Best DSLR for filmmaking ($3,000-$4,000 or under) ?

N

NBside

Active member
Not sure if this is a repeat thread or not, but I didnt see a direct post, so I figure I'll ask for the general consensus....

I've said it before, and I'll say it again....by no way do I consider myself to be a professional DP. My talents lie in other areas of the production process, however, with the advent and advancements in DSLR's, I've been able to shoot a lot of my projects myself. Thus allowing me to save my clients money, and expand my knowledge and skills behind the camera.

All of that said, here's my question....

I'm looking to pickup a new camera for use on a project Im shooting this summer. I have a T2i and a 7D, and have regular access to a 5D MKII when I need it. My question is... for the purposes of the narrative filmmaker, which camera priced >$3,500~ would you choose?


My thoughts right now are leaning towards the Canon 5D MKIII... Having full frame, the wider ISO range, the ability to shoot on both CF and SD, and the new guts that they added seem like a solid choice to me.
Ive really been digging what I've read on the BMD Cinema Cam, however, it wont be available until after I complete principal on this project, so unfortunately...it's not an option for me. Though, once it's released and readily available and the user reviews are out...I plan on looking into it for a future upgrade.

So, thoughts? Suggestions? Recommendations?

Thanks!

Nick
 
I would not spend $4k on a DSLR

Id spend $1k on a DSLR or get an AF100/FS100

DSLRs, sound, moire, crappy connections, poor monitoring bla bla..

S
 
Good point.
My primary thought on DSLR was cross compatibility with everything else I own... i.e. shoulder rig, lenses, and other accessories.
 
I kinda right there with Morgan. Too much $ for not enough bang. (and I'd venture to say that most accessories would probably cross over fine....Rails, FF, monitors glass, etc)

I am curious though...You listed the 5D as "having full frame". (implying this is an advantage?) I don't really consider it as that, but I'd like to know why you do?
What does FF size sensor give that an APC c doesn't?
 
Most, true. Id have to actually check the specs and such.
My DSLR rig has a cage, which may not fit, and I may need longer rails? Not sure though.

I have looked at the AF100 in the past after I sold my HVX200...its definitely a solid camera, allows the option for uncompressed video to an ext recorder (which I so greatly had hoped they would have done with the 5D MKIII). That alone is a serious reason for me to consider it.
 
My biggest reason for wanting to go full frame was light sensitivity. I shoot a lot of moody, low light scenes, and have always had better results when shooting on the 5D's full frame over my T2i or 7D. So, the cropping factor aside, that is my primary motive.
 
morgan_moore said:
I would not spend $4k on a DSLR

Id spend $1k on a DSLR or get an AF100/FS100

DSLRs, sound, moire, crappy connections, poor monitoring bla bla..

S
Click to expand...

He speaks the truth, DSLRs are pretty much dead now. Most of the 5d,7d,t2i, etc fanboys have kinda died off, and those actual professionals realized dslr are just crap and have moved on. Just leaves students and... well those who havent done research.
AF100 or FS100 is a good choice, they work a lot better than the dslr. Instead of thinking now, think ahead when you would be doing larger scale things, a dslr wont keep up. Most support accessories will work on those cameras, of course some things like the cage might not, but why not sell that and pick up something else?
 
NBside said:
My biggest reason for wanting to go full frame was light sensitivity. I shoot a lot of moody, low light scenes, and have always had better results when shooting on the 5D's full frame over my T2i or 7D. So, the cropping factor aside, that is my primary motive.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you took the money saved from not buying a mkii/mkiii and invest in some lights, that might take you a lot further in the end image-wise and money-wise?
 
In that price range, I would have thought the Blackmagic Cinema Camera should jump to the top of your list (alongside the AF100 and FS100) at the moment.

We're really rather spoilt for choice with cameras that offer superb performance for the money.
 
@thehadgi.... I have a pretty extensive collection of lighting, which isnt necessarily the issue. My desire to improve my low light shooting is more in the realm of "guerilla style" shooting. In addition, there are instances where I would like to use less artificial lighting to achieve a certain look or feel. Not saying that same result isnt obtainable with several other cameras, its just as I said, I've worked with the 5D and have achieved the results that I wanted.

@RickyC... I wouldn't consider myself a fanboy, lol...I only started leaning towards the DSLR option, for the reasons I had mentioned above. Mostly, in hopes that my collection of lenses and other DSLR specific accessories would be compatible, in order to keep me from spending even more by purchasing those pieces all over again. That, and to be honest, because I know my way around them.

Truth be told, the Blackmagic Cinema Camera is definitely an option that I plan on pursuing for several reasons. My point in this post was really to try and decide what, if any, of the DSLRs would make sense in achieving my desired results in the interim.
 
I would say dslr's are anything but dead, Not sure where your getting your facts, but sales suggest a completely different story. Not to mention I see dslr films pop up on here about every 20 minutes. I'm not debating that their not the end all god send some try to make them out to be. But they still have a viable place among indi filmmakers. And if your willing to make the sacrifices a real camera has, than can produce a beautiful image, yeah you have to work a bit harder for it, and need to rig it accordingly. With your budget, I would get a real cam though. It will solve a lot of issues that would other wise pop up.
 
maranfilms said:
I would say dslr's are anything but dead, Not sure where your getting your facts, but sales suggest a completely different story. Not to mention I see dslr films pop up on here about every 20 minutes. I'm not debating that their not the end all god send some try to make them out to be. But they still have a viable place among indi filmmakers. And if your willing to make the sacrifices a real camera has, than can produce a beautiful image, yeah you have to work a bit harder for it, and need to rig it accordingly. With your budget, I would get a real cam though. It will solve a lot of issues that would other wise pop up.
Click to expand...

I don't think they are 'dead' either. I think some people need to justify why the bought into the AF-100... or similar...

Since in the world of small cameras (relative to Hasselblads and 4x5/8x10...) I've been a Nikon person for years, I'd tend to look at the Nikon D800 if I had the money. That's because I have a number of lenses, and so I don't need to buy an 'adapter' or new lenses... If I were a Canon person, I'd swing that way...

I think the recent Zacuto shootout strongly suggests that it is mainly a matter of understanding the limits of the camera, and lighting accordingly, and with an eye for 'cinematic' lighting... that gets the look...

So, if I had 3-4K now, I'd spend less than 1.5K on the GH-2, and spend the 2.5K on lights... Ok... 2K on lights, and $500 on a better sound recorder...
 
I'd like to second the suggestion of a Panasonic GH2.

If you look around the forums here, you'll see that many would-be AF100 purchasers actually wish Panasonic would release a camera with the AF100 style body and the GH2's image quality (I think they are referring mostly to the higher-bitrate hacks, but even the stock camera is impressive).

I also don't agree that DSLRs are dead, although many people who jumped on the Canon bandwagon once are saying that now. Mostly because there are now large-sensor cameras that are designed with the ergonomics of a video camera (AF100, etc) that remove many of the limitations involved in shooting DSLR, and offer much better quality than the Canon varieties (which are infamous for their softer looking resolution). The Panasonic DSLRs however, not only offer sharper video than the Canon variety, but the GH2 has a multi-aspect ratio sized sensor that allows video mode to have a larger FOV than standard Micro 4/3rds sensors such as the AF100. Combine that with a hack that allows increased bitrate and encoding, and suddenly the GH2 is a powerhouse of a little camera for a fraction of your budget.

If you like the idea of a DSLR body, I'd stick with that one. Unless you are also looking to use your Canon bodies and want colors to match better. If you are open to the idea of a large sensor video cam, that's a different story.
 
Chris Johnston said:
I am curious though...You listed the 5D as "having full frame". (implying this is an advantage?) I don't really consider it as that, but I'd like to know why you do?
What does FF size sensor give that an APC c doesn't?
Click to expand...

More control over FOV on the wide end is why most people who use it prefer it.
Even in film- 35mm is the mass-produced standard, but there are still plenty of time big-budget movies shoot either entirely or partially on 65mm or 70mm film stock, for more dreamy sequences or more epic looking wides (Snow White and the Huntsman, Inception, etc).

Do you NEED it? Heck no. Plenty of movies are shot entirely on APS-C sized 35mm and look great. Is it an advantage? I can't blame someone for seeing it as one. I sure do.
 
I'd also recommend the GH2. It's a look much closer to 16mm film, and is capable of incredible images. I've shot a feature and lots of smaller projects on one, often times along side a bevy of other cameras (from DSLRs up to the Red Epic) and it has never disappointed. It can take all of your Canon glass (with adapters), and will deliver if you take your time and work around its limitations. Plus it'll leave most of your budget for more important expenditures. Buy some LED panels with battery plates for those moody, low light scenes.
 
To clarify: I dont think DLSRs are dead at all - amazingly handy B cameras or A cameras for micro budget/students/learning - or for mountaineers or whatever- I would not go near one for $4k however if $4k was my total budget for an A camera

I think using them commercailly is an error a lot of the time, mainly due to synch sound which is a right pain (not just shooting but worklfow) until you are with a higher end post house that would expect it..

S
 
Why do you feel the need to get a new camera? Shoot with what you have and put the money saved into things that actually appear on screen - that is the best bang for buck right now.

5DII, 7D and T2i are just as capable of making pretty pictures as they ever were.
 
morgan_moore said:
To clarify: I dont think DLSRs are dead at all - amazingly handy B cameras or A cameras for micro budget/students/learning - or for mountaineers or whatever- I would not go near one for $4k however if $4k was my total budget for an A camera

I think using them commercailly is an error a lot of the time, mainly due to synch sound which is a right pain (not just shooting but worklfow) until you are with a higher end post house that would expect it..

S
Click to expand...

I think this depends highly on the type of work one is doing. If it is narrative 'fiction', then the setup time for cinematic lights, the setup time for cinematic set dressing, the setup time for laying out marks... and all the rest, makes dual system sound a nonissue.

If you are doing corporate 'run in, get a quick shot fo the CEO', or event photography in general, then the combined XLR input audio/somehwatreasonable audio circuits, of some thing like the AF-100 may be a better choice... and needless to say, if the situation in a narrative film setting require more than one or two mics... the ability to record sound in the camera, other than as a reference track, become nonexistant.

Yes, one does have to actually visually mark the film/sound the dual system... then match up in post... but you know what... that 'discipline' may be an enforced benefit... like identifying each and ever shot... not just let the camera roll and then in post try to figure out which was the 'good' take...
 
Personally, if you own a 7D and T2i I think you'd be insane to drop $3k+ on any DSLR right now. If it's FOV you're looking for with the full-frame MkIII, why not rent/buy a Tokina 11-16 for the 7D? If it's even shallower DOF you're looking for, well... don't be one of those guys ;)

If the DSLR image is sufficient for your client's needs, then by all means go with what you already have and put your money into something that will advance your kit a bit further than the MkIII can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top