Canon GL2, Canon T2i, Panasonic GH1, or Canon 7D?

nho

nho

Well-known member
I'm assuming my question could be answered rather simply, but if you have more to add, or any questions to ask me that will help in the answer you respond with, please do not hesitate to ask.

I am on a tight budget, so unfortunately a 5DMKII is really not an option for me.

I want to take the plunge into DSLRs as I want to work with different lenses, depth of field, etc. I own a Canon GL2 right now. I'm a film student strictly interested in narrative film (only short films right now). Cinematography is my specific interest within filmmaking. I am more interested in filming the story than writing it. Given my area of interest, would it be more beneficial for me to stick with my GL2, or buy a Canon T2i, Panasonic GH1, or Canon 7D?
 
Just a thought, but you might want to look into picking up a dvx100b. Making the move to DSLR's SEEMS cheap, but it's really not. How do you plan on recording audio? You'll need an external device. You'll probably want a mic to attach to that, too. Do you have friends than can help? If not, you'll want to fasten all these together on a rig.

t2i + lens: $900
audio recorder + mic: (sky's the limit, let's go cheap): $500 total
rig: $300

That's $1700 right there. Now that you have it on a rig, you'll probably want a FF system. $200.

It. Adds. Up.

You are going to see a HUGE difference in the GL2 and DVX100B! It's not HD, and it's not 16x9 (native). It DOES offer 24p, though. You might even be able to score a DVX and Letus / Brevis system on the marketplace for relatively cheap.

That's my 2 cents for now. I'm sure others will direct you differently.
 
nho said:
I'm assuming my question could be answered rather simply, but if you have more to add, or any questions to ask me that will help in the answer you respond with, please do not hesitate to ask.

I am on a tight budget, so unfortunately a 5DMKII is really not an option for me.

I want to take the plunge into DSLRs as I want to work with different lenses, depth of field, etc. I own a Canon GL2 right now. I'm a film student strictly interested in narrative film (only short films right now). Cinematography is my specific interest within filmmaking. I am more interested in filming the story than writing it. Given my area of interest, would it be more beneficial for me to stick with my GL2, or buy a Canon T2i, Panasonic GH1, or Canon 7D?
Click to expand...

Your school doesn't provide equipment for film students?
 
Hawk Teflon said:
Just a thought, but you might want to look into picking up a dvx100b.

You are going to see a HUGE difference in the GL2 and DVX100B! It's not HD, and it's not 16x9 (native). It DOES offer 24p, though. You might even be able to score a DVX and Letus / Brevis system on the marketplace for relatively cheap.

That's my 2 cents for now. I'm sure others will direct you differently.
Click to expand...

the difference between the gl2 and a dvx isn't THAT great. adapters aren't cheap either, prob $800 minimum, and that's not including the lenses. you're the first person to tell me to stick with a camcorder.
 
Who's to say you can't have both. DLSRs are relatively cheap, and between that and a GL2, you have a nice set of tools.

I have certainly learned most of what I know about cinematography, especially lenses, from using my 7D, but there are things these DSLRs simply don't have - Zebras, I really want Zebras - that I learned to use on XL2's and DVX's.
 
I would look for a camcorder that has 24p. dvx, xha1, hvx, hell an hv 40 is a good little camera to start out on. If you know the tricks of that little cam, it will kill the gl2 in image quality. although, you would still need a decent recorder for audio. but you can get away with a beachtek till you get a zoom.
 
The answer to this question might not be as simple as you think. It's one many people are evaluating, and some come to these forums with the exact same question.

I'd recommend doing your own research on both kinds of cameras. There might be one that just fits your needs perfectly - both educationally and professionally. For example, I do a lot of still photography on the side while also shooting video - probably a 25/75 split, respectively. The 7D is a perfect fit for me.

There is a camera that will fit what you want, but it will take some personal research.
 
nho said:
the difference between the gl2 and a dvx isn't THAT great. adapters aren't cheap either, prob $800 minimum, and that's not including the lenses. you're the first person to tell me to stick with a camcorder.
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to disagree with you, there. I owned a GL2 for 2 and a half years before picking up the dvx. I couldn't believe the difference.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an advocate for the DSLR revolution, but it doesn't sound like that's what you're really looking for. I could be wrong.
 
in what way(s) is it not what I'm looking for?

they shoot at 24fps, interchangeable lens system, HD quality, could get a T2i with a lens or two for around $1300, already have a rode videomic, would need to invest in a monitor... I just don't see how a DSLR wouldn't suit me. (I know this makes me sound like I've already made up my mind on what I want, but I just want some good reasons to stick with my GL2 or move to a dvx or XHA1 if I don't go for a DSLR)
 
nho said:
in what way(s) is it not what I'm looking for?

they shoot at 24fps, interchangeable lens system, HD quality, could get a T2i with a lens or two for around $1300, already have a rode videomic, would need to invest in a monitor... I just don't see how a DSLR wouldn't suit me. (I know this makes me sound like I've already made up my mind on what I want, but I just want some good reasons to stick with my GL2 or move to a dvx or XHA1 if I don't go for a DSLR)
Click to expand...


Well, for starters, plugging a nicer mic into the T2i is not going to get you good audio. The auto gain will make any audio you get off of that camera unusable in any professional application. If you are serious about a DSLR for video and you go the canon route, the 60D or 5DmkII are the only cameras without auto gain.

You have a limited record time, you won't be able to film any roofs or patterned buildings in focus without problems, you don't have auto focus, the cheaper lenses have a very limited focus pull range, the audio is not good, you don't have live HD outputs for an external monitor. These are just some of the issues you have to overcome with a DSLR (mainly I know about the canon cameras, so some of this may not apply with other brands).
 
hm, interesting, I didn't know that about the audio with the T2i and 7D.
 
nho said:
hm, interesting, I didn't know that about the audio with the T2i and 7D.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you are not going to be writing your own films, and want to be working with other people, you will definitely need to be ready to film whatever they want. If you go with a DSLR, you have a lot of limitations that may hinder what you are doing. The only real benefits are the depth of field and the small form factor (though once you trick out your DSLR, it doesn't look so small)

Honestly, if I was in your position, I'd get something like the HMC-150 or another camera what is high enough in quality and features that no one will ever question whether or not this is just a hobby to you. Unless you really trick out your DSLR with a whole lot of extra stuff (and spend a ton of cash), you never know who is going to see your camera, think "I've got one of those, why should I hire this guy", and move on.
 
Hawk Teflon said:
I'm going to have to disagree with you, there. I owned a GL2 for 2 and a half years before picking up the dvx. I couldn't believe the difference.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an advocate for the DSLR revolution, but it doesn't sound like that's what you're really looking for. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more with this.

I've got an HVX-200, a DVX-100a, a GH-1, and a T2i. The difference between the GL2 and the DVX is much, much greater than many would have you believe. If you're doing narrative film work, the DVX is very difficult to beat. I shot regularly for almost 18 months before picking up a DSLR (T2i), and to this day, I still grab the DVX for something SD.

Also, I'm lucky enough to have watched several of my shorts shown on a 50' screen at a local theater where we were meeting for church. Experienced video people were regularly surprised to hear that my stuff wasn't HD. Why? Because everything else about the image screamed "FILM" and so they never noticed the lower resolution (some of these were even in 16x9 squeeze mode).

The DSLRs bring so many compromises to the table, that you'd better be prepared, or overprepared, before going into a shoot. Shallow DOF is great, but as soon as you move away from something with XLR inputs, no rolling shutter or moire issues, you start to realize how good you had it. With all THAT said, if you're going to buy a DSLR, especially if money is an issue, buy a hackable GH-1. I haven't shot video on the T2i in over a year because the quality of the image from the GH-1 that much better. - Tim
 
Last edited:
The one thing is that doesn't the new Canon DSLR have manual audio? It's only like $1,300 or whatever, so I've heard. Dunno if it's even out yet. Also has a flip screen!

Basically, some things I've discovered:

-Lenses are more of a hassle than any sort of positive. There really are only tiny differences in all of them out there, and the main purpose of having a lens on the front of your camera is 1. To attatch filters and 2. To do the whole focus pull thing, which to do it right, requires quite a bit of equipment anyway. The sensor on the T2i and DSLR's in general seem to create stronger depths of field, but you could go out and pick up a Sanyo camcorder (as long as it has manual white balance and controls) and have a fixed 1.4 lens already on it. Saves tons of money. Also, with lenses, you can't auto-focus during a video, it messes it all up for a few seconds, especially messing up the sound if your recording just on the camera alone.

-DSLR's have horrible video quality, about Standard Definition as a whole. It advertises being 1080P, and while it has the 16:9 aspect ratio and the specific size of 1080P, it's more like what would happen if you took a 640P file and stretched it. Slightly better than that admittingly, but not all around worth $800. (Nice $200 rebate going on with 7D's and T2i's right now though, check it out on Cinema 5D's news section, $200 off really makes these cameras a bit more worth it).

-Having the small body is very neat and puts so much ease into carrying it around in a small camera bag, although at the end of the day, to keep things professional and stable, you're going to need equipment about the size of one of the larger cameras anyway. Many actors seem to not take DSLR's as seriously, either, which is dumb. Having IS on your lenses really indeed helps though for beginner type videos where you want to just hold the camera, don't buy a non-IS lens, you probably won't be able to use it in any normal scenario. (Specifically the beginner-hyped 50mm.) The kit lens truly is a great and versitile lens to have.

-On the T2i/7D/other DSLR's, I've heard by mouth that the audio sucks and is most noticeable when a person talks into it, then when they stop, it sounds static. Same even if you buy a small microphone to put on the top and plug it in, has to do with something they didn't control right with the audio inside the camera. That's where the new DSLR coming out is a (as always communistic) blessing, manual audio levels that help control the whole hiss thing.

-Nikon is coming out with a new DSLR soon too, which has a flawed auto-focus mode in video, which may be better than nothing. Nikon is also rumored to have better video quality strictly because of the fact they have 15MP sensors, where as the Canon's 18MP sensors, by rumor, actually override their lens glass quality, making photos and videos quite soft and blurry. I do not know if any of that is really true, though.

-DSLR's require extensive education, traditional video cameras seem to be built more with the ease-of-mind rules in mind, where as DSLR's require extensive research and education for things like shutter speed, aperture, ISO, the correct picture styles, filters, ect ect. It's truly neverending stuff.

-At the end of the day, nothing's gonna get you quality like a Red One will give ya, so it makes really not much of a difference what you use. I personally would still recommend the whole DSLR trend, just, I'd 100% wait until you can get either the new Nikon or new Canon coming out, none of the past DSLR's are worth it, and I'd specifically recommend the new Canon one for rumored manual audio and the extremely useful flip screen.

-One thing these cameras do suck at is aliasing, it's not a huge of problem as some make it out to be, as long as you follow some basic cinematic rules on naturally what type of angles and distances from the subject look cinematic anyway, but indeed the aliasing is a problem that the older cameras just do not have. The safe bet is the older, bigger cameras, you really can't go wrong with them. But again, as a student, the DSLR's sure are helpful, a great learning tool, easy to carry around, and just as an entire summary, I feel they are great investments for young filmmakers and students. I'd also recommend being a little rebellious about this whole deal and just seeing if you can get great stuff from a cheaper small little camcorder, I wouldn't totally throw that idea out the window at all, I was very surprised at just how easy and naturally filmic those types of camcorders naturally try to be when I had one once for a short period of time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top