Nothing new in this post. Everything I'm about to type has been said somewhere, by somebody, in this forum, probably more than once. However, considering the fact that a lot of newbs are just kinda weirded out by DSLR for video, I thought it'd be convenient to make a quick list (or something like a list) of the pros & cons, so that any time someone is curious and wants more info, we don't need to type it all up again, but just direct them here. Needless to say, if I've left anything pertinent out (pro or con), please let me know so that I can edit this post to be more complete.
COST
For many people, yours truly included, this is pro #1. When it came time for me to get a new camera, I only had $1000. For less than $1000, there's really no camera that will get footage anywhere near the quality of the T2i. The Canon DSLRs shoot full HD (1080, vs 720), and the image quality is superb. So, I actually didn't even have a choice.
The flip-side of the cost issue is how much money you'll probably want to spend on other stuff. For starters, one of the big advantages (if not THE advantage) is being able to change lenses. Well, lenses cost money. Your lenses can range from $100, on the low end, to many hundreds of dollars. I think most DSLR users would argue that you can get away with a basic 3-4 lens setup, but that question can only be answered by you – how much control over your image do you want, and how much are you willing to spend on the glass?
Also, in discussing cost, we need to mention audio. Not advisable to record audio to your camera. Just go ahead and add a digital audio recorder to your budget. Lastly, many DSLR users feel the need to mount their camera, and depending on where you buy, these mounts and various accessories (like a good follow-focus system, or an HD monitor) can get quite costly.
In the end, if you go full-bore, getting a variety of good lenses, a camera mount, follow-focus, and an HD monitor, you're probably going to be spending a good deal more than the people that went the HDV route.
Me? I just shot a feature, using the kit-lens, and absolutely no accessories. I'm not saying I wouldn't like to have all that other stuff, but I feel like I came out of it pretty nicely, and I didn't find working with the camera (in it's native-born state) difficult, at all (I got my filmmaking start in miniDV). For that reason, it is my opinion that the T2i is THE poor-man's camera. On the flip side, plenty of people with a great deal of money have also chosen DSLR, but they've gone in the opposite direction, spending more money than the HDV people. Ultimately, I feel like this dichotomy is an advantage – you can spend lots of money; you can spend next to nothing; you can spend somewhere in-between; no matter what, the camera fits your budget.
FOCUS
In my discussions with other DSLR users, I think this is probably the most popular reason why people buy these cameras for video. In video production, one thing that has been absent, until recently, is a shallow depth of field. Now that we can finally play with this filmmaking tool, it seems everybody is clamoring for it. Tons of people are jumping on the DSLR bandwagon, and a bunch of other people are building and/or purchasing 35mm adapters for their HDV cameras.
Working with a shallow depth of field requires a whole new skill, that needs to be practiced, and I think most DSLR users would agree that you'd benefit greatly by purchasing a good follow-focus setup (which requires a mount). And that takes us back to the issue of cost.
However, if really shallow depth of field is what you want (and many would argue that you need it, to give your footage a more “cinematic” feel), DSLR wins. As mentioned earlier, plenty of people are adding 35mm adapters to their HDV cams to get the same results. It should be noted that if you go the 35mm adapter route, you'll end up spending just as much money on lenses and mount, as you would with DSLR, but you also have to purchase the adapter, and your camera is more expensive to start with. Also, with the 35mm adapter, you need more light to properly expose your image. I think most 35mm adapter users would argue that the image quality of a good 3ccd HDV cam is better than a DSLR.
*maybe a 35mm adapter user can chime in on why they feel this way?
And, while we're talking focus, it's worth mentioning that neither the 5D, 7D or T2i offer meaningful auto-focus, while shooting. The 60D is advertised as having a fluid auto-focus, more like what we're accustomed to on camcorders. I can envision a number of ways that auto-focus could be wanted in a documentary shoot. But for narrative, I think most DSLR users would say, “So what? Why do you even want auto-focus, dummy?”
LOW LIGHT
Uhh, yeah, it can't be beat. This is probably popular reason #2 why people are buying these cameras. If you come from a standard-video-camera background, you will be absolutely shocked with the crystal-clear image-quality you'll be able to get, in the lowest of lights.
Watch this test-footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAfCBC5VJ2A
You ain't gettin nothin even remotely resembling that with any HDV cam. And here's the wicked part – f4.5 (the aperture setting used in this video) really isn't that low; the amount of light you'd be able to pick up with a prime lens is considerably greater.
LAME SAUCE
Now, come down to Earth, for just a second. You got all high in the clouds, thinking that you have access to the same quality of equipment that the professionals are using. For low-budget filmmakers, there's no denying the overrall awesomeness of the Canon DSLRs. And the footage looks very good. But it doesn't look as good as what the professionals are using. The main problem seems to be with the video format -- it's too compressed. This is why filmmakers who can afford a more expensive high-end HDV cam are choosing to do so. I'm the wrong guy to fill you in on this issue -- check this thread to further understand why DSLR is rad, but not that rad:
http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=23804&highlight=dslr+blown
JELLO
The rolling shutter effect is one very good reason why you'll probably not want to do very much rapid panning, with a DSLR. Watch this footage. Pay attention to the sides of the buildings, and the telephone pole:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhfQnIQPMjM
See how everything got all bendy? That will happen any time you pan rapidly. You can tilt to your heart's content, but vertical lines will get bendy, when you move the camera horizontally. I've only done test-footage with my T2i; I've heard that jello is actually more pronounced with the 5D, though I personally cannot confirm nor deny that.
ALIASING
Aliasing is an effect that comes about as a result of too much of a good thing. The 5D, 7D and T2i are shooting still pictures at 18MP. That's HUGE, and that's what the camera is primarily designed to do. For shooting video, however, this is just too much -- these camera's insides are not capable of handling such a huge amount of data for video. So, one of the ways that Canon makes it possible to shoot video with these cameras is with line-skipping.
When you shoot video, your camera isn't reading every single line available to it, because every single line isn't needed to attain HD status. Most of the time, you won't notice what's going on. But when something really skinny is being filmed, the aliasing effect surfaces. This effect is difficult to describe -- you just kinda need to see it. I've seen it myself, in footage I shot in which a dude runs past a chainlink fence. The fence has a weird shimmering-like quality. I tried to find a good Youtube clip of aliasing, but haven't had any luck, so I'll upload my own clip to demonstrate -- can't do it now, cuz it's on a different computer than what I'm typing this from.
AUDIO
I mentioned above that you're going to want to spend money on audio. That's cuz it sucks on these cameras. There's really only one extra expense for you, however – your audio recorder. Whether you're shooting on HDV or DSLR, you're going to want to spend money on a good mic and boom, at a bare minimum. The difference with you DSLR, however, is that with a good HDV cam, you can plug your balanced line mic directly into your camera, and get decent sound. Even if you don't have a balanced input, you can still get decent sound by getting an XLR adapter. Such is not the case with DSLRs. XLR adapters do exist for DSLR, but they don't magically make the audio recording better – even with a balanced mic, plugged into your DSLR with an adapter, your audio still sucks. So, buy an audio recorder. Syncing in post is not difficult – more time-consuming, but not more difficult.
I can envision different projects in which it'd be not just convenient, but probably necessary to have everything (video & audio) in one rig. Perhaps DSLR ain't such a great idea for shooting weddings. For a narrative, however, I find it quite liberating to not be tied to my mic with a pesky audio cable.
12 MINUTE CLIPS
Canon DSLRs won't shoot continuously, forever, like a regular camcorder will (until running out of tape/memory). They have a 12-minute max length for each shot. For narrative work – who cares? But if you're trying to shoot special events (concerts, performances, documentary, wedding), this limitation could really kill you.
OVERHEATING
These cameras are designed for photography first, remember? When shooting video, the physical shutter remains open, making it impossible for you to use the viewfinder. So, in video mode, the camera display is always on. Those displays eat batteries with the quickness. The DSLR battery wasn't designed to handle this heavy work-load, and they freak-out when too much work is put on them.
Don't worry, you're camera isn't going to explode. It tells you when it's hot. If you don't turn it off, it will turn itself off, before the temperature reaches any critical point. You give it a breather (take the battery out, to speed the cooling process), just a couple minutes, and you're ready to rock.
When will it overheat? On a narrative shoot, not very often. Because you're not shooting continuously – just in short bursts. If you're trying to shoot a documentary, or some event footage, the problem would likely be recurrent.
My experience – I just shot a feature, half of which takes place outside, in the middle of the day. We shot in some of your most extremely hot and humid weather. It overheated often. It was annoying, but didn't ruin shoots. But that was only when we were outside. Inside, not one instance of overheating. I've communicated with people a little farther north, and they've reported having no overheat problems, ever.
COMPUTER/SOFTWARE
You're going to need lots of storage space. But storage is cheap, these days, so no big whoop. You can get a TB, 7200 RPM (and you need 7200 RPM) for $100. That's a good start.
As for software, the bad news is that our favorite editing suites were not designed with DSLR footage in mind, and most of them just don't work. Most people have been converting their footage to a format the software will work with, but this takes not just time, but MORE storage space. The good news is that our favorite software editing suites are catching on to this craze. I've edited T2i footage in Edius, Vegas 10, and Premiere CS5, and they all handled it just fine, in it's native format. Oh, and CS5 is fucking awesome!
COST
For many people, yours truly included, this is pro #1. When it came time for me to get a new camera, I only had $1000. For less than $1000, there's really no camera that will get footage anywhere near the quality of the T2i. The Canon DSLRs shoot full HD (1080, vs 720), and the image quality is superb. So, I actually didn't even have a choice.
The flip-side of the cost issue is how much money you'll probably want to spend on other stuff. For starters, one of the big advantages (if not THE advantage) is being able to change lenses. Well, lenses cost money. Your lenses can range from $100, on the low end, to many hundreds of dollars. I think most DSLR users would argue that you can get away with a basic 3-4 lens setup, but that question can only be answered by you – how much control over your image do you want, and how much are you willing to spend on the glass?
Also, in discussing cost, we need to mention audio. Not advisable to record audio to your camera. Just go ahead and add a digital audio recorder to your budget. Lastly, many DSLR users feel the need to mount their camera, and depending on where you buy, these mounts and various accessories (like a good follow-focus system, or an HD monitor) can get quite costly.
In the end, if you go full-bore, getting a variety of good lenses, a camera mount, follow-focus, and an HD monitor, you're probably going to be spending a good deal more than the people that went the HDV route.
Me? I just shot a feature, using the kit-lens, and absolutely no accessories. I'm not saying I wouldn't like to have all that other stuff, but I feel like I came out of it pretty nicely, and I didn't find working with the camera (in it's native-born state) difficult, at all (I got my filmmaking start in miniDV). For that reason, it is my opinion that the T2i is THE poor-man's camera. On the flip side, plenty of people with a great deal of money have also chosen DSLR, but they've gone in the opposite direction, spending more money than the HDV people. Ultimately, I feel like this dichotomy is an advantage – you can spend lots of money; you can spend next to nothing; you can spend somewhere in-between; no matter what, the camera fits your budget.
FOCUS
In my discussions with other DSLR users, I think this is probably the most popular reason why people buy these cameras for video. In video production, one thing that has been absent, until recently, is a shallow depth of field. Now that we can finally play with this filmmaking tool, it seems everybody is clamoring for it. Tons of people are jumping on the DSLR bandwagon, and a bunch of other people are building and/or purchasing 35mm adapters for their HDV cameras.
Working with a shallow depth of field requires a whole new skill, that needs to be practiced, and I think most DSLR users would agree that you'd benefit greatly by purchasing a good follow-focus setup (which requires a mount). And that takes us back to the issue of cost.
However, if really shallow depth of field is what you want (and many would argue that you need it, to give your footage a more “cinematic” feel), DSLR wins. As mentioned earlier, plenty of people are adding 35mm adapters to their HDV cams to get the same results. It should be noted that if you go the 35mm adapter route, you'll end up spending just as much money on lenses and mount, as you would with DSLR, but you also have to purchase the adapter, and your camera is more expensive to start with. Also, with the 35mm adapter, you need more light to properly expose your image. I think most 35mm adapter users would argue that the image quality of a good 3ccd HDV cam is better than a DSLR.
*maybe a 35mm adapter user can chime in on why they feel this way?
And, while we're talking focus, it's worth mentioning that neither the 5D, 7D or T2i offer meaningful auto-focus, while shooting. The 60D is advertised as having a fluid auto-focus, more like what we're accustomed to on camcorders. I can envision a number of ways that auto-focus could be wanted in a documentary shoot. But for narrative, I think most DSLR users would say, “So what? Why do you even want auto-focus, dummy?”
LOW LIGHT
Uhh, yeah, it can't be beat. This is probably popular reason #2 why people are buying these cameras. If you come from a standard-video-camera background, you will be absolutely shocked with the crystal-clear image-quality you'll be able to get, in the lowest of lights.
Watch this test-footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAfCBC5VJ2A
You ain't gettin nothin even remotely resembling that with any HDV cam. And here's the wicked part – f4.5 (the aperture setting used in this video) really isn't that low; the amount of light you'd be able to pick up with a prime lens is considerably greater.
LAME SAUCE
Now, come down to Earth, for just a second. You got all high in the clouds, thinking that you have access to the same quality of equipment that the professionals are using. For low-budget filmmakers, there's no denying the overrall awesomeness of the Canon DSLRs. And the footage looks very good. But it doesn't look as good as what the professionals are using. The main problem seems to be with the video format -- it's too compressed. This is why filmmakers who can afford a more expensive high-end HDV cam are choosing to do so. I'm the wrong guy to fill you in on this issue -- check this thread to further understand why DSLR is rad, but not that rad:
http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=23804&highlight=dslr+blown
JELLO
The rolling shutter effect is one very good reason why you'll probably not want to do very much rapid panning, with a DSLR. Watch this footage. Pay attention to the sides of the buildings, and the telephone pole:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhfQnIQPMjM
See how everything got all bendy? That will happen any time you pan rapidly. You can tilt to your heart's content, but vertical lines will get bendy, when you move the camera horizontally. I've only done test-footage with my T2i; I've heard that jello is actually more pronounced with the 5D, though I personally cannot confirm nor deny that.
ALIASING
Aliasing is an effect that comes about as a result of too much of a good thing. The 5D, 7D and T2i are shooting still pictures at 18MP. That's HUGE, and that's what the camera is primarily designed to do. For shooting video, however, this is just too much -- these camera's insides are not capable of handling such a huge amount of data for video. So, one of the ways that Canon makes it possible to shoot video with these cameras is with line-skipping.
When you shoot video, your camera isn't reading every single line available to it, because every single line isn't needed to attain HD status. Most of the time, you won't notice what's going on. But when something really skinny is being filmed, the aliasing effect surfaces. This effect is difficult to describe -- you just kinda need to see it. I've seen it myself, in footage I shot in which a dude runs past a chainlink fence. The fence has a weird shimmering-like quality. I tried to find a good Youtube clip of aliasing, but haven't had any luck, so I'll upload my own clip to demonstrate -- can't do it now, cuz it's on a different computer than what I'm typing this from.
AUDIO
I mentioned above that you're going to want to spend money on audio. That's cuz it sucks on these cameras. There's really only one extra expense for you, however – your audio recorder. Whether you're shooting on HDV or DSLR, you're going to want to spend money on a good mic and boom, at a bare minimum. The difference with you DSLR, however, is that with a good HDV cam, you can plug your balanced line mic directly into your camera, and get decent sound. Even if you don't have a balanced input, you can still get decent sound by getting an XLR adapter. Such is not the case with DSLRs. XLR adapters do exist for DSLR, but they don't magically make the audio recording better – even with a balanced mic, plugged into your DSLR with an adapter, your audio still sucks. So, buy an audio recorder. Syncing in post is not difficult – more time-consuming, but not more difficult.
I can envision different projects in which it'd be not just convenient, but probably necessary to have everything (video & audio) in one rig. Perhaps DSLR ain't such a great idea for shooting weddings. For a narrative, however, I find it quite liberating to not be tied to my mic with a pesky audio cable.
12 MINUTE CLIPS
Canon DSLRs won't shoot continuously, forever, like a regular camcorder will (until running out of tape/memory). They have a 12-minute max length for each shot. For narrative work – who cares? But if you're trying to shoot special events (concerts, performances, documentary, wedding), this limitation could really kill you.
OVERHEATING
These cameras are designed for photography first, remember? When shooting video, the physical shutter remains open, making it impossible for you to use the viewfinder. So, in video mode, the camera display is always on. Those displays eat batteries with the quickness. The DSLR battery wasn't designed to handle this heavy work-load, and they freak-out when too much work is put on them.
Don't worry, you're camera isn't going to explode. It tells you when it's hot. If you don't turn it off, it will turn itself off, before the temperature reaches any critical point. You give it a breather (take the battery out, to speed the cooling process), just a couple minutes, and you're ready to rock.
When will it overheat? On a narrative shoot, not very often. Because you're not shooting continuously – just in short bursts. If you're trying to shoot a documentary, or some event footage, the problem would likely be recurrent.
My experience – I just shot a feature, half of which takes place outside, in the middle of the day. We shot in some of your most extremely hot and humid weather. It overheated often. It was annoying, but didn't ruin shoots. But that was only when we were outside. Inside, not one instance of overheating. I've communicated with people a little farther north, and they've reported having no overheat problems, ever.
COMPUTER/SOFTWARE
You're going to need lots of storage space. But storage is cheap, these days, so no big whoop. You can get a TB, 7200 RPM (and you need 7200 RPM) for $100. That's a good start.
As for software, the bad news is that our favorite editing suites were not designed with DSLR footage in mind, and most of them just don't work. Most people have been converting their footage to a format the software will work with, but this takes not just time, but MORE storage space. The good news is that our favorite software editing suites are catching on to this craze. I've edited T2i footage in Edius, Vegas 10, and Premiere CS5, and they all handled it just fine, in it's native format. Oh, and CS5 is fucking awesome!
Last edited:
Maybe.
