for the win!) I have  a nasty habit of setting things down in the moment, forgetting about them, losing them, etc. and it's just so much of a hassle to have too much gear. I've done the whole ronin thing, extra lights, all the lenses I MIGHT need, but then you have the risk of that stuff laying around when you're not using it, just not worth it for me, especially since most of the time I'm a one-man-band.

Like everyone is saying, audio is important (I live in Utah, i.e. lots of Mormons here, so I don't actually film too many ceremonies, just the happy couple coming out of the temple) but for the odd ceremony it's really not too much trouble to throw a Sennheiser g3 or something similar on the priest, and line-out record the house audio with any recorder you want for backup and you're golden. I just don't see much of a reason to over-complicate things. Weddings are easy. Pretty fun too. Good luck! 

good advice.. i agree an assistant is a blessing, i hate doing these gigs solo.. weddings are gruesome. most important is to be quick on your feet. bodies aren't really that important, i've shot with all kinds (D750, A7S2, 5D3, C100..) but your lens selection, gimbal/monopod setup, audio etc.. is as if not more critical even then body choice..

NX is good for everything, A7sII is perfect for the party later, and anything really low-lightish. I always use 2 cameras at least, or we are 2 cameramen.
The contract seems very good, maybe you can afford to have an assistant, it is so much better to have someone else for help and a second camera.
As mentioned above sound is VERY important, and a few (really good) LED lights.

You already have three really really great cameras, don't waste money and mental energy on bothering with anything else for low budget wedding shoots. 
Just use it!
 

I shoot weddings for a good part of the year. You are right that the C100 II would be a dynamite wedding camera. It looks professional without being huge and heavy to lug around. It's got great battery life, small file sizes, good in low light, nice colours straight out of camera. I use a GH4/2 (which work decently) but I would rather the C100 if I could afford it. It and a used C100 Mk I would be a nice combo.
Most of your valuable audio will be recorded off camera. I'll often use a recorder (Tascam DR-60) to take a feed off of the mixer/DJ board, and pocket recorders with lav mics on the groom and/or officiant. Usually some other recorder or mic in front of a speaker as a backup. Audio backups are key because stuff will mess up with one of your options from time to time.
Weddings are the type of gigs where you will quickly learn that ergonomics, reliability and nice looking footage with minimal hassle are critical.