"FILM-LOOK" FOR UNDER $5000?

ok guys, besides shooting a couple of short films on a really old video camera, i'm pretty new to filmmaking so take it easy on me!

what is the cheapest camera that will let me achieve good picture quality, shallow depth-of-field and 24p? In other words - is there any way to achieve that "film-look" for under...say...$5000? i'm a university student with a bad paying part-time job, so my finances don't allow for anything too fancy at this stage...
 
Last edited:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZA9r0iWbdw

this video might be interesting for you, if you plan on sticking to video.
another way of achieving the film look is to actually use film and use super 8, you can get relatively cheap super 8 cameras on ebay, however then you would have to keep in mind that you will have to record sound separately (maybe you already do that anyway) and that synchronizing image and sound might be a lot of work.
 
Last edited:
The DVX100 cameras have a decent "film look", and they are under $4,000.

I don't like calling it a film look because it doesn't look like film. No video camera looks like film. But it doesn't look like cheap video. It has a progressive and more narrative style.
 
I bought a Canon Xh-a1s for about 3,400. It's HD, and can shoot in 24p. I also bought a Redrock M2 depth of field adapter on ebay for 600 bucks. Look into depth of field adapters if you havn't already. It helps video look a little more like film. But you will also need a lense to go with the adapter. But I have managed to get all this for under 5,000. But it took A LOT of shopping around and comparing equipment/prices. It was a headache, but in the end it was worth it. you have to be patient when shopping. Go on ebay, amazon, craigslist, for certain things. But if you find something you want on craigslist id advise you to make that person put the item on ebay or amazon so you don't get screwed if it doesnt work.
 
Like Graeme said, you should take a look at the new DSLRs.
The Canon 550D costs at Amazon 950 $. The next "level" could be the 7D, which has the same quality but some more features.
There is also the 5D and 1D.. With the Canon 5D they shot the final episode of "House".

There are many information about DSLRs and also (dis)advantages towards an 35mm adapter.
 
5D II sounds great. im going to get either that or the 7D in the next few months. Torn between one being full frame while the other having better performance in low light...

checked out ur screencaps, the quality of the look is amazing!
 
Thanks!

Yeah, it turned out well and we got a nice look with it!

Yeah, I need to do some more research but I think my sights are set with the 5D! Let me know what you end up getting!
 
wow! thanks for all the awesome responses guys!

so it seems like quite a few of you would recommend canon dslrs. i do have experience with still photography (both film & digital), so hopefully the manual settings shouldn't be any issue.

which should i go for? the cheaper, the better, at this stage. so let's say i'm looking at the t2i... if i was gonna fork out the extra money to get a 7d or even a 5d, what's the difference i'm paying for? from what i've read elsewhere, it's mostly the still image quality and durability... right?

and what are the downsides to using these dslrs as opposed to conventional video cameras? are there ways to work around or solve these downsides?
 
First off from quick research there are a lot of differences between the 7d and 5d. So you might want to check into that a little more. Type in google search Canon 5d vs 7d and look at some sites that compare and contrast specifics. That's what I need to do more.

Thing is, Either way you're looking at dropping a couple grand. Lenses are going to be expensive too.
 
after doing some research i think i'll go for the 550d. Video wise, it's essentially identical to the 7d bar a few minor exceptions...but nothing i think is worth another $700 for.

So, back to my other question. What are some of the downsides to filming with dslrs? For one, i know that i'll have to record sound on an external device. Any other downers i should know about before i make a purchase?
 
Hey Ernest

I might actually look into buying a 7d as well bud... hahaha.

Liezl - I know you are somewhat limited with certain things. Iris control, etc. Not sure if this pertains to the camera you are thinking about buying...
 
Hhaha, been doing some research have u?

I myself have been leaning towards the 7D. Im not going to get it till the end of summer so if you get it first, lemme know what you think abt it :)

EDIT: if they'd only made the 7D full frame, there woudnt be much debate at all.
 
ha ha, yeah. Been snooping around and comparing.

The way I figure, I drop a grand and a half on this camera and shoot my feature... I'm not stuck with having this camera for the rest of my life, if I'm not happy with how it performs, then I upgrade for my next feature and so on. I plan on doing that anyways. Every film, upgrading and upgrading. That is, if my wallet allows me! Yikes...
 
About 550D vs 5D or 7D.

When I bought my Canon EOS 450D (yes, I like photography as well, but I'm not allowed to promote my portfolio here ;) ) I asked what the differences were between 450D, 40D and 4D (except the price and the size). Although my budget wouldn't allow my to buy more than the 450D, I wanted to know.
One big difference is the body: the xxxD-series is far less water, moist and dust resistant than a xD (x is a digit). This might be interesting to know in case you'd like to shoot near the sea, on the beach or in a desert (or in that room you just don't seem to be able to find the time to clean it ;) ), etc. The 5D body is also heavier and stronger.

Another difference is chip-size. The xxxD has a cropfactor, the xxD and xD are fullframe. Fullframe also means less DOF. So if you want the shallow DOF-look a 5D or 7D has more of that (I mean less DOF) than a 550D.

I'm not sure the above also applies to the 7D...

It's up to you to decide whether it's worth the price difference.

Good luck!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top