I might add - only do this when you absolutely NEED to. Buying kit just because you have money to spend is stupid and will put you out of business very quickly!
Best DSLR for filmmaking ($3,000-$4,000 or under) ?
- Thread starter NBside
- Start date
I might add - only do this when you absolutely NEED to. Buying kit just because you have money to spend is stupid and will put you out of business very quickly!
vision_filmz
Carbonite Member
You sir have NO idea what you are talking about.... If we were to base it sales you can add up all of the fs100 and af100 and they couldn't touch what Canon has sold. Secondly where in the world do you get this information? You have hollywood movies + independent ones using dslrs. Your post is so ridiculous it must be a joke????? I mean have you seen what film makers are doing with the GH2 and now the newly released 5diii?
You also have red users who cannot compete with 5d in the form of time lapse photography and lose jobs for that simple fact. Shooting photo and video in the same equipment is beastly. What about the world journalist who use these cameras every single day taking pictures, videos, etc....
To the op, get yourself a 5dmarkIII, most if not all of the functions that are done on a 'video camera' can be done on a dslr with the proper gear. Having shot on Red epic, af100, etc I can tell you there will always be a place for using these dslr cameras. If anything I would say lighting is more important than the camera you use, but if you are stuck in low light situations the 5d markIII is very hard to beat.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
True.
People like me bought a 5d when it was the only large sensor option
Went on to do some commercial jobs with it..
had major client issues based around seperate sound files and editors scratching their heads
lost shots when the wobbling HDMI cut the shot
laugh today when we view the moiree riddled/soft files compared to the FS100
IMO DSLR fits in two places.. micro budget, and serious level where the is post budget to handle them properly, mid level people (like me) can also find use for them as B camera
And yes $1k of T21 + $3k of lights generally whops a 5d3 and no lights
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Perhaps things are different, or perhaps the clientele you cater to... but most of the 'commercial' shooters that I know in my area, they do their own editing (or have 'deep' control over it), rather than handing off raw footage to the customer. In my Wife's Wedding business we did have an occasional request for 'show up, shoot, hand over raw images'... we declined such business, because in general unless the client has a well honed process... the results will be less than... and of course that never gets reflected on the client's own incompetence...
Because of my 'day' job, anything like the HDMI connection for most consumer equipment looks like a weak link... SDI connections are 'bayonet' type for a reason... along with strain relief...
I've wondered about this, and I think this may be due to the 'large sensor' that ever one seems to want, yet it is sub sampled, and the 'filter' that is there for the still 'large sensor' is not tuned for the spatial subsampling frequency used during moving pictures acquisition.
I've not tried using 'add grain' to mitigate such artifacts since experimenting with uprezing SD to HD a long time ago... but some sort of low pass filter, add grain, then unsharp mask filter could 'process' that sort of thing...
Film scanned at 2K has the same problem, but with a huge computer behind the scanner, and a 2-3 second capture rate... there's processing to spare to clean up such things... along with some optical filtering appropriate to limit the spatial resolution...
And of course last but not least... apples to oranges on price... 3K (thereabouts) for the canon/nikon options, less than 1.5K for the GH-2/T2i options... vs MRP of 6.5K for the Sony FS100
As I mentioned, spending money on lights is a non-issue. Ive been building a pretty vast collection of lights for a while. Sure, I could always use more, but who couldnt? However, purchasing additional lighting at this time isnt going to benefit my current needs.
The project Im working on already has a set budget for things such as: props & wardrobe, production design, set construction, craft services, etc etc etc So the need to filter money into other areas is not something Im worried about. As I said in my original post, any budget Im considering using for a camera is coming out of pocket, and not from the films budget, per say.
Heres the reason why I posted this, and considered going with the 5D MKIII...
Yes...I have a 7D and a T2i, and I am absolutely satisfied with them in many ways. Of course, there are shortcomings of the cameras in which I wish would have been fixed in a new release like the MKIII (such as the ability to send out uncompressed, clean images from the HDMI out, and all of the other typical nags with DSLRs), but all in all, Ive always been pleased with what I get from my cameras.
To be honest, however, a friend of mine owns a couple of 5DMKII's that I end up renting from him very often. I like the FOV and the operation in low lighting scenarios. My thought process was...since I spend so much money renting this camera from someone, why not purchase it and add it to my arsenal? Furthermore, all of my accessories (lenses, support gear, rigs, sliders, and etc) will easily support the camera, and prevent me from having to buy adapters for my lenses, purchase or modify my rigs, and etc.
Let me also say this....my desire for low light functionality is not because I dont have adequate lighting to achieve the look Im going after in a perfect world scenario. That being said, however, my desire for that capability comes from the true spirit of independent filmmaking.
Sometimes, we dont have the budgets to acquire a location for the purposes of bringing in generators, setting up lights, and etc. We do, however, have the creative spirit, to spot a good location, grab the gear out of the truck, setup a couple of simple lighting setups with the power inverters, get the shot, and move on.
In commercial situations, that is typically not a concern, though it is nice to know that if that creative idea strikes you when you are without all of your usual resources, that you have a camera capable of getting the shot.
Lastly, I am definitely conscious of the post-production woes that DSLRs can impose. Generally speaking, my company does just as much post production work as we do production. My personal background prior to filmmaking and visual effects is in audio engineering, so the audio situation doesnt concern me much. Depending on the shoot, syncing with my Marantz field recorder, or tracking directly to Pro Tools on set has always been suitable for me.
As a matter of fact, Ive even used my HDMI splitter to run the low-res (dirty) feed from the HDMI to a capture card on the Pro Tools rig in the field or in studio, and used that feed to rough sync in the field. That way when we get to post, the Pro Tools sessions are already set and (mostly) sync'd and ready for mix. Sure, that might not be the best, "Hollywood" approach, but it has worked for me time and time again.
In closing, though, I understand everyones perspective. DSLR's have their limitations, but as several of you have pointed out, major productions have used them with great results on multiple occassions. Ask Gale Tattersall...he'll vouch for their performance
Again, my only reason for wanting to come out of pocket on the 5D, perhaps, were the reasons I mentioned above and those alone. When it all comes down to it...I rent the camera so often, that it just made sense to me at the time to consider buying it and at least having something to show for all of the money Ive spent on it.
I have looked into the GH2 as well, and am thoroughly impressed. I can say with much confidence, however....if it's not the 5D that I go for, Ill probably hold out for the BMD Cinema Cam for many obvious reasons.
The project Im working on already has a set budget for things such as: props & wardrobe, production design, set construction, craft services, etc etc etc So the need to filter money into other areas is not something Im worried about. As I said in my original post, any budget Im considering using for a camera is coming out of pocket, and not from the films budget, per say.
Heres the reason why I posted this, and considered going with the 5D MKIII...
Yes...I have a 7D and a T2i, and I am absolutely satisfied with them in many ways. Of course, there are shortcomings of the cameras in which I wish would have been fixed in a new release like the MKIII (such as the ability to send out uncompressed, clean images from the HDMI out, and all of the other typical nags with DSLRs), but all in all, Ive always been pleased with what I get from my cameras.
To be honest, however, a friend of mine owns a couple of 5DMKII's that I end up renting from him very often. I like the FOV and the operation in low lighting scenarios. My thought process was...since I spend so much money renting this camera from someone, why not purchase it and add it to my arsenal? Furthermore, all of my accessories (lenses, support gear, rigs, sliders, and etc) will easily support the camera, and prevent me from having to buy adapters for my lenses, purchase or modify my rigs, and etc.
Let me also say this....my desire for low light functionality is not because I dont have adequate lighting to achieve the look Im going after in a perfect world scenario. That being said, however, my desire for that capability comes from the true spirit of independent filmmaking.
Sometimes, we dont have the budgets to acquire a location for the purposes of bringing in generators, setting up lights, and etc. We do, however, have the creative spirit, to spot a good location, grab the gear out of the truck, setup a couple of simple lighting setups with the power inverters, get the shot, and move on.
In commercial situations, that is typically not a concern, though it is nice to know that if that creative idea strikes you when you are without all of your usual resources, that you have a camera capable of getting the shot.
Lastly, I am definitely conscious of the post-production woes that DSLRs can impose. Generally speaking, my company does just as much post production work as we do production. My personal background prior to filmmaking and visual effects is in audio engineering, so the audio situation doesnt concern me much. Depending on the shoot, syncing with my Marantz field recorder, or tracking directly to Pro Tools on set has always been suitable for me.
As a matter of fact, Ive even used my HDMI splitter to run the low-res (dirty) feed from the HDMI to a capture card on the Pro Tools rig in the field or in studio, and used that feed to rough sync in the field. That way when we get to post, the Pro Tools sessions are already set and (mostly) sync'd and ready for mix. Sure, that might not be the best, "Hollywood" approach, but it has worked for me time and time again.
In closing, though, I understand everyones perspective. DSLR's have their limitations, but as several of you have pointed out, major productions have used them with great results on multiple occassions. Ask Gale Tattersall...he'll vouch for their performance
Again, my only reason for wanting to come out of pocket on the 5D, perhaps, were the reasons I mentioned above and those alone. When it all comes down to it...I rent the camera so often, that it just made sense to me at the time to consider buying it and at least having something to show for all of the money Ive spent on it.
I have looked into the GH2 as well, and am thoroughly impressed. I can say with much confidence, however....if it's not the 5D that I go for, Ill probably hold out for the BMD Cinema Cam for many obvious reasons.
I'm going to use some ugly words in this post:
DSLR's are far from dead. I just helped put three hacked GH2's on a MAJOR motion picture shooting right this moment. By Major, I mean real household names and stars.
Are they the first choice for everyone? No, but they aren't going anywhere any time soon...
DSLR's are far from dead. I just helped put three hacked GH2's on a MAJOR motion picture shooting right this moment. By Major, I mean real household names and stars.
Are they the first choice for everyone? No, but they aren't going anywhere any time soon...
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
It seems like you are across the 5d and it fits into your box - thats great - it does fit into some boxes as the appropriate tool
It might be worth renting an FS100 too to try
Im must be strange - I find the 5d2 basically unusable with that narrow DOF and 480 pixel monitor
Getting sharp is just guess work with any movement in shot
I can see that hollywood types with pullers and calibrated lenses can circumvent that but to me shooting the 5d2 just feels like playing russian roulette!
Ive not tried the mon on the 5d3
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Im primarily an operator so the customer is the production house, who have an end user client..
Cory Braun
Well-known member
100% agree. Was on a set for an NBC drama a few weeks ago where DSLRs were being used. They are far from dead.
jghenderson
Well-known member
For me, the 5D is still king of DSLR's under $3000, but the hacked GH2 is good as well. Honestly though, at this point in time, I would say it's better to wait and see how the BMC performs when it comes out, and consider buying it over the DSLR.
@morgan_moore... what was your issue with the HDMI out of the 5D? We're you recording ext from that feed?
I've never had an issue with losing connection from camera to reference monitor via HDMI. Even when using my jib with remote pan/tilt, and the tension tightens because there wasnt enough slack in the cord....Ive still never lost connection nor pulled out an HDMI...
I've never had an issue with losing connection from camera to reference monitor via HDMI. Even when using my jib with remote pan/tilt, and the tension tightens because there wasnt enough slack in the cord....Ive still never lost connection nor pulled out an HDMI...
Chris Johnston
Veteran
I won't comment on them being dead or not, I just don't care what anyone shoots on. But I can't figure why anyone at NBC would be using a dslr for anything other than crash cam / throwaways or BTS. Surely the budgets aren't that bad that they would risk the quality just to save a couple bucks?
Cory Braun
Well-known member
Because they could fit the DSLRs into areas where they could not fix the Alexa in. They were not using them as an A cam, but they were using them.
That is a ridiculous statement. The quality of DSLRs is not that bad, not even close. They are used on big budget productions all the time - I know because I am one of the people using them there.
DSLRs didn't start a "revolution" for no reason - the quality in most situations is superb, and for the situations where they have problems, post can usually fix it. They might be a pain to work with compared to a "real" camera, but the images they make can be gorgeous.
One fact that is often forgotten on forums like these: the audience is not made up of pixel-peepers.
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
My issues with the HDMI out on the 5d2 are..
-press record. screen blacks out for a week (2 seconds) while rescaling
-the quality of the image put out to a monitor which IMO is unfocusable
-should you get a break in signal it cuts the camera from rolling
(if you pull the HDMI lead out during a take the camera stops rolling and the shot is lost, unlike with an FS100)
My 5d2 is quite old now, the mini HDMI is now so worn or suchlike that I have completely given up on monitoring with HDMI, preferring the crappy but reliable A/V port!
Again I do some doco, crowds, etc where the lead can get a bump, if you are on a 'set' the camera will be more cuddled, (maybe) also Zacuto do a 'Pincher' now that probably helps
Fundamentally its about trust and if a bit of kit loses me a shot once , or makes me look like an arse once in front of a client once, I tend to abandon it for ever..
A side note.. the FS100 I believe you can record to a card AND the FMU (onboard memory) thats a great feature if you ever get a corrupt card
The D4, 1DX et al may have 2 cards at once recording too
S
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Appropriate use of DSLRs IMO .. http://www.petapixel.com/2012/07/05...feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+PetaPixel+(PetaPixel)
Chris Johnston
Veteran
No, It's not ridiculous and it was a question, not a statement. I'm aware of the quality of DSLRs and even used a Canon 60D twice as an A cam for a cooking show I shoot. (a mistake IMO) but the IQ difference between a dslr and an Alexa is obvious (or any of the "big Budget cams)
What IS ridiculous is using a dslr for a NBC production where the proper equipment is warrented, affordable, and available. (IMO)
(with the exceptions like I noted, crashcam, bts etc or as Cory said "the Alexa wouldn't fit)
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
My issue for using DSLR for procudtion is not much to do with image quality
Its the extra cost of synching sound in post, the inability to playback sound and vision on set (together), the poor monitoring to check critical focus, single mount point means you FF can twist the body, no jam synch for multicam, bla bla
Of course there are workarounds for all of the above, often costing more than an FS/AF100 once the DSLR is built
Image quality is last on that list -its about on set and post being smooth, and smooth is cheap..
S
Its the extra cost of synching sound in post, the inability to playback sound and vision on set (together), the poor monitoring to check critical focus, single mount point means you FF can twist the body, no jam synch for multicam, bla bla
Of course there are workarounds for all of the above, often costing more than an FS/AF100 once the DSLR is built
Image quality is last on that list -its about on set and post being smooth, and smooth is cheap..
S
Seriously? Do you purport to be more knowledgeable and better informed on NBC's decision making process than the highly skilled people who decided to use DSLRs for their B-cams over something more suitable to your taste? Do you really think the DP was so ignorant that (s)he would not fully consider all the options, weigh the pros and cons, and make an appropriate decision? You may disagree, but I find that notion to be ridiculous.
BTW, your "question" was so suggestive I would forgive anyone for misinterpreting it as a statement.