Best HDSLR for video

Lucky Hardwood

Lucky Hardwood

I want your opinions on which HDSLR is the best for video (hence the title). I would prefer to stick with Canon because I have a 5D mark I that I use for still photography and have some good glass already. Compare and contrast the t2i, t3i, 7D, 5DmkII, and any other worthy candidates.


Let the beatings begin!
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
I think that's the processor not the sensor. The sensor gathers the data, MORE than enough data. The processor just can't handle it so they have to skip lines to not overload the processing power.
Click to expand...

Yep, I just don't know which will happen first, a sensor that has new way to allow for downsampling or a processor that can handle more of a load without fission occurring. It will never be 18 or 21 MP, though.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
theclash4u5 said:
What do you use instead, then? Canon 7D?
Click to expand...

He uses the full frame 5D, as chili said. The difference between the crop of the Canon APS-C (1.6) and Panasonic m4/3 (1.8-2 depending on camera)is negligible in the real world. I shoot on both and don't really even notice a lot of the time. It's the jump to full frame that makes a huge difference.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yeah, I shoot 5D with a mostly matched set of 40 year old Pentax Takumar lenses. I have a little film photography background and the whole idea of crop was really off putting to me. I tend to see pictures in standard focal lengths.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I anticipate shooting in some tight areas so the lack of a crop factor in the 5DmkII is a big plus. I am concerned about the moire though. I will also be shooting in some dark areas and into bright lights.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I just bought my wife a Canon T3i since she was wanting a newer DSLR. I did some video tests with it to see how it compared to my Sony pro cam (Z5U). I shot at 1080/24p. It didn't look too bad, though I doubt I could easily intercut it with the Z5U. The Sony footage was much cleaner and crisp. The T3i looked a little soft and did not have very good color detail. Granted, the Sony better look better since it costs 4 times as much!

I only have f/3.5 lens, so it was harder to test the shallower DOF, but it was still quite a bit shallower than the Sony at any given f-stop. Just plan on buying some ND filters if you want to get that shallow DOF outdoors on sunny days. I would also consider a follow focus to be a mandatory accessory as well.

The only real negative thing I can say is that it does not have the same shutter speeds as camcorders. I normally shoot at 1/48, but the T3i only gives you 1/40 or 1/50 in that range, which are photo standards. 1/50 looked close enough, but I could detect a slight amount of flickering.

The shallower DOF was nice, but I think I'll stick to my Sony cam for most of my stuff.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
In my opinion, the crop-factor of the non-5D Canons is actually a good thing. If you're a photographer, it might take some getting used-to, having to adapt your visual expectations. However, there are two reasons why I actually prefer crop-factor.

#1 is the depth of field. In my opinion, the pendulum swung too far, with the 5D. Filmmakers went from having only wide depth of field, to ridiculously razor-thin. Sure, it looks nice, but it's also incredibly difficult to control. Do you really need it super-thin, all the damn time?

You can still get shallow depth of field with any of the other Canons, but you'll get it only when you intentionally seek it out.

Reason #2 is the fact that, if I understand it correctly, the crop-factor is actually much closer to the look of cinematic film. Somebody correct me, if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that, when shooting with 35mm film, only half the frame is actually used? Isn't it true that full-frame is an exclusively still-photography thing?

If you plan to use this camera for a lot of still photography, you'll probably want the more sturdy and robust 7D. I'm not a still photographer, but I've heard it also has a system of controls that makes shooting photography much easier than with the less expensive models.

If this is to be strictly for filmmaking, there's not really any reason for the 7D. I have the T2i, and like it a lot, but I would really like having a flip-out LCD screen. So, with that in mind, if it were me, buying strictly for filmmaking, I'd have it narrowed down to either the T3i or the 60D.

Wait, now that I think about it, you might also consider the importance of HD monitoring. I don't believe (but I'm not 100% sure) either the T3i or 60D monitor in HD. So, if that's important to you, maybe you'd want the 7D, after all.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
Reason #2 is the fact that, if I understand it correctly, the crop-factor is actually much closer to the look of cinematic film. Somebody correct me, if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that, when shooting with 35mm film, only half the frame is actually used? Isn't it true that full-frame is an exclusively still-photography thing?
Click to expand...

The reason is that motion picture cameras feed the film vertically, while still cameras feed film horizontally.

rii4px.png
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I THINK only the 7D is full HD monitoring.
I had to buy a "pro" (read $1000) 5.6" monitor that would exapnd the image to fill the screen for my 5D.

Another bonus on the 7D is 60fps for those few times you might want to shoot slow motion. Not sure if the t3i or 60D has that or not.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I still think there is only one dslr to compete with video on the GH2 and that is the 5D and that is all down to the crop factor, however, GH2 has 24p at true 1080, and now a new firmware hack to knock the bitrate up to 42mbit. the quality is amazing and very cinematic and I'm using old olympus OM lenses adapted and they look amazing for a very low cost. I still say the Gh2 is a videocamera first and a photo camera second but all canons are video camera's second.

and...

GH2 has video out mode offering RAW (Uncompressed) via HDMI...this fact alone brushes all competition aside.


just thought i'd throw that in coz it seems as if canon has cornered the market on this topic and i find it weird when the GH1 and GH2 have outperformed the T2i, 60D, 7D and has held its own against the 5D and RED.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
dr stilly said:
I still think there is only one dslr to compete with video on the GH2 and that is the 5D and that is all down to the crop factor, however, GH2 has 24p at true 1080, and now a new firmware hack to knock the bitrate up to 42mbit. the quality is amazing and very cinematic and I'm using old olympus OM lenses adapted and they look amazing for a very low cost. I still say the Gh2 is a videocamera first and a photo camera second but all canons are video camera's second.

and...

GH2 has video out mode offering RAW (Uncompressed) via HDMI...this fact alone brushes all competition aside.


just thought i'd throw that in coz it seems as if canon has cornered the market on this topic and i find it weird when the GH1 and GH2 have outperformed the T2i, 60D, 7D and has held its own against the 5D and RED.
Click to expand...

The GH2 is definitely not a video camera first. It is a still photography camera, and there are many reasons why that is the case. Also, neither it, nor the 5D come even close to competing with the Red.

I don't doubt how awesome the GH2 is; I've heard from many a satisfied owners of it, including our own wheatgrinder, and I trust his opinion on these matters, quite a bit. If I were shopping for a camera, right now, the GH2 would be on my short-list.

However, the OP has made it clear that they want to take full-advantage of the Canon glass that they already own, so I think their desire to stay in Canon makes perfect sense.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
dr stilly said:
I still think there is only one dslr to compete with video on the GH2 and that is the 5D and that is all down to the crop factor, however, GH2 has 24p at true 1080, and now a new firmware hack to knock the bitrate up to 42mbit. the quality is amazing and very cinematic and I'm using old olympus OM lenses adapted and they look amazing for a very low cost. I still say the Gh2 is a videocamera first and a photo camera second but all canons are video camera's second.
Click to expand...

From someone who uses RED MX ritually, has owned several DSLRS (2 x 7Ds, 2 x 5Ds, GH1), I agree with you.

One hundred percent. If I were choosing a camera right now to shoot anything with sub F3, it would either be a GH2 or a 5D, with FS100 in close third.

Gh2 + Hacks = unfukwitable

It resolves more than any of the Canon's by far, cleaner look to boot.

5D has the sensor size advantage and looks way too good when cropped to 2.40/2.35, and the DR makes it nice. With the AA Filter mod it's a strong contender.

The rest, no thanks. Not for me, anyway.

GH2 has video out mode offering RAW (Uncompressed) via HDMI...this fact alone brushes all competition aside.
Click to expand...

I've done the HDMI out thing, it's useless IMO. Just use the hack and go to SDHC cards, save yourself time and headache for pretty much the same result. The compression that happens at the DSP is reason for this.
just thought i'd throw that in coz it seems as if canon has cornered the market on this topic and i find it weird when the GH1 and GH2 have outperformed the T2i, 60D, 7D and has held its own against the 5D and RED.
Click to expand...

GH2 doesn't cut with RED MX. I've got some footage in my feature film, 95% red and 5% GH2, it stands out even with the same glass. You can see some GH2 footage in the trailer, as well.

I'd still use it for a feature, but that feature would probably be GH2/5D or all GH2, not cutting it in with RED footage.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kholi said:
GH2 doesn't cut with RED MX. I've got some footage in my feature film, 95% red and 5% GH2, it stands out even with the same glass. You can see some GH2 footage in the trailer, as well.

I'd still use it for a feature, but that feature would probably be GH2/5D or all GH2, not cutting it in with RED footage.
Click to expand...

yeh when i said held its own i meant like Rocky vs Apollo creed in Rocky1, totally bitch slapped and outclassed but still standing (on shakey legs) and manages a cheer from the sympathetic crowd :D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
The GH2 is definitely not a video camera first. It is a still photography camera, and there are many reasons why that is the case.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The features on a GH2 stand out for video, even the video record button which saved my butt when the shutter button decided to stop working...it was like the camera was telling me 'stop taking pictures dufus! thats not what you bought me for!!' I can still take pictures with the on screen shutter button (soon to send off for repair, just had a shoot to complete first)

But seriously, It's a good camera for pictures but technically the GH2 is NOT a dslr...i can't remember the technical jargon that justifies this...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
dr stilly said:
I disagree. The features on a GH2 stand out for video, even the video record button which saved my butt when the shutter button decided to stop working...it was like the camera was telling me 'stop taking pictures dufus! thats not what you bought me for!!' I can still take pictures with the on screen shutter button (soon to send off for repair, just had a shoot to complete first)

But seriously, It's a good camera for pictures but technically the GH2 is NOT a dslr...i can't remember the technical jargon that justifies this...
Click to expand...

It's not a Digital Single Lens Reflex (DSLR) camera due to the lack of an internal mirror. The mirror for the optical viewfinder in DSLRs snaps out of the way when a picture is taken, hence the Reflex. Instead, the GH2 is an Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens (EVIL) camera.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top