Canon 7d for fast motion capture?

Z

zuko

New member
Hi guys, I'm as novice as it gets. basically I aspire to be an indie filmmaker. Particularly I'm interested in the Action genre so you can imagine I'd have to shoot high paced motion shots. I don't know the technical details behind cinematography but I want to buy a DSLR/Camcorder so I can learn and also later, use this same cam/camcorder for making great quality film. I'm not concerned about photography, just cinematography.

What I'd like to know is given my above situation, is it sufficient for me to invest in a DSLR like the Canon 7D or should i be looking at the prosumer camcorder models like Panasonic AG-HMC40 or Sony HDR-FX1000, which are significantly more expensive. I mean I dont mind investing in the camcorders, but ofcourse I'd love to save if I can without significantly compromising quality.

Your help is much appreciated.

Thx
Zee
 
DSRLs have 'jello' - which can be a pain for action

They have narrow depth of focus which can be a pain for action

Narrow focus is also considered cinematic

The other cameras tend to have the opposite character

Using a DSLR will require dicipline to shoot action but the results could be great for the money

maybe avoid the 5d which doesnt have 60p (semi slow motion)

S
 
What he said; the jello can become a problem with a lot of panning - though it looks like it's less with very high shutter speeds (which are also often used in action scenes). Which 'action' are we talking about?

Oh, and by the way, take also a look at the 550D, which will save you even more money. Maybe even so much you can always buy a prosumer camcorder afterwards if it doesn't work out.
 
Thanks guys.

If I go for a Prosumer camcorder model like Panasonic AG-HMC40 or Sony HDR-FX1000, I will avoid the Jello effect - great - but will I get at least just as good video quality with the camcorders as say the 7D? - I mean if you are going to pay so much more for the camcorders then I assume you should expect to get better or at least the same quality of video capture as the DSLR's..

@fuen: Action like fast-paced choreographed fights or car chases etc. And yes, the 550D looks like a great alternative to the 7D!
 
Hey those camcorders are cheap in a way

with a DSLR you buy the engine

with a camcorder you get
engine
sound recorder
monitor or two
and other stuff

maybe not such a good engine

Read up on chip size and why so many are mad for DSLRs
 
I don't know the camcorders, but yes, you probably will get as good video quality, but what you want has nothing to do with the video - output - quality, but with the size of the sensor (to get that awesome film-look) which those camera's just don't have.

Sure they probably shoot as-good (or probably even better) 1080p, but you won't get the shallow depth of field.

And @ action: i think a lot of it can still work well. You notice it the best with panning. Another question you have to ask yourself is why you care about the jello-effect. If you watch the tv-show leverage, for example, shot with RED ONE's, you'll see jello effect everywhere. Not as bad, but it's there, and it doesn't always have to make your movie unprofessional.
 
I have a 7d, but I'm shooting my action movie on my HVX, if that tells you anything...I also only have a 50mm for the 7d which is another factor in not shooting anything but stills with it yet.
 
I just finished a 30 minute short that has a couple of action sequences in it and almost all ( >99%) I did with a 7d. Chech it out if you want to see what it looks like. Obviously there are other better examples out there, but it worked for me, enough that I could effectively tell a story.

http://vimeo.com/13590062
 
fuen said:
Sure they probably shoot as-good (or probably even better) 1080p
Click to expand...

I think there's alot of people around who don't appreciate just how much better a camcorder can be in so many ways. There seems to be this perception among alot of people (most likely those people who have only ever used a DSLR's for HD video) who sing praise of the DSLR's video quality and treat it as the holy grail - but that's just not the case.

The picture from a camera like the NX-5 or EX1 is so much sharper than any of the DSLR's. The DSLR's don't output anywhere near 1080 lines of actual resolution. They are very soft, they use terrible compression (offset by a much faster than necassary bitrate to compensate) and can be troubled by aliasing and miore.

The difference is that these DSLR's have addressed 3 of the biggest challenges for indy film-makers - Low light, price, and "the film look" (24p, shallow DoF, higher dynamic range, etc). People are willing to accept their flaws and put up with sub-standard video quality because these cameras offer several elusive things that no other camcorder under $20k does.

Yes, the DSLR's are great, they are in vogue right now and they are down right ground-breaking. But the quality of the video is a long way off what is offered by the current crop of prosumer camcorders. Of course that shouldn't and hasn't stopped people from making great films with them, especially when the final delivery is SD or 720p.
 
Last edited:
deltoidjohn said:
The difference is that these DSLR's have addressed 3 of the biggest challenges for indy film-makers - Low light, price, and "the film look" (24p, shallow DoF, higher dynamic range, etc). People are willing to accept their flaws and put up with sub-standard video quality because these cameras offer several elusive things that no other camcorder under $20k does.

Yes, the DSLR's are great, they are in vogue right now and they are down right ground-breaking. But the quality of the video is a long way off what is offered by the current crop of prosumer camcorders. Of course that shouldn't and hasn't stopped people from making great films with them, especially when the final delivery is SD or 720p.
Click to expand...

It still doesn't change the fact that just a few years ago I had to spend 600 dollars / weekend rental for the gear to shoot 24p / HD / with 35mm lenses / lighting required just to get usable footage.

Now that same 600 dollars is a third the cost of one of these DSLRs that do all of the above. There are drawbacks, yes. I wouldn't shoot anything that needed heavy posting / tracking on the bastardized color space / jello-rama vision. However, there's no denying that things like RED, and the DSLR revolution/evolution have really been a groundbreaking change for the world of filmmaking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top