I saw Casey Neistat giving high praise for the Canon S120, but his video is over 3 years old and the S120 is apparently no longer made. But is it still the best camera for video, used in the $200 to $300 range?
camera-gear Best camera for $200 - $300
- Thread starter Blade_Jones
- Start date
S120 has no lens options... for that budget I would go for a G6 or G7.
You've been around indietalk long enough to know you need to
be more specific when asking for "the best" anything.
The "best" for vlogging?
The "best" for action?
The "best" for traveling?
The "best" for narrative or documentaries?
But to answer; yes, the S120 is still a good camera for video. If
you can get it used in the $200 to $300 range go for it.
be more specific when asking for "the best" anything.
The "best" for vlogging?
The "best" for action?
The "best" for traveling?
The "best" for narrative or documentaries?
But to answer; yes, the S120 is still a good camera for video. If
you can get it used in the $200 to $300 range go for it.
I've actually decided to spring for more like $500 to $550. Seems like the Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II is a great choice. This video has me convinced. Nice film look by shooting at 60 FPS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rZCNlIEWg8
First and foremost I want the best video "look" for the price, that will keep up with the high quality stills and video that I buy from iStock, etc. Not vlogging, but I'll be shooting footage (static interior interviews, B-roll footage) for YouTube videos. Don't need any crazy zoom power. I want 60 FPS power to do some slow mo. I don't necessarily need a compact camera. Bigger is fine if that gets me a better video "look".
For $500 you might consider a Lumix. I have a Lumix G85. The video quality is a pretty good match for my AG-DVX200 except that it can't shoot VLog.
I'm not saying anything about the Canon, it could be excellent. I don't own a Canon.
I'm not saying anything about the Canon, it could be excellent. I don't own a Canon.
I haven't bought it yet. Waiting for my credit card limit to be increased. Here's a great video comparing the Sony to the Canon G7 X Mark II. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoNRXWFTFa4
Very clearly, this compares the Sony to the Canon EOS-80D.
You started at $200, you are up to $739. That is the danger is buying technology, especially cameras. There is always something better for just $60 more. But if you play that game of leap frog you can end up disappointed. My rule of thumb is go cheap or go big. The middle is where you are "settling" and also investing long term. Cheap, you can possibly get what you need, and you can buy something again next year. Expensive, you can do all you need for the next few years. Be careful in the middle.
For my feature I’m making with a few thousand dollars I only got a $600 G7 Lumix. It’s an amazing camera with decent 4K abilities especially for video. Manual settings can do timelapses. You don’t need 4K and it all depends on the film your doing. If you spend more on equipment you will have less to spend on props, actors, locations and food which is more important. If you spent less of equipment then you will be left with waaay more creative leeway. The very construction of your films world doesn’t revolve around the camera. It revolves around what the camera is filming. THAT is the most important thing.
And if you know what your doing, a cheap $150 T3i from Facebook marketplace will do fine. Does 1080p video, it’s fine, anything is fine. I know I’m going a bit low but I used to have a cheap $50 Bridge camera that did 720p. The 720p on that camera was insane. So it all depends on how much u want to spend in front of the camera.
I maybe regret getting the G7 I shoudve spent less on gear and more on the actual production quality.
My suggestion is
-Camera- Should make up %10-%20 of your budget
The rest
-Props
-Costumes
-Actors
-Food
-Locations
-Crew members (audio supervisors, cinematographers etc.)
-Marketing
And a million other things.
So really any camera that has good enough quality to capture what you want to capture. Is good enough.
Cause you can always color grade and edit the footage anyways.
I’ve known a guy who had a $5000 budget and went ahead. Bought a $3000 A7iii for his film. The quality was amazing.
Just imagine if he had gotten a $600 G7 or t3i $150 instead. He would have had nearly $3000 more to spend on production design.
So yea hope I helped
And if you know what your doing, a cheap $150 T3i from Facebook marketplace will do fine. Does 1080p video, it’s fine, anything is fine. I know I’m going a bit low but I used to have a cheap $50 Bridge camera that did 720p. The 720p on that camera was insane. So it all depends on how much u want to spend in front of the camera.
I maybe regret getting the G7 I shoudve spent less on gear and more on the actual production quality.
My suggestion is
-Camera- Should make up %10-%20 of your budget
The rest
-Props
-Costumes
-Actors
-Food
-Locations
-Crew members (audio supervisors, cinematographers etc.)
-Marketing
And a million other things.
So really any camera that has good enough quality to capture what you want to capture. Is good enough.
Cause you can always color grade and edit the footage anyways.
I’ve known a guy who had a $5000 budget and went ahead. Bought a $3000 A7iii for his film. The quality was amazing.
Just imagine if he had gotten a $600 G7 or t3i $150 instead. He would have had nearly $3000 more to spend on production design.
So yea hope I helped
Well the camera and gear that I bought was about 66% of my budget. I got the Sony A6300. I might sell it when I'm done. That will reduce the budget down to about 25%.
But keep in mind that 90% of this mockumentary that I'm doing is stock clips. The rest is mostly interviews and B-roll footage. Talent is friends. I'm the editor, soundtrack scorer, I'm doing the sound, etc.
Last edited:
I thought so. He is a good color grader and has some good advice.
He is a good color grader and has some good advice.