DSLR or Camcorder for video/film shooting - Need some recommendations and help.

C

christian0710

Member
Hi,Im new to the world of filmmaking (and photography) and I really want to get started. I’m trying to decide which camera would give me what I need for a budget of $1000 and I would really appreciate some help from you.

Here is my goal
1. To shoot nice videos of nature and perhaps play with making some short films with a cinematic look.
2. Make indoor youtube videos with me talking.

Here is my budget: $1000 And I will buy used eqipement

Here is what I want to achieve in my films
· Shallow Depth of field
· Good low light sensor
· Ability to plug in microphone (Or maybe I should get an external recorder for better sound?)
· Doesn’t eat batteries like a monster
· Ability to take nice photos and practice photography.
· Make the outdoor videos look film-like or cinematic.
· The ability to upload my videos to a computer and then share it online on places like youtube


Some cameras I’ve considered are.
GH3, Canon 7D or 70D, t3i, t4i or t5i.

I’m really confused about what camera will give me the best experience for my budget if the main goal is recording film, so I’d really appreciate some camera recommendations for my purpose, or perhaps further questions. I really just want to get going, but I also want the best performance for the buck.
 
Welcome, Christian!

You might take some time reading through the forums to see what folks have already discussed about the particular camera you mention. Know also that there's much more to this than just the camera.

The camera is only as good as the lens. Kit lenses can be good learners, but they are also limited in many ways.

Sound is half the experience, and in-camera sound is not going to cut it. An external recorder is a good starting place, but do you get one with on-board stereo mic array, or do you get one that requires external mics? That all depends on what you want to do (and, of course, budget). Some offer both abilities (like the DR-40), but there's compromise in any all-in-one solution.

"Cinematic" is a broad term, and has less to do with the camera and more to do with the user. While the ability to shoot 24p helps in terms of getting the "film" look, how the camera moves, how scenes are lit, and how sound is both recorded and edited/mixed in post all have more to do with the overall look than which camera is used.

What do yo uhave available to edit your footage? Can it handle 24p? Can it handle lots of layers of video and audio? (Read: Windows Movie Maker won't do, and iMovie is better but still very limited.)

How you handle the camera is very important, and a good tripod is the first and best accessory you can have. By "good," I mean a solid tripod with fluid video head, not the cheap-o Walmart/Best Buy tripod.

All cameras love light. After all, that's what makes the picture possible. Further, cheaper cameras with smaller image sensors need more light for proper exposure. And to maintain control of light, you need to be able to add light (artificial lighting kit) and take light away (ND filters for the lens).

All that said, a DSLR will give you more flexibility in short films and nature footage than a camcorder will, simply because the image sensor will be larger and the camera will offer interchangeable lenses. After that, everything I said above still applies.

For nature films, a simple handheld recorder with wind protection for the stereo mic array will give you good sound recording capability (get headphones, and use them). Once you venture into dialog for narratives (short films), you will need an external mic with wind protection shock mounting, and a boom pole. There are sticky threads in the Location Sound/Post Audio forum that will give youa starting place.

And again, what will you be using to edit? None of this matters if you can't work with what you have recorded.
 
What do you want shallow DoF for, in nature shots and "me talking to the camera" shots?

Also, the options you mentioned were great three years ago, but the world moves pretty fast...

I think the Sony RX10 would be a good option for you.
 
In general, spend your money on lenses, support, and sound. Video quality from a generation or two ago is good enough that you won't benefit until you have the former. For $1k with nature in mind, I'd consider something like this (total is more than $1,000, but you can prioritize what you want).

- Used Panasonic GX1 or similar (lacks 24p, unfortunately, but otherwise great image quality and decent codec): $100-150
- Used manual focus 50/1.8, with m4/3 adapter: $70
- Used manual focus 135/1.8 or /2.8 with adapter: $70
- Wide-angle m4/3 lens: $150-350
- Solid tripod and head: $300
- Used Sound Devices MP-1: $300
- Shure M-48 microphone (durable, good, cheap; the nature thing sort of limits options here; others may have better suggestions, including maybe lavs?): $35
- Tascam DR-40: $125

Sort of had birding in mind for this since you said nature, but you'd need a longer lens for that.

This would be dual system sound--clap your hands at the beginning and end.

Not perfect, but you'll get much better results than if you spend $1k on the camera itself and cheap out on support and sound.
 
HI, Thank you for your respons.
For editing software I'm thinking about learning Sony vegas pro or Adobe premiere pro and stick with it for life or at least for long.
For audio I've now decided to get the Zoom H1 and then Giant Squid or JK Mic 044 llvalier microphone. This is just to begin with and for making videos of me doing chemistry lectures. I think my Logitech HD pro C920 webcam might work for filming that in professional quality (education instruction videos), but I'm not 100% sure, so I'll have to try it out.

For learning Movie making and Photography in nature and other settings I was hoping one of the cameras i listed would suffice. The cinematic look could be something I add to the camera throught a lens later when my budged is there.
If i wanted to get a camera where I can do videos of mysef teaching And, comedy videos and beautiful cinematic video (once i learn about exposure, ISO, aperture settings etc. and about lenses) do you then think the Canon 70D could manage it? It has auto focus for comedy videos. Then i could shut off the auto focus and practice cinematography an manual focus and i could use it for photography? Or am I being unrealistic?
 
Samuel H said:
What do you want shallow DoF for, in nature shots and "me talking to the camera" shots?

Also, the options you mentioned were great three years ago, but the world moves pretty fast...

I think the Sony RX10 would be a good option for you.
Click to expand...

Hi,
Thank you for your reply and recommendation. What makes you recommend the RX10 instead the listed cameras? Is there something it might be able to give me that the others can't? I know they are quite old, and I have no idea of how to use them, but do they have some disadvantages compared to the RX10? I'm really considering the 7D or 70D but I'll take a look at the RX10 as well :)
 
Because you mentioned "cinematic" and shallow DOF, I would strongly recommend the 7D for several reasons.
1. it's cheaper- $500 used I've found
2. EOS lens mount- you can adapt so many various still lenses to EOS- including FD lenses with Ed Mika's adapters.
3. Magic Lantern hack once you get the swing of things.
4. Premiere Pro- you can edit cDNG raw files natively in Premiere Pro CC.

For a number of years now many of us have sought out old lenses to use with digital cinema cameras. The reason is simple- modern sharp lenses make digital cinema cameras look like super sharp video- not a cinematic look. One reason for the explosion with anamorphic lenses- Anamorphics usually perform very poorly in pure optic terms. But all these optical flaws help take away the "video" nature of digital cinema. Same thing for old, really old lenses.

We use manual focus lenses in cinema. Not only are old manual focus still lenses cheap, they are easier to focus when shooting motion.

Try getting a Helios 58mm/f2 lens and an M42 to EOS adapter and compare that with the newest L Series Canon lens. See which look you prefer.

Personally I'm building up a collection of pre-Ai Nikon glass- because they are old and less than perfect.

I also just purchased a couple of 5DMk2 bodies- we've gone full circle. The camera that started it all- with the Magic Lantern hack it produces the nicest skin tones and a creamy image- it is less than 1080 with the ML hack shooting raw. Maybe that's why it works.
 
The RX10 is a fixed lens camera. The lens is good and versatile, and it has IS. It does full sensor readout, so the image is super sharp and free of aliasing/moire artifacts. The only downside for a beginner is that the sensor is not so big, but given what you say you're going to do with it, I'm not sure you want super shallow DoF anyway.

Check this (very long) thread from when it was released: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...10-What-we-ve-been-looking-for-from-Panasonic
 
Hey Samuel,
I know nothing of these smaller cameras. This RX10 looks great for web based video work, especially if you are new to video.
The word "cinematic" is really a pandora's box. It can be done, it can be done cheaply (sort of) but it is not really as simple as it could be.

The RX10 looks much more practical for educational videos. Does the autofocus work well for video?
 
How about a used Canon T2i? It's been a couple years since I shot anything with the 7D or T2i, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought they used the same sensor and had pretty much the same image as far as video goes. The Nikon D3200 might be an option as well, but the hacks for Nikon aren't as sophisticated as magiclantern.
 
klk said:
Because you mentioned "cinematic" and shallow DOF, I would strongly recommend the 7D for several reasons.
1. it's cheaper- $500 used I've found
2. EOS lens mount- you can adapt so many various still lenses to EOS- including FD lenses with Ed Mika's adapters.
3. Magic Lantern hack once you get the swing of things.
4. Premiere Pro- you can edit cDNG raw files natively in Premiere Pro CC.

For a number of years now many of us have sought out old lenses to use with digital cinema cameras. The reason is simple- modern sharp lenses make digital cinema cameras look like super sharp video- not a cinematic look. One reason for the explosion with anamorphic lenses- Anamorphics usually perform very poorly in pure optic terms. But all these optical flaws help take away the "video" nature of digital cinema. Same thing for old, really old lenses.

We use manual focus lenses in cinema. Not only are old manual focus still lenses cheap, they are easier to focus when shooting motion.

Try getting a Helios 58mm/f2 lens and an M42 to EOS adapter and compare that with the newest L Series Canon lens. See which look you prefer.

Personally I'm building up a collection of pre-Ai Nikon glass- because they are old and less than perfect.

I also just purchased a couple of 5DMk2 bodies- we've gone full circle. The camera that started it all- with the Magic Lantern hack it produces the nicest skin tones and a creamy image- it is less than 1080 with the ML hack shooting raw. Maybe that's why it works.
Click to expand...


Hi KIK, T
hank you so much for the recommendation. I think I might go with the Canon 7D then at least for some years so I can get som experience in the field. So blackmagic lantern works with a 7d for making raw file film?
In another forum someone told me the to get the 70D because it has autofocus, which is good for movies, but I think It's a bit overpriced for a beginner like me, so I'll stick with the 7D.

Do you think I could make educational youtube videos (10-15minutes) on a 7D or would it be too much work in post production? Perhaps I should get a cheap camera next to the 7D for that purpose?

Then i'll use Zoom H1 and a lavalier for audio and buy some books on film making:)
 
If you finally decide to buy a used Canon make yourself a favour and skip the 7D...go for the 600D or 60D.
 
^ I agree with that. But keep in mind that you'd be buying tech that is two generations old. A Nikon D5200, D5300, or D5500 would have a much better image. Also Sony a5100 or a6000, and RX10. (I'd consider all those to be one-generation-old; everything of the current bleeding edge is out of your budget, or out of my radar).
 
Samuel H said:
^ I agree with that. But keep in mind that you'd be buying tech that is two generations old. A Nikon D5200, D5300, or D5500 would have a much better image. Also Sony a5100 or a6000, and RX10. (I'd consider all those to be one-generation-old; everything of the current bleeding edge is out of your budget, or out of my radar).
Click to expand...

I think I'll stick with the canon 60D. I like what it can do, but i appreciate the recommendations :)
 
Please save yourself the hassel of buying canon dslr video. You can get a Nikon D5300 new for about $ 500 that trashes the Canon which until you go up to 1700 will have aliasing and moire and still barely 720 resolution. The Nikon d5300 will give you easily 1.5 to 2 stop better low light and about 1.5 better DR. You will also have 60 fps in 1080p for slowmotion. Buy it with kit lens for very cheap as all round lens and then invest as you go along into set of cheap prime lens that have been arround for more than half a century. These will fit almost any camera and will survive 5 generation of camera upgrade. In the future you can also buy an external recorder like Ninja, Black magic monitor or Sound devices PIX-E if you want better codec. At least you will have an upgrade path while Canon has more or less abandon quality video to its eos cinema line.
 
I forgot t add, get yourself Davinci resolve lite hich is free and now apart from being the best Hollywood standard grading software, it is including a very good editing side that is getting better and more powerful as from each new version.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top