DVX100 VS Canon T2i (for video)

pkw11 said:
Gee, I live in L.A. and 90% of what I watch on TV is SD--I guess I must be dead.
Click to expand...

...and 90% of that was acquired with HD cameras. Footage shot with higher res cameras and delivered at SD will always look better than what can be captured nativity in SD. Not to mention the colors, DR, and tonality are all better on the DSLRs. The sensors were designed by Canon to mimic film... and they do a damn good job at it... even if it is a little soft compared to other 1080p cams.

pkw11 said:
There's no point of discussion if one considers the DVX to be "cheap" TV at best.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Getting a DVX at this point in the game, or any SD camera for that matter, is just a bad move. Especially with the price point of getting in the HD s35mm format is so cheap these days. I'm not trying to bash any gear or anyone's opinions, but have you see DVX footage lately? It looks like crap compared to DSLRs or any large sensor camera. Then on top of that, you're going back to the stone age with a tape based work flow. Hell, even iphones take better video. I know it's tempting to want to own a "big pro looking" camera... but the audience doesn't give a crap about this. Do you really think they're going to care about how "purpose built" your camera is? Or if it has XLR cables or not? They're just going to see a cheap looking image.
 
Last edited:
I have both the a T3i and 2 DVX100b's. I also just got a Panasonic AG-AC130 which I have only had for a few days but am in love with. The AC-130 is a different price point all together though.

The DVX100B does upconvert pretty darn well. The T3i does produce a better picture. A T3i/T2i is more expensive to get into than it first appeasrs though. You need a couple of primes or a super fast zoom lens like the 24-70mm f2.8 which even without IS is gonna run around $1,300. Then your gonna want a vari ND filter for shooting outdoors and before you know it, your gonna realize you want a shoulder rig to keep that joker stable. The end results can be awesome but we still haven't touched on audio which I purchased a Zoom H4n for at another $280. All in all to get a proper set up you end up spending around $1,500 to $2,000 depending.

For that price you can get two used DVX100b's and if your into live event filming it will go a lot further than a single DSLR with possibly no Zoom depending on if you went with a couple of PRIMES. For Production shoots though, the T3i has worked out well. Now that I have an AC-130 and a couple of T3i's though, I am selling my DVX's. But it took a while to build up my equipment enough to do so as I found myself falling back to my DVX's for run and gun comfort. Another thing to point out is that a DVX set on full auto everything can be placed in the hands a somewhat inexperienced user and still get some decent stuff. NO auto anything DSLR. My DVX's are actually up on ebay now if anyone is interested.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/260929836606?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649

Here is the last full production music video I made with them for my band Kill Clouseau. The album was recorded in New York with the producers of Coheed and Cambria, Medeski Martin and Wood, blondie, etc. It came out pretty cool and you can see that I did upconvert to 1080p for uploading on the web. It really did make a difference in quality on the playback of the stream.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN4SD5lOtxM
 
pkw11 said:
And no, iphones don't take better video than the DVX. And even if they did, have you ever tried to conduct a two hour interview with an iPhone with a solo crew? Yes, some people actually are shooting things with one person!
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. Have you seen some of these videos? The 4s stomps on all the SD cameras of yesteryear...

http://vimeo.com/32407718
 
Pretty impresive I admit. Defintely a little jello here and there along with what looks like some limitation on exposure control but, really pretty damn impressive. Would be a terrific B-Cam for shots other cameras would never fit. Very interesting.
 
I would just keep saving your money up and get something more stable like the 7D or maybe a cheaper 3CCD HD camera and an older DOF adapter. I use my DVX for shooting a lot of music, and it looks awesome if done correctly, heres a good example done with the raw power of the DVX: http://vimeo.com/3256208

also how are you doing as far as lighting equipment goes? it can really make a difference with both cameras.
 
There are examples of great looking footage from both cameras all over the internet. All this proves is that a skilled operator can obtain great quality from any camera if they know what they are doing, so I don't think watching examples should be that prevalent in your decision.

It really depends on what your planning to shoot and where you are in your filmmaking career. if you are starting out, I disagree with learning on a traditional video camera and reckon you'd be better off learning on a DSLR...

DSLRs are more difficult to use as video cameras; there are usually very little auto features on them that you'd find on a video camera which forces you to pay more attention to how each feature influences the image your capturing. I myself was spoilt with the ease of use of professional HDV cameras and long resisted DSLRs. As soon as I picked one up, I was forced to reinvest in my skills and properly learn the fundamentals of photography; f stops, aperture, interchangeable lenses etc.

I also don't necessarily agree that you need to properly pimp out a DSLR to get it ready for professional use. Personally, I think a lot of the rigs I've seen are serious overkill and somewhat an unnecessary expense. I'd start with just the basics: good tripod, an f/2.8 constant aperture zoom lens (hell even a kit lens is fine as long as you understand its limitations and adjust your approach accordingly), 1 or 2 fast primes, an external mic/recording device (like a zoom H1) and magic lantern and you'll be good to go. Get what you need then gradually increase your inventory of accessories as you understand the limitations of what you have.

And remember that SD cards are cheap, not as cheap as mini DV tapes but cheap enough. You can store your masters on those if necessary.
 
It's also okay to reuse SD cards, while resusing Mini DV tapes can eventually cause timecode/control track problems.
 
The fact this debate reached four pages is certainly a testament to how groundbreaking the DVX series was.

That said... I'd never go back much as I loved mine. I made some good money with a lowly T2i, before I had a chance to pimp it. For me the must haves were a viewfinder/loupe (you can get very serviceable models for well under $200 these days - the Swivl HD fits about any camera, with no sticky glue-plate crap) and a decent tripod (I found the T2i's screen to be fine, and just popped a still now & then to check the histogram - everything looked great on a calibrated broadcast monitor). I already owned Nikon glass, but you can get a 35-70 2.8 AF for $300ish (Nikon's classic lens) or way less (older 28-70 Sigma, Tokina, Tamron). External audio's an issue, but I know several people getting very nice sound with iPhone/iPad connectors, as far as a my-first-recorder setup goes.

80% of what I do ends up on the web, some is broadcast (TV ads) or trade show display (1080). But every client wants a 1080 copy in case they want a BluRay for the lobby or might project it some day.

I'm not a DOF freak, and I have only 1 1.8 lens - I tend to shoot around F4 on the DSLR. But the ability to focus on an interview subject and keep the BG soft is dynamite. Most gigs these days, I shoot with an AC130 and a DSLR, and 9 times out of 10, I use the DSLR footage (and still have nice manual audio).

I'd be really seriously nervous using an aging tape drive and fragile DV tapes. I always HATED dealing with tape. It's no more a "physical copy" of your work than a hard drive or data bluray. Tape is simply the most fragile storage media there is. I archive to raw hard drives, which gives me original raw-card footage, trims, scripts, audio files, music, voiceovers, estimates, notes, edit, effect files, stills, graphics, all in the same place... vs. having to re-capture and re-trim and re-correct all the raw footage? Thinking of tape as a "handy physical copy" just seems kinda crazy to me.

Tape mechanisms are notoriously complicated. They last and last, until they don't. The weakest link in ANY acquisition system by a mile.

For commercial work, I do a lot of stuff where graphics intersect with talent, things like graphic-design-ish frame design. The DVX is a painful mess with that stuff. The footage is truly horrible once you need to mask things or do some effect work. A true nightmare, and if you want to do anything design-ey, get the biggest frame you can. Ever pull a DVX key? Ouch. As bad as Canon's codec is to key, it's light years from DV.
 
I have both too.. actually T3i... for "video" Im still sayin the dvx is better. its easier to get a "good pic" with it and the sound recording is hands down, whey better! Even if you hook up a mic to the t3i.

I’ve tried several cards in my T3i and so far have not got a stable image! Canon says its my card the card maker says its the camera. I bought t3i for a still camera cuz I didn’t have a good, still camera. of course if you are out on vacation taking pics, its good to have the video feature there I guess. it does take great still pics though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top