Curious about prosumer camers vs. DSLR's

sleepwalk · May 21, 2013

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

ItDonnedOnMe · May 23, 2013

ChristopherArter said:
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.

The thing is there are so many factors that go into creating a cinematic look that it's kind of ridiculous to attribute it to a specific camera - assuming we could even agree on what defines a "cinematic" look in the first place. The truth is there's no camera that will give you a cinematic look without time spent learning how to make the camera do what you want. In the context of this discussion though the important thing is to go with a large sensor, interchangeable lens camera because it gives you options you won't have with the camcorder - options that can be important when trying to achieve a 'cinematic' look.

This mkIII raw sample is some of the most cinematic I've seen:

https://vimeo.com/66480704

But a lot of that has to do with the lighting conditions when he shot it, combined with the choices he made in grading it. Shooting in raw just gave him the latitude (both figuratively and literally) to make those choices.

8salacious9 · May 23, 2013

ItDonnedOnMe said:
The thing is there are so many factors that go into creating a cinematic look that it's kind of ridiculous to attribute it to a specific camera - assuming we could even agree on what defines a "cinematic" look in the first place. The truth is there's no camera that will give you a cinematic look without time spent learning how to make the camera do what you want. In the context of this discussion though the important thing is to go with a large sensor, interchangeable lens camera because it gives you options you won't have with the camcorder - options that can be important when trying to achieve a 'cinematic' look.

This mkIII raw sample is some of the most cinematic I've seen:

https://vimeo.com/66480704

But a lot of that has to do with the lighting conditions when he shot it, combined with the choices he made in grading it. Shooting in raw just gave him the latitude (both figuratively and literally) to make those choices.

i use to play basketball there everyday when i first arrived in brighton, i knew nobody and after a while gained many friends, great clip, looks quite cinematic really impressed.

GuerrillaAngel · May 23, 2013

TheArtist said:
Nothing you can't do with a DSLR.

Sure, you can also run and gun with a film camera, but like a DSLR, not easily done as a camcorder.

sleepwalk · May 23, 2013

I still find it incredible that everyone prefers the GH2 over markii or markiii.

PaulGriffith · May 23, 2013

sleepwalk said:
I still find it incredible that everyone prefers the GH2 over markii or markiii.

I don't. I very much prefer the 5DmkII and ESPECIALLY 5DmkIII over the Panasonics. The #1 reason, lens options. Way more and way better EF lenses then MFT. While the mkII and GH2 battle it out in different areas and some the GH2 winds, the MkIII flattens it image quality wise, especially with new magic lantern options.

Now, the GH2 is much less expensive...

gebo · May 23, 2013

PaulGriffith said:
I don't. I very much prefer the 5DmkII and ESPECIALLY 5DmkIII over the Panasonics. The #1 reason, lens options. Way more and way better EF lenses then MFT. While the mkII and GH2 battle it out in different areas and some the GH2 winds, the MkIII flattens it image quality wise, especially with new magic lantern options.

Now, the GH2 is much less expensive...

As long as it shoots 160x120 it's fine!!!

ItDonnedOnMe · May 23, 2013

I agree, I still prefer my mkII - sensor size & lens options for one, low light performance as well. If I didn't have it I'd certainly give serious consideration to the GH3 though, primarily due to price, although once the BMPC ships I can't see the GH3 being as attractive an option.

brunerww · May 24, 2013

sleepwalk said:
I still find it incredible that everyone prefers the GH2 over markii or markiii.

A lot of people still prefer their Canons, but side by side comparisons, especially crops, show that the Panasonics have better resolution. I have shot both Canon and Panasonic and have seen the ergonomic and image quality difference first hand. The GH3, especially, outresolves the stock 5D Mark III:

http://vimeo.com/62269059

And there is a lot of quality EF glass, but with simple and inexpensive adapters, the GH3 and other mirrorless cameras have access to hundreds of lenses beyond MFT system lenses, to include Leica M lenses, that DSLRs with mirrors don't.

That said, the new ML RAW firmware for Canon, especially for the 5D Mk III, changes the image quality equation. Shooting RAW, the 5D Mark III clearly outresolves the GH3:

http://vimeo.com/66063838

So if you want the ultimate in resolution from a DSL camera, have $3500 to spend before lenses, have the technical know how to download the correct files and modify your camera, and the storage and processor speed to edit RAW - the 5D Mark III is the camera for you.

Personally, I am a shooter, not a hacker - so I prefer the $1300 camera with the best image quality straight out of the box

Cheers,

Bill