Are DSLRs still best for just starting out?

A

Altus_Libera

Carbonite Member
Lots of options, obviously.

I've been looking at some of the new interchangeable lens Sonys. And it seems like they have a pretty sound foundation. I feel like I could buy a little Sony and progress with their cameras.

But I'm also in the Canon camp, which pretty much means DSLR for anything on the low end.

I'm interested in special effects, which I know is all about the Raw, but for anything I make on a scant budget, the extent of the special effects will be PC oriented, so I'm not sure I need to worry too much about that in near future.

The one major upside I see with DSLRs, especially living in a densely populated city, is that I can aim the camera pretty much anywhere, and people will seem to respond differently to what they perceive is a stills camera opposed to what they perceive as a camcorder.

Obviously that brings the Black Magic into play on both fronts (including Raw), but the Phillip Bloom review kind of turned me off to the current model. Also, it's more expensive than would be some of the other options (though it's a great price).

What would be your advice be today for someone buying their first low price prosumer camera? Strictly for video.

Thanks
 
It's the user, not the tool. Find the best camera you can within the budget you have, and make it work for you.

You're just starting out, so you can learn on just about anything. Do you really need interchangeable lenses at this point? There are some great options under $1000 that offer remarkably good image quality, control in varying degrees between full auto and full manual, and even 24p recording if that's something that matters to you. Look at the Panasonic HDC-HS900, or maybe a deal on a used TM900. These cameras are capable and compact, with features that weren't available on similar cameras 10 years ago.

Remember, too, that while you can make a movie with just a camera, there are some basic things to have on hand. Budget accordingly. The first is a reliable tripod with fluid head. You can do 90% of what you need to do on a tripod. The second is audio support, which is often overlooked. At the very least, start with a boom-pole-mountable external mic... even something like a RØDE VideoMic with an extension cable (not ideal, but a vast improvement over the camera's built-in mics). Audio can be two- to three-times the camera budget for decent results, but there are ways to start simple, especially if you're a beginner just trying to learn.
 
Not much can compete with a GH2 or t3i, in terms of bang for your buck. Yes, you still need a lens, audio accessories, etc. But there isnt much else out there that can deliver a quality 1080p@24 / 720p@60 image for under $1000. Add in the free hack or Magic Lantern firmware and a plethora of online forums, knowledge base, and help out there to draw from... and I'd have to say that yes, they are still the best option for someone just starting out.
 
Or get a DVX100b for $400 bucks if you want to see if you like it enough to stick with it. Very low risk there.

We were doing special effects on Mini DV ages ago. If you can't rip it on a DVX, you can't rip it on anything. :thumbsup:
 
Whoa. A DVX? Were those even HD?

I have an HF20. It's a really nice picture and all, but I do think having glass matters when shooting narrative, which is what I want to do.

I've thought about the Canons mentioned. GH and Ti models.

I have a Fostex FR2LE so the audio isn't an issue. I'm more concerned about recording times, etc. Was that just really a Mark II and D90 issue, or are the DSLRs still bogged down with super short recording times?

Also are the DSLRs more apt to have rolling shutter, etc?
 
Altus_Libera said:
I have an HF20. It's a really nice picture and all, but I do think having glass matters when shooting narrative, which is what I want to do.
Click to expand...

I'd much rather have a competently shot DVX film with a good script than a 5D film that's 30% out of focus with a terrible first draft script.
 
Gary Huff said:
I'd much rather have a competently shot DVX film with a good script than a 5D film that's 30% out of focus with a terrible first draft script.
Click to expand...

Truth.

Altus_Libera said:
Whoa. A DVX? Were those even HD?

I have an HF20. It's a really nice picture and all, but I do think having glass matters when shooting narrative, which is what I want to do.

I've thought about the Canons mentioned. GH and Ti models.

I have a Fostex FR2LE so the audio isn't an issue. I'm more concerned about recording times, etc. Was that just really a Mark II and D90 issue, or are the DSLRs still bogged down with super short recording times?

Also are the DSLRs more apt to have rolling shutter, etc?
Click to expand...

I'm going to fly against a river of people about to pour down upon you saying to get a DSLR and that might not be the worst option... but I'll tell you this...

No the DVX was never HD. It's pure 720x480 SD in all its glory and do you know what? I bought mine 7 years ago and to this day still make money and shoot great films on it even though I own REDs and have access to any most camera on any given day. It is a great, wonderful, tool that I will never sell and love to death and still, still enjoy making pictures from. I wouldn't normally recomend it in the face of the DSLRs, but the fact that you can pick one up for so cheap makes it worth a mention. And again, it is a wonder tool to learn from. Nobody wants to learn anymore - they want results. But if you want to get something that won't impact your wallet too much and you haven't lit scenes for years yet and are still learning everything that goes along with filmmaking (and who isn't?) having a tool that just fits your needs is a boon. With that I've said my piece...
 
Gary Huff said:
I'd much rather have a competently shot DVX film with a good script than a 5D film that's 30% out of focus with a terrible first draft script.[/QUOTE

So that means that if all things were equal you'd prefer the 5D film? I'm not sure why the 5D would negate a good script or focus.

Really the question isn't about non glass cameras. I have had more than one of those. But moving onto glass now, I'm wondering what makes more sense. Looking at things like th FS100, C100, VG900, Black Magic, etc, I'm wondering if it makes sense to hold off picking up a DSLR and invest in one of these cams, or if it's better to jump straight into a $1,000 DSLR.
Click to expand...
 
Altus_Libera said:
So that means that if all things were equal you'd prefer the 5D film? I'm not sure why the 5D would negate a good script or focus.
Click to expand...

We're talking about someone starting out. Even more "experienced" camera operators usually have trouble keeping the 5D in focus. The 30% crack was intended towards that For Lovers Only film, which wasn't very good script-wise, and was out of focus a lot (or even worse: focus hunting). If you're just starting out and want something cheap, the DVX will be more inclined to help hide operator mistakes while the 5D is entirely unforgiving.

However, if you were able to get someone who could shoot competently with the 5D, then it would be greatly preferred over the DVX. It will look far more like film and television productions than the DVX.

Looking at things like th FS100, C100, VG900, Black Magic, etc, I'm wondering if it makes sense to hold off picking up a DSLR and invest in one of these cams, or if it's better to jump straight into a $1,000 DSLR.
Click to expand...

If you're looking at buying glass, I would highly recommend Nikkor lenses. Canon FDs are good too, but you'll never be able to mount them on a Canon camera (they require an adapter with glass that will lower the resolving power). People complain that Nikkors focus in the opposite direction of Canon and PL glass, which is true, but I'd rather deal with that and spend my money on cheaper, universally mountable lenses.
 
Another vote here for the DVX. It's what I started with. I've since moved on to the HMC150 when I was ready to make a bigger investment, and now the GH2 because of the nature of work that I do, mostly weddings.

If you start with the DVX you will learn a lot more a lot faster than with a DSLR. Like how to use lighting and composition to make a shot look great rather than relying on shallow DOF and high ISO's. Not to mention the learning curve on using the camera is not quite as steep in my opinion.
 
ASchear said:
Another vote here for the DVX. It's what I started with. I've since moved on to the HMC150 when I was ready to make a bigger investment, and now the GH2 because of the nature of work that I do, mostly weddings.

If you start with the DVX you will learn a lot more a lot faster than with a DSLR. Like how to use lighting and composition to make a shot look great rather than relying on shallow DOF and high ISO's. Not to mention the learning curve on using the camera is not quite as steep in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Because I think that when someone asked the question of 'what camera', with a goal of 'learning camera work', I tend to like the DSLR's, especially the GH-1/2/(3 soon...), or the Canon Txi series. Both are relatively 'cheap', a lot cheaper than when I bought my DVX100b 'new'... I think it was around $3.5K (of course now much cheaper used...).

Why 'DSLR's... well not for the 'shallow DoF'... or other preceived 'cinematicnesses'... but because all the controls for the lens and camera are pretty easily available.

Such things as ISO values (never did find a 'good' ISO value for the DVX...), F-stop, and Shutter Speeds are pretty available. These are the camera controls that I think of as what one learns in 'camera work'.

To be sure, the DVX100, and in general the 'digital video cameras' do have the attribute of having the sound recording with 'good enough' quality in the same package... And the HMC150 does have waveform displays to allow one to better evaluate the scene lighting as seen by the camera...

I did do a short film with the HMC150, and I really did not like the lens at 'short focal lengths'... the 14mm on the GH-1 does not give me the same distortion that I saw with the HMC150... and so passed at the time on upgrading. Then the GH-1 came out and I bought into the DSLRs.

So for me, my recommendation would be for the Panasonic GH series, or the Canon Txi series. Reasonably low cost for the capability.

Sure a handycam that doesn't have those controls can still be used to learn, but I think at $1K for such a handycam, looking at the near price range for a DSLR would be better for learning.

Of course the operative word is 'learning'...
 
For starting out, while I started with the DVX100B. I have to say someone who knows a lens has major advantages over someone who does not. I'd go with something like the HVX nowadays (SD is pretty much buried) but never forget your lenses, when you've mastered the HVX go get your interchangeable lens cam and be happy :)

Carleton06
www.apexpicturesltd.com
 
I think with the proliferation of cheap HD cameras these days, the DVX just doesn't make sense. I think something that helps beginners is to be able to pull some footage of a card and go WOW. Even say a used GH1 for $300 will deliver comparatively stunning results. Admittedly a DVX would be better at teaching 'pro video camera' skills, but on a DSLR you learn shutter, aperture, ISO and focusing skills...
 
I'd vote for a DSLR. Yes, a SD camera will hide some deficiencies and errors... but I don't think that's a great way to learn.

I started out with a miniDV camera. Had autofocus, auto exposure, and a stabilized zoom lens. And while it got me out shooting, I didn't learn a lot because the camera was doing a lot of the heavy lifting for me. I first truly started to appreciate composition and depth of field when I started using a 35mm Adaptor and Prime lenses. Suddenly I couldn't' just grab my camera and wing it and get something decent.

IMHO, I learned most from a camera that DIDN'T hide my errors. When I saw 1080p + 35mm Adaptor footage projected on the big screen... out of focus... I learned real quick to double and triple check my focus before every shot.

So I'd get a GH2 or some sort of DSLR. If you're really just starting out, a GH1 + a decent hack + some old prime lenses can get you great results for very cheap.
 
Thanks for the advice folks.

And like I said, I currently have an HF20, so I'm not certain that a going to a DVX or HMC would teach me too much more than what I've learned with that camera. I'm really most interested in working with lenses as I've really only done so with stills (and for that I still use an ancient film camera -- which I really like for whatever reason. I feel like I try harder with a film camera and do things with more intention).

My only lens motion picture camera is an old Krasnogorsk-3 16mm. It's fun, but the lens is what it is and nothing else.

I am actually a little surprised to hear so many leaning towards DSLRs despite the new influx of interchangeable lens camcorders. But price wise it might make the most sense to get the cheapest possible DSLR (hacked GH1, T2i?) and begin purchasing glass that I can maintain moving forward?

And it makes sense to purchase a cheap DSLR now and save up for something like a C100/FS100/VG900? Because the cheaper DSLR still holds up with these guys as a B cam, right?

Thanks again.
 
Altus_Libera said:
Thanks for the advice folks.

And like I said, I currently have an HF20, so I'm not certain that a going to a DVX or HMC would teach me too much more than what I've learned with that camera. I'm really most interested in working with lenses as I've really only done so with stills (and for that I still use an ancient film camera -- which I really like for whatever reason. I feel like I try harder with a film camera and do things with more intention).

My only lens motion picture camera is an old Krasnogorsk-3 16mm. It's fun, but the lens is what it is and nothing else.

I am actually a little surprised to hear so many leaning towards DSLRs despite the new influx of interchangeable lens camcorders. But price wise it might make the most sense to get the cheapest possible DSLR (hacked GH1, T2i?) and begin purchasing glass that I can maintain moving forward?

And it makes sense to purchase a cheap DSLR now and save up for something like a C100/FS100/VG900? Because the cheaper DSLR still holds up with these guys as a B cam, right?

Thanks again.
Click to expand...

If I may observe, you didn't ask your question very well. You couched it in terms of "just starting out," and didn't say anything about having already worked with fixed-lens cameras and being ready to move on to working with interchangeable lenses. Everyone assumed you were just about to pick up a camera, any camera, for the first time, and given your first couple of posts, there's no reason to blame them.
 
Altus_Libera said:
I am actually a little surprised to hear so many leaning towards DSLRs despite the new influx of interchangeable lens camcorders. But price wise it might make the most sense to get the cheapest possible DSLR (hacked GH1, T2i?) and begin purchasing glass that I can maintain moving forward?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. You will be much better served by purchasing the best glass you can afford rather than an expensive interchangeable lens camera. That market is moving so fast it makes your head spin, whereas good glass is forever (just look at people interested in Lomos, the Soviet made lenses from the last half century). A T2i or GH2 (I would avoid the GH1) can be had for so little money and work with so many different lenses (especially the GH2) that you don't have to look at spending $5-8k just on a camera body.

And it makes sense to purchase a cheap DSLR now and save up for something like a C100/FS100/VG900? Because the cheaper DSLR still holds up with these guys as a B cam, right?
Click to expand...

Exactly right. I think you'd be better served with the GH2 in that regard, as its resolving power is far stronger than the Canons, however using it is not for the faint of heart, so it depends. If you read up on the GH2's eccentricities and feel like you can deal with it (and don't mind the idea of hacking your camera) then go for that one. Otherwise, the T2i is probably the cheapest I would recommended, but T3i is better for the articulating LCD screen.
 
David Jimerson said:
If I may observe, you didn't ask your question very well. You couched it in terms of "just starting out," and didn't say anything about having already worked with fixed-lens cameras and being ready to move on to working with interchangeable lenses. Everyone assumed you were just about to pick up a camera, any camera, for the first time, and given your first couple of posts, there's no reason to blame them.
Click to expand...

Sorry if my tone came across as blaming. Wasn't intended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top