Cameras for short films and socials events: HDSRL or Video Cameras??????!!!

Punkmati

Punkmati

Member
Hello guys! I'm a cinematography student from south america and I have the opportunity of buying a camera in USA by a firend of mine. I am thinking of purchasing a good camera under 4k or 5k U$S for recording weddings and socials events, but also I would like to have something I can use for short films with the most cinematographic look I can have. So my question is, Should I buy something like a Panasonic GH1 or which VIDEO CAMERAS you can recommend to me, maybe with a 35mm adapter????
Excuse me for my English, I'll waiting for your replies.
Thanks a lot!!!​
 
It honestly depends a little based on what you want *just a true blue warning!*

Basically, if you have no experience in things like the way shutter speed, aperture, and ISO effect your image, you truly may want to buy a very cheap digital-photo/video camera out there (there's some photography cameras out there for 50$ that can do 720P video, there's digital Kodak cameras that do exactly that for 85$ I believe, making it probably 50$ used. Full manual controls too + 720P video.) Despite what you may think, it will take a bit of time to even understand these things fully. Even borrow a friend's camera until you are sure if you enjoy it, and trust me, 720P may very well be enough for your projects depending on how good of a camera the camera is. Resolution speaks nothing for quality.

If you already have those things down pat, and overall want something that's still easy to wag around, and with 720P video in mind, and something that's good for filming events and short films, I still wouldn't exactly rule out the option above. Knowing about zoom, focus, and all the other camera controls will give you excellent results from dirt cheap devices. One thing you have to take into account is that DSLR's generally do not film longer than 12 mins before stopping, but I think camcorders film for much much longer. A better option may be to go for a sub-$200 camcorder.

Now, the next step you really want to ask yourself "Do I want to pay sub-$200 for my practicing right now, while getting used to equipment, experience, and controls, or do I want to pay $1000+ just to have a camera with a lens on it?" That question is the one that is the make-or-break. Either way, a interchangable-lens DSLR camera with video runs around $800 no matter what, and while you can find 1080P/720P camcorders for dirt cheap prices, those lens adaptors like the Letus also are very costly. With how the best video DSLR camera, the T2i, has a horribly lacking set of built-in filters or effects, you will indeed have to spend money on filters and equipment too, no matter what option you choose, so it's best to save money in any way you can. If you are only interested in those little lens 'toys' like wide angle and stuff, without a doubt, go for the $200 range camcorders and slap one of those $30 wide angle knick-knacks on the front. It really works if wide angle is the only thing you want. Some cheap camcorders also have focus wheels and all.

So it's really how important the lens is to you at the moment. Contrary to belief, if a camcorder has a great zoom range, and a good aperture range, you'll probably be set to go for mannny practice needs and shooting needs, on a local level. You'll be able to get cinematic stuff for under $200 if you have a education, education is the biggest factor. With that option as well, you can do some simple projects, and then save up for a lens adaptor. But if you want to head straight into interchangeable lens photography without adaptors, which sacrifices a bit of quality (because of the horrible aliasing problems) but gives you more ease, technical and body wise, you can go with the $1,000 range DSLR's, mainly the T2i or hacked Gh1. It's 100% outstanding for beginniners and even experienced beginners alike. Many people are filming films with the Canon selection. On top of that, if for some crazy reason you want a $6000 camera with today's much cheap technology already being out, well, spend $6000, it won't hurt anything but your wallet. For the huge shoulder cameras (that have become just a bit outdated) there are even many great ones I'd suspect for $2,000-$3000.

Honestly, if you want the most out of video (and budget) on a non-hollywood level, I say the T2i, the GH1 with hack, the Canon Vixia, and the HV series are all worth checking out. Specifically, I saw a comparison between a HV10 with lens adaptor, and a $6000 camera, and there was literally absolutely no difference at all, none in color, none in aliasing or anything. It was very surprising. For budget reasons (and lifestyle choices) I would never suggest spending more than $1000 on a camera untill you can save up to rent/buy/borrow camera's like the Red for your major official productions, nothing will compare to a device like that. If you're trying to make indie films, please consider that the T2i is one heck of a camera for $800, and that the Vixia and HV series for Canon are both only atoms away from that. No matter what camera you choose for under $6000, there's usually weird limitations particular to each camera.

Take all this advice with a grain of salt, though, and don't buy a thing unless you can return it easily in case you don't like it. Trial and error is one of the biggest steps in buying a camera, you just don't know what each person likes and dislikes. A #1 rule, though, is that there is absolutely no camera or lens on earth that will give you a 'cinematic' image without knowing how to achieve it. It is 99.9% an education thing. For using cameras over the $500 range, RENT RENT RENT it a week before you buy it, you just won't know if it's the camera for you. In the $6000 range camera, rent them anyway no matter what (unless you seriously use it every day.), wouldn't you rather have a camera you can wag through the city and make all kinds of artistic shots and videos without carrying around a huge butt thing? Even what you want out the body makes a difference.

P.S. One thing I will not deny above all is that most cameras in the post-$4000 range cost that much for a reason, they literally are the perfect tools for 1080P video. You can plug mics into them, you have native P footage (like the T2i and hacked Gh1), you don't have any aliasing problems whatsoever (worth the money, but the HV series with lens adaptor, about maybe $1000 in total, also does this.), and overall, you won't be worrying about 'work-arounds'. But for the price difference, the work arounds with the cheaper solutions are not extreme at all, and are worth it.

P.S.S. Although I'm not exactly sure on the details, get a Progressive camera instead of a Interlaced one, I don't know about the specifics at all (and I hate to diss on a technology that has been around), but Progressive seems to be the option that leaves people with 10x less hassle in post.
 
Last edited:
Snapper123 said:
It honestly depends a little based on what you want *just a true blue warning!*

Basically, if you have no experience in things like the way shutter speed, aperture, and ISO effect your image, you truly may want to buy a very cheap digital-photo/video camera out there (there's some photography cameras out there for 50$ that can do 720P video, there's digital Kodak cameras that do exactly that for 85$ I believe, making it probably 50$ used. Full manual controls too + 720P video.) Despite what you may think, it will take a bit of time to even understand these things fully. Even borrow a friend's camera until you are sure if you enjoy it, and trust me, 720P may very well be enough for your projects depending on how good of a camera the camera is. Resolution speaks nothing for quality.

If you already have those things down pat, and overall want something that's still easy to wag around, and with 720P video in mind, and something that's good for filming events and short films, I still wouldn't exactly rule out the option above. Knowing about zoom, focus, and all the other camera controls will give you excellent results from dirt cheap devices. One thing you have to take into account is that DSLR's generally do not film longer than 12 mins before stopping, but I think camcorders film for much much longer. A better option may be to go for a sub-$200 camcorder.

Now, the next step you really want to ask yourself "Do I want to pay sub-$200 for my practicing right now, while getting used to equipment, experience, and controls, or do I want to pay $1000+ just to have a camera with a lens on it?" That question is the one that is the make-or-break. Either way, a interchangable-lens DSLR camera with video runs around $800 no matter what, and while you can find 1080P/720P camcorders for dirt cheap prices, those lens adaptors like the Letus also are very costly. With how the best video DSLR camera, the T2i, has a horribly lacking set of built-in filters or effects, you will indeed have to spend money on filters and equipment too, no matter what option you choose, so it's best to save money in any way you can. If you are only interested in those little lens 'toys' like wide angle and stuff, without a doubt, go for the $200 range camcorders and slap one of those $30 wide angle knick-knacks on the front. It really works if wide angle is the only thing you want. Some cheap camcorders also have focus wheels and all.

So it's really how important the lens is to you at the moment. Contrary to belief, if a camcorder has a great zoom range, and a good aperture range, you'll probably be set to go for mannny practice needs and shooting needs, on a local level. You'll be able to get cinematic stuff for under $200 if you have a education, education is the biggest factor. With that option as well, you can do some simple projects, and then save up for a lens adaptor. But if you want to head straight into interchangeable lens photography without adaptors, which sacrifices a bit of quality (because of the horrible aliasing problems) but gives you more ease, technical and body wise, you can go with the $1,000 range DSLR's, mainly the T2i or hacked Gh1. It's 100% outstanding for beginniners and even experienced beginners alike. Many people are filming films with the Canon selection. On top of that, if for some crazy reason you want a $6000 camera with today's much cheap technology already being out, well, spend $6000, it won't hurt anything but your wallet. For the huge shoulder cameras (that have become just a bit outdated) there are even many great ones I'd suspect for $2,000-$3000.

Honestly, if you want the most out of video (and budget) on a non-hollywood level, I say the T2i, the GH1 with hack, the Canon Vixia, and the HV series are all worth checking out. Specifically, I saw a comparison between a HV10 with lens adaptor, and a $6000 camera, and there was literally absolutely no difference at all, none in color, none in aliasing or anything. It was very surprising. For budget reasons (and lifestyle choices) I would never suggest spending more than $1000 on a camera untill you can save up to rent/buy/borrow camera's like the Red for your major official productions, nothing will compare to a device like that. If you're trying to make indie films, please consider that the T2i is one heck of a camera for $800, and that the Vixia and HV series for Canon are both only atoms away from that. No matter what camera you choose for under $6000, there's usually weird limitations particular to each camera.

Take all this advice with a grain of salt, though, and don't buy a thing unless you can return it easily in case you don't like it. Trial and error is one of the biggest steps in buying a camera, you just don't know what each person likes and dislikes. A #1 rule, though, is that there is absolutely no camera or lens on earth that will give you a 'cinematic' image without knowing how to achieve it. It is 99.9% an education thing. For using cameras over the $500 range, RENT RENT RENT it a week before you buy it, you just won't know if it's the camera for you. In the $6000 range camera, rent them anyway no matter what (unless you seriously use it every day.), wouldn't you rather have a camera you can wag through the city and make all kinds of artistic shots and videos without carrying around a huge butt thing? Even what you want out the body makes a difference.

P.S. One thing I will not deny above all is that most cameras in the post-$4000 range cost that much for a reason, they literally are the perfect tools for 1080P video. You can plug mics into them, you have native P footage (like the T2i and hacked Gh1), you don't have any aliasing problems whatsoever (worth the money, but the HV series with lens adaptor, about maybe $1000 in total, also does this.), and overall, you won't be worrying about 'work-arounds'. But for the price difference, the work arounds with the cheaper solutions are not extreme at all, and are worth it.
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for your opinion. I have education I've done some shorts films as director and more being DoP. I shot some stuff in 35mm being the cinematographer, all exercise but I can say I've being educated. I had consider the HV camcorders and after seeing some examples I think they are great but the problem here is one:the "profesionality of the camera" let me explain that to you, it's not the same working in a wedding with a HV20 than a JVC GY- HM700, the people would treat you more seriously. Why I put this question here? I love making things, films, docs, videoclips, but also I need a job right now, a job where I can earn some money, and social videography is a good solution for this, esspecialy here in my city, where some people record your wedding with a Panasonic 10000 (a mini dv shoulder ****) and that cost you about U$S 600 or more for the night(that Pansonic cost about U$S 1K in this days) And there's no any education in that people some imagine the final product (crap). So It's an interesting business isn't it? May be now you can understand my point of view, It's really dissapointing buy something about U$S 4K and discover you could do it with a U$S 1k video camera and a 35mm adapter, I know I know that isn't the same thing (I've worked a lot with dvx100 and hvx200 so I know the stuff that make a camera like the hvx200 cost 5000). So I'm dealing with that, something good for my films and good for making money. I need more advices like yours. Thanks a lot! really... :D
 
The main thing I miss about video camcorders is the ability to do a smooth zoom and a fluid walk and shoot.

DSLRs, even with the best handheld rig, will look shakier when walking. And trying to zoom with any zoom lens will look clunky and staggered.

If those two styles of coverage ain't needed for you, then DSLRs win in everything else.

Just get a DSLR and have fun with it. Save your remaining cash for using film and renting equipment for bigger projects. The best narrative short films I've seen that travel around festivals are still shot on 35mm. If you're doing documentary stuff, it doesn't really matter what format you use as long as the content is good.
 
The only thing I probably exagerated is the price of post $1000 cameras, there are plenty of professional 'shoulder cams' or 'big cameras' around the $2,000 range I'd bet. Just gotta make sure it's a good one. Interlaced footage is a big feature among them, though, since many of these cameras were made a couple years ago. Just depends on what format you like, if you don't mind Interlaced and get good stuff out of it, then problem solved for mannnny cameras out there. Consumers probably wouldn't even know the difference between Interlaced and Progressive enough to look for it.

My recommendation still with the body in mind, is that camera's like the T2i and 7D look surprisingly very professional, everywhere I go, I get comments like "Ohhh I like your camera!" or "Ohhh that thing is so big for a DSLR camera!" that professionalism is really what the camera 'gives off', in my opinion. In a videography career, though, even pressence is key, which is why your body (rig, matte box, microphone, ect ect) is highly important, and an extra $1000 you could save may just be that budget you need to buy that equipment. Helps that all that stuff is also nessicary with the T2i, you can't use the built-in mic, nor can you plug a mic up to it, as it's auto-gain feature for audio is a big hassle. You most likely need a small sound recorder (can be fitted on the tripod/under the camera), mic, you need a stabalizer rig, matte/filter box, couple of things.

Then again though, if you do things like wedding work, and documentaries, there are limitations to the T2i/7D (as well as Lens Adaptor cameras, which I'll go ahead and rule out as they are the least professional looking.) things like panning, zooming, and constant focus are a pest unless you have the exact right lens, those things make the larger, prosumer cameras probably 100% worth it hands down. The bigger cameras also do have that body pressence, and don't require a matte box look, a seperate sound recorder, ect ect, for the price, it's all already there in the body.

I'm not really sure on this one, I'd say that if you can find a big body camera for $2,000 or under, snatch it up, if not, I'd suspect that with equipment, the T2i/7D would benefit you just as much, as the equipment for it looks awesome too. Once you get to that $3,000 point though, I think that is the point that strains any filmmaker or videographer, and it's a point where everyone should consider the alternatives. Just do what suites you and your budget. I definatly didn't have even $1000 to throw around, so I bought the T2i with a store discount, and I almost bought a T1i on ebay or a $500 Olympus Pen (neat camera there, lemme tell you!) But I eventually decide the T2i was rad, even though it's not exactly worth the price in all reality.

But like I said, if you have an amazing budget, throw it around!

Whatever you do though, if you're worrying about professionlism, I wouldn't suggest those old big Canon prosumer cameras that are red and gold all over ;P. Black ones are slick looking!
 
Don't get a 35mm adaptor. They are a a lot of extra effort and you'll never use them for event videogrpahy/weddings because they are just too impractical to setup, move etc, especially if you are working alone.

Also the cost of 35mm adaptors (good ones) is almost on par with DSLR's anyway so you're better off with a camcorder + DSLR rather than a camcorder + adaptor.

If you're doing weddings and things like that you definitely wan't a proper camcorder - something like the Sony NX5. It will give you so many more features than a DSLR which you need in a live shooting environment - XLR audio with manual levels, longer continuous record times, proper zoom, autofocus, etc, etc. Down the track if you realise you wan't shallow DoF for certain shots or for short narrative films, you can get a DSLR as well.

And remember that if your DSLR is your only camera you'll easily spend a couple of grand extra to get it the functionality of a camcorder - a shoulder mount/rig for steady handholding, a loupe such as the LCDVF or Z-finder, seperate audio recorder, plus enough lenses to cover the full focal length range of a camcorder.
 
Very useful! Thank a lot guys! Like the idea of buying a midrange camcorder and later a DSLR! Start working with the camcorder and later purchase a DSLR for my short films and also as a second camera for the social events. Others ideas??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top