Confuzzlement over camera choices

DDK

DDK

So, I just posted a query about camera purchases to another forum and got an unexpected answer considering that it was a photography forum.

Basically, the person said that a Canon 600D, which I had so far believed to be a decent entry purchase for learning video, is a waste of money and that I should purchase a dedicated video camera.

Headasplode.

Why are DSLR's seemingly so prevalent as recommendations for beginners? What dedicated video camera options are there at the same price range?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
DDK said:
What dedicated video camera options are there at the same price range?
Click to expand...

IMO Nothing. Yet.

If you're quite serious about creative camera work as many say I would get a 600D (or equivalent: 550D, 700D, 60D etc) or a GH2 (or equivalent: GH3 etc). For comparable dedicated video systems you're looking at $2000+ or so.

The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera is a gamechanger and may change what I've just said
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
MileCreations said:
If you're quite serious about creative camera work as many say I would get a 600D (or equivalent: 550D, 700D, 60D etc) or a GH2 (or equivalent: GH3 etc). For comparable dedicated video systems you're looking at $2000+ or so.
Click to expand...

See, this is what I already thought but I mentioned my budget and limitations and also my interest in learning photography and yet they're still saying I should go the dedicated route.

The other thing they're countering is that I thought a 50mm prime lens was a good second choice next to an 18-55mm, but they're saying that because the 18-55mm covers that range that I should spend my money elsewhere.

/start firstworldproblems

WHY IS NOTHING EVER SIMPLE OR EASY?!?

/end firstworldproblems
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It could be because it was a photography forum rather than a video forum; to a lot of photographers video on a DSLR is sort of a bastard step-child.

There are some decent dedicated video cameras in a similar price range which might be a good choice, but a lot depends on what your goals are. Is this primarily for narrative filmmaking? If so the 600d is probably the better choice if you're looking to learn cinematography.

As for the 50mm prime, there's a couple ways to look at it. On the one hand, they're correct - you'll already have that focal length covered on the 18-55mm lens. With a prime though you'll get a lens that is likely sharper (may not really matter at video resolutions), and more importantly it will be much faster. The kit lens is an f/5.6 at 50mm, the cheap 'nifty-fifty' prime will open up to f/1.8 - letting in 8x as much light for much better low light performance. It will also allow you to get the super-shallow DOF look that's all the rage with the kids these days, harder to do with the kit lens.

Honestly though the general recommendation for a 50mm prime goes back to 35mm photography (full-frame equivalent) when that was considered a 'normal' lens because it approximated the perspective of the human eye. On a crop sensor like the 600d it would be considered a portrait lens, which may or may not be what you're looking for. A lens in the 28-35mm range would be closer to a 'normal' lens for that size sensor... personally I prefer a little wider than that as a normal lens and might consider going to a 24mm, something like the Rokinon 24mm T/1.5 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/890625-REG/Rokinon_cv24m_c_24mm_T1_5_CINE_ED.html) if your budget allows. Your best bet is probably to do some shooting with the kit lens, get a feel for the field(s) of view you tend to prefer, and then get a fast prime or two at the appropriate focal lengths.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ItDonnedOnMe said:
Your best bet is probably to do some shooting with the kit lens, get a feel for the field(s) of view you tend to prefer, and then get a fast prime or two at the appropriate focal lengths.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's looking like that'll be the smart thing to do for a beginner like myself. Which is actually good news as it clears up another $109 to spend on audio which I'm finding is bloody expensive. Scratch that, everything in this industry is expensive!

And the sad thing is that I'm not even at an amateur level yet and I'm already daunted by the prices of amateur gear :D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ItDonnedOnMe said:
It could be because it was a photography forum rather than a video forum; to a lot of photographers video on a DSLR is sort of a bastard step-child
Click to expand...

This is very true. I have also found that camcorder-centered "video" fora are prejudiced against large sensor interchangeable lens cameras (DSLRs, DSLTs, DSLMs and even interchangeable lens camcorders) and sneer at the use of shallow depth of field as a storytelling tool.

I generally avoid "video camera" and "still camera" fora when discussing the tools needed for narrative filmmaking.

DDK - I don't know precisely what your budget is, and I know you can get a 600D with the kit lens for AUD$569, but the camera has a 12 minute recording time limit, a moire problem and no viewfinder in video mode.

There are a couple of GH2 bodies, with none of those challenges, up for bid on eBay AU right now for less than AUD$600.

Here is what this camera can do: http://vimeo.com/40029107

That said, if you don't want to buy a used camera, you can get a new Nikon D5200 body for AUD$659. This camera resists moire better than the Canons and shoots for 30 minutes continuously, in case you ever need to record a scene, speech or play that lasts more than 12 minutes.

Here is a commercial shot with the D5200: http://vimeo.com/63434193

And, if budget permits, I recommend a 35mm or 24mm cine lens to go with it - instead of a 50mm still photography lens. 50mm is too 'tight' for indoor work on a crop sensor camera.

Hope that's helpful and good luck with your decision,

Bill
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
brunerww said:
DDK - I don't know precisely what your budget is, and I know you can get a 600D with the kit lens for AUD$569, but the camera has a 12 minute recording time limit, a moire problem and no viewfinder in video mode.
Click to expand...
$469 brand new is the best I can find for the 600D with EF-S 18-55mm IS.

And those lenses are WAAAAAY out of my price range. So far it looks like any wide-angle lens is going to be far too expensive for me to get at this early juncture.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Annnnnnd I'm confused again.

So, there's this one particular poster on another forum who is telling me what sounds like very good advice but since I don't know any better, I have no idea whether or not I should listen to it.

He's recommending one of the following as being far more preferential for video shooting over any DSLR:

  • Sony A57
  • Sony NEX-3
  • Panasonic DMC-G3
  • Panasonic DMC-GX1

Anyone got any reasons why these are a good or bad idea or why a DSLR is better or worse?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The guy was kidding, right?

Sony A57 - horrible moire problem (see the roofs in this video, esp. at 1:15)

Sony NEX-3 - the usual NEX moire challenges, no standard mic input and no viewfinder

Panasonic DMC-G3 - no 1080/60p and no mic input (the G5 has 1080/60p, but no mic input)

Panasonic DMC-GX1 - no viewfinder, no mic input

If you're going to get a Panasonic DSLM, at least get one with a viewfinder and a mic input.

So far, that is the GH1, G2, GH2, GH3 and the upcoming G6.

Your friend on the other forum is correct in one respect, however. DSLRs are not optimized for video. The primary evidence for this is that their reflex mirrors (the "R" in DSLR) block their viewfinders in video or "live view" mode. DSLR shooters put up with this because these cameras produce such great video images, but I personally refuse to deal with it.

Many of the Sony DSLT ("T" is for their translucent mirror) and Panasonic DSLM ("mirrorless") models recommended above have electronic viewfinders that are not blocked and continue to work while shooting video.

This was part of the reason I switched from Canon DSLRs to Panasonic DSLMs The other reasons were Canon's moire problem, the lack of video autofocus in early Canon Rebel DSLRs, and their 12 minute continuous video clip length limit.

The new Nikons, however, have at least addressed the moire problem - and, along with the latest Canons (650D and 700D), have video autofocus capability. The new DSLRs also increase the continuous video clip length limit to 30 minutes - still short of Panasonic's 2 hour plus limit, but better.

At your price point, I would try to stretch my budget and get the moire resistant Nikon D5200 - but, if you cant, that $469 600D will meet your needs. At least it has a mic input and articulated LCD.

But be very careful of patterned subjects such as rooftops, brickwork and patterned fabrics. Moire can cause you real problems, as in these Canon 60D/Panasonic GH2 comparison videos:

http://vimeo.com/20565849

http://vimeo.com/21962491

If moire is a concern for you, here is a body-only GH2 at auction, currently at $350 on eBay AU (only 1 hour left as of this posting)

Here is another, with the 14-42 kit lens, up for bid at $650, with 2 days left.


Again, hope this is helpful.


Bill
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
brunerww said:
Your friend on the other forum is correct in one respect, however. DSLRs are not optimized for video. The primary evidence for this is that their reflex mirrors (the "R" in DSLR) block their viewfinders in video or "live view" mode. DSLR shooters put up with this because these cameras produce such great video images, but I personally refuse to deal with it.
Click to expand...

The viewfinders on DSLRs and DSLMs are too small and awkward to use whilst shooting to be of any use anyway. The use, or non use, of a DSLR/M viewfinder would not be a big reason to choose one over the other IMO, in fact I wouldn't even put it on a list.
I certainly love my viewfinders, and would much rather a viewfinder than a monitor, but most certainly not the tiny, awkwardly positioned viewfinders on DSLRs which are, to be fair, designed for stills photographers.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DDK said:
I need to learn this stuff somehow and counter-points to counter-points and new information is all helpful towards that end so thanks.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll add another counter point to it then... somewhat in the same vein as my advice in the tripod thread.

You don't need to learn this stuff yet.

You're shopping for your first camera, right? All that really matters is that you get something that has interchangeable lenses with manual focus, and manual control over aperture, shutter speed, white balance, and ISO.

None of the rest of it really matters at this point. I'm pretty sure every one of the cameras mentioned in this thread so far meet those criteria. Pick the one that you can get the cheapest (new or used) and start making videos. You can start worrying about the rest of it in about two years, once you've got the basics down.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That's a good plan B. The odds of success are much higher in MMA, and it's far less painful in the long run. Although I've learned the hard way that if you think getting a better tripod can be expensive you really don't want to price out knees...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ItDonnedOnMe said:
Although I've learned the hard way that if you think getting a better tripod can be expensive you really don't want to price out knees...
Click to expand...

Since one of my knees is already completely irreparably destroyed and will give me early onset arthritis in the next few years, I feel like I have a leg-up on the MMA option. Anderson Silva better watch out!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hehe. You're gonna have a lot to live up to, in MMA, if you keep wearing that Deadpool outfit. I'm not against the idea, I'm just sayin... ;)

Regardless, you're gonna wanna get a live video recording of all your MMA matches, and for the price-range you're talking about, DSLR has no competition (except for the GH2, which is technically an EVIL camera, but commonly referred to as DSLR).

For lens choice, considering your total budget, I absolutely recommend the 18-55mm stock lens. Many people recommend (if you're limited to one lens) the inexpensive Canon 50mm. But so far as I can see, all you're really gaining is a more shallow depth of field, and is that really so important? Go with the versatility of the stock lens (it's stock for a reason).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
jax_rox said:
The viewfinders on DSLRs and DSLMs are too small and awkward to use whilst shooting to be of any use anyway. The use, or non use, of a DSLR/M viewfinder would not be a big reason to choose one over the other IMO, in fact I wouldn't even put it on a list.
I certainly love my viewfinders, and would much rather a viewfinder than a monitor, but most certainly not the tiny, awkwardly positioned viewfinders on DSLRs which are, to be fair, designed for stills photographers.
Click to expand...

I'll have to respectfully disagree, jax. I got really tired of my T2i's washed out LCD in sunlight. I would personally much rather shoot like this:

panasonic_gh3_preview-306x400.jpg


Than like this:

4856072050_b58fea63e9_z.jpg


For me, the first picture says "photography/filmmaking" and the second picture says "point and shoot" :)

Bottom line for me: I guess what really bothered me about DSLRs was actually losing functionality when I switched from stills to video. The first time I switched to live view on my T2i and the viewfinder and autofocus stopped working, I was completely shocked. In retrospect, it was pretty funny. Not funny at the time, though. I sold the camera soon thereafter. YMMV.

Best,

Bill
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
brunerww said:
I'll have to respectfully disagree, jax. I got really tired of my T2i's washed out LCD in sunlight.
Click to expand...
An LCD in sunlight is easily fixable with some kind of makeshift hood or black material. I personally find that DSLR viewfinders are way too small an awkwardly placed to be of much use. I don't think I've ever used a DSLR the same way as the men in either photo - normally if I have to shoot DSLR it's on a tripod, sometimes a handheld rig. Both of those setups would be almost impossible to operate the camera smoothly if I had to attempt to push my eye up to it.

FWIW, I'm a big fan of the EVF on the Alexa, and I'm also a big fan of optical viewfinders a la film cameras. I just do not think I would have a use for the DSLRs viewfinder functioning in video mode, even though I almost exclusively use the viewfinder when taking stills.

To each their own, I certainly understand where you're coming from re: losing functionality, but that comes down to the fact that the cameras are designed as still photo cameras, not as video cameras, and as such IMO it's pretty reasonable to warrant some compromises.

All of that said, I do think a GH2/3 is a better option than a Canon DSLR if you're purely looking for a camera for video use.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top