Curious about prosumer camers vs. DSLR's

sleepwalk

sleepwalk

Hey folks, new user here. Hopefully you take kind to those around here!

I just finished my first semester of my filmmaking courses at an art school, and needless to say, I am happy so far. I've been making 'short films' since I was a child on basic VHS and DV tape camcorders, as I'm sure a lot of us have. This past semester, I had the opportunity to work with basic HD consumer camcorders... nothing too high-end or experienced.

However, for the upcoming semesters and next couple years I'll be at the school, I want to start a collection of my own gear to take a long the way and shoot my own films with, as well as student films.

However, I'm kind of at a crossroads, like I'm sure a lot of people are when first looking at new gear or set-ups. Main question: DSLR or prosumer camera? This question probably gets asked a lot, and I'm sure each have their pros and cons. I've done some research, but no matter how much I do, it always results in a debate in my head. I would like to have honest, unbiased opinions from actual working and student filmmakers, like you guys.

In all honesty, I'm leaning towards a prosumer camera. I like having a substantial camera that was built for one purpose, shooting a film. DSLR's have DOF and interchangeable lenses that usually do well in low light, but is that enough to win the argument?

I'm sorry if I'm kind of talking out of my ass here, but I'm just looking for an honest opinion that will help out a fellow filmmaker.

Budget: $900-$1500
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
sleepwalk said:
Do a lot of DSLRs have inputs for actual microphones? Because I really want to learn about having good sound and professional audio, and it seems like prosumer camcorders do that better.
Click to expand...

"Better" is a relative term; extremely poor is "better" than atrocious but is still extremely poor! In other words, on-board camera sound falls into 3 categories: No audio capability, atrocious audio quality and extremely poor audio quality. Even no budget amateur film makers record production sound on to a separate, dedicated audio recorder. To get good sound or anything even approaching "professional audio", a dedicated audio recorder is absolutely essential. For this reason, if decent (or better) sound quality really is one of your considerations then you should ignore a camera's audio specifications when deciding which camera to buy.

G
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
AudioPostExpert said:
"Better" is a relative term; extremely poor is "better" than atrocious but is still extremely poor! In other words, on-board camera sound falls into 3 categories: No audio capability, atrocious audio quality and extremely poor audio quality. Even no budget amateur film makers record production sound on to a separate, dedicated audio recorder. To get good sound or anything even approaching "professional audio", a dedicated audio recorder is absolutely essential. For this reason, if decent (or better) sound quality really is one of your considerations then you should ignore a camera's audio specifications when deciding which camera to buy.

G
Click to expand...

The GH3's preamps aren't bad, but, if you can't afford a $419 PSC ProMix3 or a $465 Sound Devices MM-1, you would want at least a $329 JuicedLink Riggy Micro RM222 preamp with XLR inputs and phantom power to match the audio quality and flexibility of a pro camcorder - without the hassle of a dedicated audio recorder and dual system recording.

Here are Robert from JuicedLink and Olivia from OliviaTech explaining the advantages of this approach:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZNdfWDmjDU

Cheers,

Bill
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Miles Creations,
One of the cameras he was talking about was the XF-100. So I will use that as an example.

It has XLR inputs, and a better onboard mic.
It can shoot 24p, 50p, 60p, and Slow Motion.
It has a handle for extra stabilization.
It has buttons along the side of the camera, which in my opinion is more convenient then going through menus on the LCD screen. A few of the buttons are WB, Digital Focus, and Zebra Stripes (no need for hacking)
In tests, it has been shown the XF-100 has less rolling shutter than a camera like the GH2, 5D, or T2i.
Some DSLRS do not have articulating LCDs (such as the 5D Mark 2)
If you are doing run and gun shooting, you are not going to have much time for adding on things like external ND filters, and changing settings.
The XF-100 has many of the features you need already on it, DSLRs need extra equipment (costs more than you think)

Both cameras are great, but it depends on how you make your films. If you shoot run and gun with little crew, I recommend the XF-100. If you have more time, and money on your hands, a DSLR like the GH2 or 5D Mark 2 would be better.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
ChimpPhobiaFilms said:
Mile Creations,
One of the cameras he was talking about was the XF-100. So I will use that as an example.

It has XLR inputs, and a better onboard mic.
It can shoot 24p, 50p, 60p, and Slow Motion.
It has a handle for extra stabilization.
It has buttons along the side of the camera, which in my opinion is more convenient then going through menus on the LCD screen. A few of the buttons are WB, Digital Focus, and Zebra Stripes (no need for hacking)
In tests, it has been shown the XF-100 has less rolling shutter than a camera like the GH2, 5D, or T2i.
Some DSLRS do not have articulating LCDs (such as the 5D Mark 2)
If you are doing run and gun shooting, you are not going to have much time for adding on things like external ND filters, and changing settings.
The XF-100 has many of the features you need already on it, DSLRs need extra equipment (costs more than you think)

Both cameras are great, but it depends on how you make your films. If you shoot run and gun with little crew, I recommend the XF-100. If you have more time, and money on your hands, a DSLR like the GH2 or 5D Mark 2 would be better.
Click to expand...

What I was trying to say is that you can't get that for less than $1500. The XF-100 is $2500+
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
MileCreations said:
What I was trying to say is that you can't get that for less than $1500. The XF-100 is $2500+
Click to expand...

So how would the XF100 (at around $2,000-$2,500) stack up against building a DSLR kit and rig, say with a 5dmkii or GH2/3 and lenses + rig + mic + extra goodies?

I'm sure a DSLR plus all of that would add up to at least $2,500 fairly quickly?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm not proposing you'll save a bunch of money with a large sensor, interchangeable lens camera - but you will get a look that audiences seem to prefer for narratives -and, despite what some might think, you don't have to spend any more.

Canon XF100 - $2495

Comparably equipped GH3 w XLR inputs and 10X worth of power zoom lenses:

GH3 - $1298

JuicedLink Riggy Micro RM222 - $329

14-42 power zoom - $320

45-175 power zoom - $398

Audio Technica AT875 - $156

Campro deluxe shock mount - $25

Total - $2526

And, to get started with an interchangeable lens camera, you don't have to buy $700 worth of expensive power zoom lenses - you can get very good results from manual and system lenses that are far less expensive, such as the $200 Sigma 19mm f2.8.

Cheers,

Bill

P.S. palmcorders like the XF100 don't come with "rigs", so I didn't add one. I shoot handheld with a $30 pistol grip, like this one.

P1110865.JPG
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
The GH2 is undeniably the king of anything under 2,000. Hell, it's the king of anything under $10,000. Even the MK3 gets house'd by the hacked GH2 all day long. Unless you're shooting on RED Scarlett, there really isn't even a contest against the classic GH2.

The GH3 is OK, a better built camera (sealed body, etc.) but uses a different chip than the GH2, IMO it doesn't have that magic cinematic look that the GH2 has.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ChristopherArter said:
The GH2 is undeniably the king of anything under 2,000. Hell, it's the king of anything under $10,000. Even the MK3 gets house'd by the hacked GH2 all day long. Unless you're shooting on RED Scarlett, there really isn't even a contest against the classic GH2.

The GH3 is OK, a better built camera (sealed body, etc.) but uses a different chip than the GH2, IMO it doesn't have that magic cinematic look that the GH2 has.
Click to expand...

by stating that the gh2 is the king of anything under $10,000 i would advise you to go back to the doctors and change your prescription as its making you dis-illusioned.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
gebo said:
Not anymore with the 5D shooting raw....

:)
Click to expand...

Eh yeah I guess. Technically, but it still looks like DSLR footage. GREAT dslr footage. This is where it becomes really subjective (to me). In my own opinion, I feel the GH2 gives me a closer feel of cinema than the 5D shooting raw. It just seems over sharpened and doesn't give me that cinema feel. I have a background in music, and the best analogy I can give is that the 5D raw reminds me of modern guitars with high-tech materials that give a great sound, but the 72' fender telecaster just has that 'feel' if that makes sense?

The 5D raw footage is really amazing, I'll give it that. :eek:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ChristopherArter said:
Eh yeah I guess. Technically, but it still looks like DSLR footage. GREAT dslr footage. This is where it becomes really subjective (to me). In my own opinion, I feel the GH2 gives me a closer feel of cinema than the 5D shooting raw. It just seems over sharpened and doesn't give me that cinema feel. I have a background in music, and the best analogy I can give is that the 5D raw reminds me of modern guitars with high-tech materials that give a great sound, but the 72' fender telecaster just has that 'feel' if that makes sense?

The 5D raw footage is really amazing, I'll give it that. :eek:
Click to expand...

I understand your analogy. Of course all of this is subjective, but to me the 5D raw has a great cinematic look.
The "cinematic look" has often more to do with the color grading than with the camera.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
to be fair, i dont care what you shoot it on, aslong as your movie has a great storyline excitement to it then the look is only extra nice to have, blair witch project quality was crap, but did well because it excited (steady on) people.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
8salacious9 said:
to be fair, i dont care what you shoot it on, aslong as your movie has a great storyline excitement to it then the look is only extra nice to have, blair witch project quality was crap, but did well because it excited (steady on) people.
Click to expand...

I'll be shooting my next movie on an old Olympus that records 320x240 clips of max 16 seconds with no audio.
AND if the story is interesting it will be an EPIC win!

:) :weird: :lol:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
gebo said:
I'll be shooting my next movie on an old Olympus that records 320x240 clips of max 16 seconds with no audio.
AND if the story is interesting it will be an EPIC win!

:) :weird: :lol:
Click to expand...

i use to watch angry kid clips on the first 3g mobiles with the crappest resolution in the world, they entertained me, you have hope :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top