DVX100 VS Canon T2i (for video)

M

mr_goodbomb

Active member
I'm comparing the two right now. They'd be about the same price (used Panasonic VS new Canon T2i). The advantage of the T2i is the increased depth-of-field without the need of an adapters, and of course being HD. However, I like tape for some reason, helps me have a physical copy of everything I shoot, and while these seems pretty, I'm used to the XL-2, so the smaller body on the DVX almost seems tiny to me, so a still camera is going to feel like a very expensive toy.

Any suggestions? I shoot a lot of music videos, commercials, and I'm working on a feature now.
 
This question keeps coming up, in different incarnations, but it's really comparing apples to oranges.

The DVX: awesome images, CCD, tape-based, SD, built-in audio support, limited DOF.

A DSLR: awesome but fragile images, CMOS, card-based/disk-based, HD, need for double-system sound, better DOF.

The DVX's images up-rez to HD quite gracefully, but it is a standard-def camera. The CCD image sensors are much more stable, and tape-based does meant hat you have a "physical" copy of the footage. I'm like you... there's something about having it on tape that feels more secure.

A DSLR like the T2i does shoot HD, and can get beautiful images. There are a few challenges that come with this technology, though. The CMOS image isn't as stable as CCD due to rolling shutter, so you need to plan your shots very carefully and avoid fast camera-movements in order to avoid Jell-O vision. Also, in full HD< you're limited in clip length. The T2i shoots 12 mintue clips, which isn't a big deal for feature work where shots are shorter and are intensely prepared, but you have to switch the card out every 12 minutes and cannot shoot longer in situations where you may want to keep rolling.

The whole DOF issue is so misunderstood and overblown. Yes, it's pretty. Yes, it's nice to be able to get it. But don't obsess over it. Folks get DOF-happy and as soon as they have a 35mm adapter or a DSLR, they shoot everything they can with shallow DOF. Shallow depth should be used sparingly and with well-thought-out intent. 90% of your shots won't need it. And even with the DVX, you can fudge it if you need it by backing the camera up, zooming in, and lighting for as open an iris as you can get.

Audio is the other big issue. The DVX has pre-amps that aren't half bad, and has great metering and signal routing and level control. The T2i has lousy audio input, little control, and really requires a second system recording. Double-system is great, and better with either camera, but it you are shooting one-man-band it's a real pain in the duff.

And with a DSLR, you really need to add a few things (like a better, external video monitor) to get it up and running. A rails system with shoulder pad and pistol grip will be quite useful, almost a requirement for shooting off-tripod. Now, you've added about $1000 to the cost. And a matte box is a must... another $300 at least.

But all of these comparisons are pretty general, since we're talking about SD vs. HD and that's the make-or-break decision between the two.

So the real questions:

- Will you ever need to roll for more than 12 minutes at a time?
- Do you have the gear and crew support for double-system sound?
- Do you have the need for HD now, or do you see it in the next year or two?
- Do you have enough computer to edit HD now?
- Can you afford the extras for more stable shooting with the T2i? (rails, shoulder mount, matte box, monitor)

The T2i would do you fine, but you need to consider the shooting challenges before you make that move. And you need to make a decision about HD.
 
I just happen to own both. I agree: the DVX is more stable and has benefits, and the T2i has other benefits but drawbacks as well. I think the only thing that DSLR video is good for would be short films, documentaries, sports videos, and music videos. Since I don't plan on getting rid of my DVX and just pimping out my DSLR rig, I would just record audio to my DVX>Firestore and match that audio with the DSLR footage, but you can also buy a Zoom H4 recorder which is quite popular for DSLR shooters.
You also need to get good lenses if you get a DSLR. You can get cheap primes and an adapter ring on ebay, like I did, but if you also take on the actual photography aspect, you need good AF lenses which can be expensive.
The question comes down to what you're shooting, and your budget. You could get a T2i rig: several used primes, good tripod, H4, shotgun mic kit, rails, mattebox, monitor or z-finder for about $2500.
If the shallow DOF isn't as important, you could get a used DVX, shotgun kit, tripod,monitor, box of tapes for about the same price. Or if you really want a DVX and shallow DOF, you could get a letus or redrock for about $1500 more.
 
I am actually making this decision right now, and have weighed the pros and cons for what I personally need and have decided upon the dvx100b.

I can get a used dvx for about 800$, and in doing so get a more versatile machine.
 
I also have both and I really like them for different reasons. I shoot weddings a lot and I really like the ability to roll for longer than 12 minute bursts on the DVX100b. That being said, the HD footage that I have shot on the T2i looks fantastic so that has it's advantages too. I bought a really nice hand made EOS to FD adapter from ebay so that I can use old Canon FD prime lenses with it. I have a 28mm, 50mm, 100mm, and 135mm and with the chip factor this set of lenses is awesome.

There's also the weight advantage for the T2i. Even with the extra gear you'll want to add to it, it still comes in at being much lighter than the DVX100B, making it the ideal camera for run and gun situations. I have a Rode Video Mic Pro and ML installed which actually allows you to capture pretty decent in camera sound, albeit not as good as using a shotgun mic hooked up to the XLR of the DVX100b.

Just some things to consider...
 
I personally have yet to buy into DSLRs for video for the simple reason being that they are not video recording devices at the core. That being said, there are now many ways to work around their limitations and produce some stellar video.

In the end it all comes down to what you need out of your equipment and I just feel that there are too many restrictions and problems just to achieve shallow DOF(which is why most people buy them). For me, I need the entire package not just pretty visuals.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
The Shallow DOF is always pretty but almost always overused and for the wrong reasons.
Click to expand...

Shallow DOF does not need to be used for every single shot, in fact, I fine myself purposely not doing those kind of shots just to be different :grin:
 
People instantly believe that shallow DOF will make their backyard home video into some sort of artistic masterpiece, which is simply not true. If you want the "film look" learn how to manipulate and control light.

Side note: I never understood the appeal of the fisheye lens, but I guess they can be practical 1/1000 of a time.
 
I believe the DSLR would be a better solution. It forces you to learn film DOF and how to use it. You will learn about lenses, learn about f-stops way more than with playing with an old DVX.

Yes, yes, DOF is fad, yada yada. Still about 99% of mainstream films have way more control over DOF than any 1/3" camera. There is a reason people like shallower DOF. There is a reason people used 35mm adapters before.

"Learn to use lights". Sure. But you need to learn to use them anyway, no matter what camera you use. And the same scene with a DVX does not look nearly as nice or filmic than with a DSLR all things being equal. Unless you are specifically aiming for a "everything is in focus" moment. Which are pretty rare I'd say. Even if you only shoot with an F-Stop of 4, it is still way better than the DVX full open.
 



Just some actual examples I found on the interwebs that I thought I would post. Notice the differences?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, there's a huge difference. The one shot on the top looks absolutely terrible compared to that of the one on the bottom! Lol. But seriously, it's pretty plain to see how much better the HD footage is there... I just shot a wedding a couple of weeks ago on the DVX100B and the T2i and I found the same thing. I do still love my DVX, but the footage I got on the T2i was tough to beat...
 
I've just been reading this:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/camcorders/cam-cam.shtml

Seems very, very relevant here. Like people have said it's nice to have both but I do think folks get a little obsessed with the HD, Shallow DOF themes. As yet I haven't jumped on the DSLR band wagon and have been more than happy with the dvx. The 12 minute restriction I have to say makes it a no go for me personally. The dvx just seems more flexible to me (quite literally). No low/high running shots with the DSLR (well ones you can monitor on a screen anyway).
 
I still think that the DVX100b is your best bet for an all around package in the sub 1000$ category, but with that said, it is still behind quite a few years and the footage I've seen from these DSLRs is quite phenomenal.

In the end, it just comes down to what you personally need. For me, the DVX is perfect for when I am alone and don't have the privilege of someone helping record separate audio or when I am out run 'n gunning for a documentary. Now, if I shot more narrative films and demanded strict control over my visuals, then I would probably opt for the GH2(which I hope to own eventually regardless). What I am saying and what has been said several dozen times by others is that it just depends on your specific needs.

I respect both for what they are.
 
I am about to purchase my first semi-professional camera and I am really torn between these two. It seems like the DVX would be the best camera with which to learn some basic techniques, not to mention start developing a portfolio that I will use to apply for a film production program since my computer setup is sufficient for editing SD but wouldn't cut it for HD. But I'm just wondering how the T2i's SD footage would compare to the DVX. If the two are comparable, I would opt for the DSLR since (1) I would have the option for HD the day I gain access to a better video editing set up, and (2) It would be more portable and would double as an amazing camera for stills whereas the DVX would only be used for video projects.

What do you guys think? Is the T2i's standard definition video crap in comparison to the DVX's "film look," and is the DVX much better to learn on? This has been an eye-opening thread so far....
 
jd55 said:
I am about to purchase my first semi-professional camera and I am really torn between these two. It seems like the DVX would be the best camera with which to learn some basic techniques, not to mention start developing a portfolio that I will use to apply for a film production program since my computer setup is sufficient for editing SD but wouldn't cut it for HD. But I'm just wondering how the T2i's SD footage would compare to the DVX. If the two are comparable, I would opt for the DSLR since (1) I would have the option for HD the day I gain access to a better video editing set up, and (2) It would be more portable and would double as an amazing camera for stills whereas the DVX would only be used for video projects.

What do you guys think? Is the T2i's standard definition video crap in comparison to the DVX's "film look," and is the DVX much better to learn on? This has been an eye-opening thread so far....
Click to expand...

If you want a film/movie look the T2i is hands down the winner. The DVX has very deep depth of field by comparison. The ability to have more selective focus is a trademark movie quality. If you want great low light the T2i is also better. You could also downrez your 1080p footage to SD. Also, it shoots 60fps at 720p which could give you nice slow mo when downrezzed.

The T2i can also has some nice flat picture styles available for grading in post. It's also easier getting the footage to a computer usually. If you're interested in making movies I'd suggest the T2i over the DVX100. Most film productions use camera with interchangeable lenses.

My advice. Get a T2i and hack it with Magic Lantern. It's too easy. You can control the frame rate.
 
Last edited:
skital said:
If you want a film/movie look the T2i is hands down the winner. The DVX has very deep depth of field by comparison. The ability to have more selective focus is a trademark movie quality. If you want great low light the T2i is also better. You could also downrez your 1080p footage to SD. Also, it shoots 60fps at 720p which could give you nice slow mo when downrezzed.

The T2i can also has some nice flat picture styles available for grading in post. It's also easier getting the footage to a computer usually. If you're interested in making movies I'd suggest the T2i over the DVX100. Most film productions use camera with interchangeable lenses.

My advice. Get a T2i and hack it with Magic Lantern. It's too easy. You can control the frame rate.
Click to expand...

+1 Good advice. I'd also go with the T2i if I were you.

You're really going to be shooting yourself in the foot at this point if you put any money into a SD camera. If you're building up a reel, your going to need footage that "pops". Everyone else is using DSLRs for the look, you need to at least be equal in the visual department if you want any other aspects of your film to stand out. People watch DVX footage and think "student film". People watch DSLRs footage and think "professional". Sorry, but it's the harsh reality. All things being equal in the same shoot... acting, directing, lighting... the DVX will still look like cheap TV show at best, whereas the T2i will look like a legit movie. The DVX was a great camera back in the day... but the era of DV is over.

Also, the T2i, not having pro audio recording... will force you to learn dual-system with something like the Zoom H4n. Which you should be doing anyways.

Good luck!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top