Do you regret it?

Although I did not actually switch, I did invest money in the stills camera route and considered it my A-cam for a while. And to be honest, it's a yes and a no. I knew it would be harder to get the shots, but could also be worth it. Now I understand it is, but more importantly I continuously now better when to use the stills camera and when not. There are more times I can now use the stills camera to get that better shot.
But all this tech and picture quality aside, the more important thing is the fact stills camera made me think more about my shots. How to shoot efficiently, what kind of shots, better anticipation, .. For that reason I'll keep my stills camera, as a B... I'm considering moving back and stepping up

The reason of this apparent contradiction: with the stills camera I learned quite a few things, it made me more creative in thinking about shots, but I also found out the camera was in the way of an increasing amount of those shots. Reasons being the limited versatility, the fact it draws too much attention or is simply to cumbersome. And, I knew the simple video camera could do it (due to range / compact size / stabilization / ...). And in the end, that's what matters to me most: getting the shots is more important than getting some single beautiful shots. I knew it is the right thing for me, but now I also believe it is. So in the end, I have no regrets.

(Oh, and regarding the yes...that's a whole different story, totally off-topic. ;) )
 
Originally had an HVX and Z1. I eased in with a used GH2 and then later an AF100, sold the Z1 once clients stopped asking for tapes, and the HVX went into relative disuse. I should say, however, that I mostly shoot doc, demonstrations, and talking heads.

I did use the AF very successfully for football - paired with the 14-140 it handled much like my HVX on full manual, but cleaner resulting images. The 7-14 wide angle works very well for following close action.

A second point with which you may be familiar, once you start adding lenses etc., large sensor cameras are not less expensive than small sensor counterparts.
 
sharry said:
I know that maramfilms and what I wanted to say was that ccd had better rendition of the image may it be color, highlights or sharpness. Typing from smartphone can actually make you look dumb. :)
Click to expand...
AHH, I get what you mean now. The funny thing is their called smart phones, hmmm:)
 
i didnt switch. its a matter of whats the best tool for the job in front of you. and id hate to only have one OR the other. because BOTH really suck at one thing or another...

for me it comes down to the delivery channel and aesthetic choice. if its going to broadcast or a live switcher. i like my hpx170 for SDI out and synced "pro" audio. not to mention servo zoom, built in ND, etc...
but if its something that's going to spend time in post for some stylized end product, i lean toward a variety of DSLRs. i will stress the word VARIETY here because ive yet to find ANY DSLR that didnt lack some feature or have some really annoying behavior that makes it problematic in some scenario. so i just rent / borrow DSLRs as needed.

for me the one ongoing annoyance of DSLRs for action sports is jello. nothing drives me battier than seeing a the background wobbling back and forth.
 
Hunter S. Thompson said:
I mainly film only action sports, and am not interested in shallow DOF. What really intrigues me is the sensor size, the quality they can put out and the plethora of accessories available. I'm just not sure if I should be looking for a DSLR or a CMOS based camcorder to replace my HMC150.
Click to expand...

A lot of great action sports shooters film nowadays with the 5dmarkIII and FS700. For obvious reasons.
 
wgzn said:
for me the one ongoing annoyance of DSLRs for action sports is jello. nothing drives me battier than seeing a the background wobbling back and forth.
Click to expand...

Problem is...you're gonna have that annoyance with all CMOS cams. Which in the modern world is pretty much every cam. Some are a bit faster than others but the differences aren't great. There are tricks though, for example if you set the 5dmarkIII to 720p, it will effectively halve the rolling shutter jello.
 
the degree of compromise all you pixel peepers are willing to apologize for on behalf of manufacturers just befuddles me.
 
I never used a real video camera but I do think my D800E for video is a specialty tool and not a good all-round solution for video. I am shopping for a real video camera as my hopes that I could have a DSMC w/the D800 we just not true. I guess those with Mark IIIs and RAW may be happier but the SDOF is one of many issues as mentioned.
 
Hunter S. Thompson said:
What are these reasons? Because I am apparently oblivious to them. :D
Click to expand...

As a FS700 owner I can speak to half of this equation. Big sensor, built in ND filters, good autofocus
with 'A' mount lenses and LA-EA2 adapter, and of course, up to 240fps overcrank for that nice
10x slow motion. Cons include a form factor that isn't great for handheld and a baffling LCD placement
that somewhat limits your angles from which you can see it. Those are solved with a external evf and
rig, but the FS700 costs much more than DSLRs so probably not for the same crowd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top