Canon 70D or Dedicated Video Camera ??? That is the question

D

djkoz

Well-known member
OK, I need some advice from people who have been there.

I am in the market for a new video camera that I plan to use for documentary filmmaking and run-and-gun type events. I stayed away from considering a DSLR because of focusing issues, I often will not have time to manually focus. Now, however, the Canon 70D seems to have changed all of that. All of the reviews I’ve read seem to indicate that the 70D’s autofocus is amazing, quick, smooth and reliable.

So, my question: If autofocus is not an issue, is there a compelling reason I should shoot with a DSLR instead of a dedicated video camera? I know DSLRs offer the opportunity for shallow depth of field. But are there other compelling reasons to use them? There certainly seem to be a number of reasons not to: moire (on CMOS sensors), jellocam, perhaps compression codec, sound, etc . But what are the compelling arguments in their favor?

And, if a DSLR (Canon 70D specifically) is not the way to go, then what recommendations would you make for a good video camera? My budget is around $2,500, maybe a bit higher if it made a big difference in quality. I am only interested in a focusing on a camera at the moments, not mics, tripods, etc., as these are not part of my $2,500 camera budget.

One last thing, it is possible that some of my productions might be broadcast over cable/TV. So, it would probably be useful to have a camera that met minimum broadcast requirements, if that is possible in my price range.

Thanks,

Dan
 
Broadcast requirements in the US aren't terribly restricting, since they specify more commonly delivery specs and not acquisition. As long as your sound levels and picture levels are to spec, you shouldn't have to worry. If you were in the UK, you'd have to worry about cameras that were BBC-approved. For Cleveland, not so much.

As for your larger question, it's hard for anyone to answer that for you. The reality is that you need to use the tool that you are most comfortable using and with which you can get the results you want.

The biggest determining factor may be the recording length limits on many DSLRs (12 or 30 minutes per clip). Is that going to be a problem? Then go for a video camera.

The major advantage of DSLR over a traditional video camera would be interchangeable lenses. The ability to switch to primes might be what you want... and it might not. Shallow DOF is nice and all, but it is to be used sparingly and intentionally. The "DSLR revolution" turned a whole lot of wannabes into overnight cinematographers and suddenly out-of-focus was the new style. It's annoying, really.

Also, are you okay handling double-system sound? DSLRs are not choice tools for sound recording, so a second recording system is advisable. If you don't have a dedicated recordist/boom op running with you, then perhaps a traditional video camera with decent recording and professional inputs is in order.

Side note: living off autofocus is not the best idea, no matter which camera you choose. It would be much more helpful to learn to pull your own focus on the fly.

If you want to go with a video camera, take a look at the AC-90 from Panasonic. Your $2500 budget will get the camera, a few extra batteries, and a really nice bag or hard case.

Do you have sound support, or have you budgeted for that?
 
If you are going to work making video, you need both cameras a formal video camera for those days when deep depth of field is what you need, long recording and easy use, Panasonic AVCCAM Makes wonderful cameras.
Personally use the HMC40, is super compact with an outstanding image quality. With the 70D you have better color depth, shallow depth of field, Much better low light performance, 30 minutes clips, Fantastic autofocus,
BUT don't forget the Anti aliasing from Mosaic engineering, without it Moire aliasing will get you crazy. 70D with the filter is good for TV commercials any where in the world, Autofocus is perfect with the filter.
 
It is neither, but consider the Sony RX10, there are some very happy users here and it seems it could be perfect for what you need.
 
It all depends on your needs... I love my HMC150 for run and gun, audio and long record times... My canon for DOF, eye candy and detachable lenses..
 
You *might* be able to find a used large chip camcorder for that price (AF100, etc) which would sort of give you the best of both worlds, but you also get some of the cons (lens changes and selective focus make documentary work a bit more complicated than it needs to be, and being able to servo zoom requires some fancy rigging).
That being said, remember that there camera manufacturers other than Canon making dslr-style bodies that shoot video. One could argue that the Canon's are actually of the more limited options these days, what with the clip length limits and moire/aliasing as well as upscaled video resolution. Panasonic and Sony make some wonderful mirrorless alternatives, and have had basic video autofocus options for years now. Is the 70D's autofocus better? Technically, yes- it uses a much more complex system to detect focus without hunting as much as the contrast ones used by other manufacturers. But after speaking to people who have adopted the 70D, there are a couple of reasons I wouldn't get it just for that. Firstly, the autofocus may work with any lens, but most SLR lenses are not designed for quick and quiet focus adjustments. So they won't give you the quick silent focus adjustments unless you stick with lenses made for it, which are limited to some basic kit-style zooms last I checked. Secondly, autofocus on a large sensor is still hard to look nice when the focus is so shallow. There's no guarantee that the system will decide to keep in focus what you want it to, not to mention sometimes you want adjustments to be slow and subtle which is better suited to manual hand-control.

I've used my GH2 for documentary work before, usually outside with an autofocus lens stopped down to deepen the focus field. That way, focus adjustments are minor and usually not as noticeable. I also have a rig with a motorized servo zoom so I can make smooth adjustments to that if necessary, which really makes my GH2 more like a camcorder in function (no recording limits, servo zoom, autofocus options, etc). But then one could ask, why don't I just use a camcorder for the job?
I guess I just like the look out of the GH2 better, but that's personal preference. At the end of the day, the 70D might have the best autofocus platform for video, but the benefits of having a great autofocus system versus a decent one are arguable when it comes to video mode. As has already been mentioned, autofocus isn't something I'd rely on too much if I could avoid it. From any large chip camera.

That's my 2 cents.
 
Everyone has pointed to it so far but I concur that pulling focus yourself is a much better way to go. Even the best focus systems will hunt. Personally, having a slightly out-of-focus shot and manually adjusting carefully yourself beats a focusing system trying to do that adjustment for you. It just looks more professional, hence less distracting.

I have a Panny AC90 that I use for run & gun and corporate/event work. It provides very high quality for the price and is quite easy to use. It is much easier to setup and get shots fast with a dedicated video camera vs. a DSLR. Yes, you lose shallow DOF compared to DSLR but as someone else has said already...you can overdo shallow DOF. One nice thing about deeper DOF is that it is easier to acquire and maintain focus so you miss the mark less......generally :)

I also have a DSLR also but I consider that for more "cinematic" types of shots.
 
If you're doing corporate stuff, run & gun events, if you use a crane... a "real" video camera with XLRs and wired-remote jacks for focus, zoom and iris isn't a "must"... well, yeah, I consider it a must.

DSLRs are more than extreme DOF machines... they're also reasonable DOF machines. You can get shots with them you just can't get with most video cams. And there's a look to 'em I can't get with small-sensor video cameras. I consider DSLRs my "beauty" cameras.

I use an AC130 and (currently) a D7100. I make more of my living with the 130, for sure. But I wouldn't give up either (and the 130 is my audio recorder for DSLR shoots).

I feel you really need both. But even something like a T2i or Nikon 5300 will give you great footage. The latest Nikon sensors are great - IMHO, better than any Canon or GH I've ever used.

Maybe an AF-100 can cover all those bases, I couldn't say from experience. I came into this biz as a product shooter, still get still gigs, so I'll always have a decent DSLR anyway.
 
I shoot all of my non-event footage with a T2i, and the shallow DOF and shaky image when hand-held reminds me a lot of classic 16mm camera footage from 60s and 70's documentary films. What I'm saying is you can use it as part of your style. I'll shoot a wedding service with my video camera, and then break out my T2i for the reception, and my clients really love the more cinematic, off the cuff look of the latter.
 
I've been using a Canon T3i with the Magic Lantern program installed as a reverse angle camera on two-camera shoots. It's a locked-down shot. No operator, but it mixes well with the PMW EX3.
I wouldn't use it for hand-held work...not to say it couldn't be used that way, I just prefer not to. But for well composed shots off a tripod...it does the job for me! ;)

Here's a link showing it being used in an interview I shot for CNN in Espanol.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=653343924727518
 
Lensmith said:
I've been using a Canon T3i with the Magic Lantern program installed as a reverse angle camera on two-camera shoots. It's a locked-down shot. No operator, but it mixes well with the PMW EX3.
I wouldn't use it for hand-held work...not to say it couldn't be used that way, I just prefer not to. But for well composed shots off a tripod...it does the job for me! ;)

Here's a link showing it being used in an interview I shot for CNN in Espanol.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=653343924727518
Click to expand...

I think that the T3i shots could be better , color is pink, DR is not nice, The camera can give much more. the Sony shots to Juanes right ? look good.
 
A bit on the magenta side, yes. You may want to play with the Tone parameter, set it to +1 and see if it looks better.
 
I agree...but CNN was very happy...and the check cleared! ;)

To be clear, I was not trying to pass this example off as "perfect" but just an example of how the camera was used.

I didn't play with it in post...but will take the advice and see what I can do in the future!

Thanks for the feedback!
 
I would highly suggest learning how to pull focus. This would open up a lot more camera options. Canon's C100 is a great run and gun camera for Docs. Great in low light as well as picture. It is manual focus but there are alot of things to help with it.
You might also want to consider camera like the Sony PWM200 or 300, as well as Canon XF305. All of which are 50mbs which is standard for most television broadcast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top