HVX 200 vs Canon 7d

JosephZar

JosephZar

Member
Hi All. I'm kind of a newbie in many technical areas, so I would really appreciate any advice. To preface my questions, I will start by telling you the gear I currently own.

I have a Panasonic HVX 200, SmallHD external monitor, an audio-technica shotgun mic, Zoombox audio recorder, medium duty tripod and a 3 point Lowell light lit with softbox. I have been shooting corporate videos here and there and want to continue to do so because the money is so good in that arena, however I do work on indie projects and have aspirations of making TV shows and a feature.

I recently learned about the new crop of DSLRs, including the Canon 5dmkII and the 7d. I never paid much attention to this area before but, just out of curiosity, I watched Philip Bloom's Skywalker Ranch video and I was blown away! The film-like quality in that video is just amazing.

I have been saving up for a Letus/lense setup for my HVX200, but now I am wondering if it wouldn't be a better idea to just get one of these DSLRs, and maybe even sell my HVX200.
What do you all think?
How much would a DSLR and a comparable setup to what Mr. Bloom used cost me?
 
Philip listed the stuff he uses to make short films, it rang up to about $5,000 worth of stuff, in addition to the camera and the lenses.

Are you happy with the results you're getting from your HVX? If so, why spend anything at all?

If you were blown away by what philip did, recognize that very little of that is because of the camera, and the vast majority of it was because it was Philip Bloom shooting it. The only thing the camera adds is the shallow dof effect; other than that I pretty much guarantee you that Bloom could shoot something with your original HVX that would totally blow you away too.

DSLRs are becoming very popular, especially because they offer shallow DOF and very low price tags. If you were going to buy a 35mm adapter for your HVX, I would think that money could better be spent on something like a T2i, as it'll probably cost less and it gives you a secondary camera body. But before you go ditching your video camera for a DSLR, you'd be wise to consider what a DSLR can't do, and weigh it against your own requirements.

For the most part, the main things the DSLRs don't do amount to 1) long recording times, and 2) audio worth a darn. They're limited to about 12 minutes max recording time, at which point you have no choice but to stop recording. You can usually start up again right away, but extended use may lead to overheating.

As for audio, they don't have professional audio connectors, you won't be getting phantom power or XLR connectors, and they don't even have headphone jacks. It's pretty much a given that if you're shooting video on a DSLR, you'll be recording audio to a separate recorder, and sync'ing in post.

And you'll be giving up your exposure tools, like zebras and the spotmeter. And no power zoom or, really, any ability to do a useful zoom during a shot at all. And variable frame rates, if you use those.

If you find you never use any of those, then transitioning to a DSLR might make sense for you.
 
Thanks, Barry. You bring up many good points.

I know its a newb thing to put all the emphasis on the technology. I aspire to shoot as well as Mr. Bloom. That said, I have wanted to use the shallow DOF and other lenses in my set up since I realized how much more dramatic it could make my subjects look.

I am new to the HD video field, and somehow I have lucked into a stream of corporate work. I am trying to learn as much as I can as I go, so that I can continue to do this professional work to support my more art-oriented work. My background is shooting in Super-8mm film (doing animations, etc.), standard resolution video and using Public Access broadcast studio cameras. I have a good eye and aesthetic sense but very little training, so I really appreciate the wisdom of someone such as yourself in this area. I find it difficult, at times, to keep up with the dizzying rate of emerging tech and knowing what all the options are.

From the points you mention, it strikes me that it might indeed be worthwhile to invest in the DSLR as a secondary unit to be used for the the shallow DOF shots and keep the HVX. Do you have any thoughts on how the footage taken with, say the T2i, might match up with HVX footage? Would the quality/resolution be dramatically different if they were used in the same project?
 
JosephZar said:
From the points you mention, it strikes me that it might indeed be worthwhile to invest in the DSLR as a secondary unit to be used for the the shallow DOF shots and keep the HVX. Do you have any thoughts on how the footage taken with, say the T2i, might match up with HVX footage? Would the quality/resolution be dramatically different if they were used in the same project?
Click to expand...

I think youre on the right track with that thought process. As far as mixing the two, I have never attempted to mix a 200 with a t2i, but I have mixed other cameras many times. I usually shoot everything as flat as possible with accurate white balancing to the same light source as a start point and then use my color grading process to do the final matching. Never had any issues with most set ups.
 
I agree in thinking that you should buy a DSLR in place of a 35mm adapter, instead of using it as a primary camera.

That's what I plan to do.
 
Yeah, but now just thinking here, I wonder if after using a camera equipped for shallow DOF, I'd want to start using it on MOST of the shots. I have never shot with one. That makes me think again about a Letus. I do like the Zebra and audio control on the HVX. But a Letus rig is pricey! I feel like I am going around in circles. Its always a trade-off! Ugh.

If I am understanding correctly, the imaging chip is better on the DSLR, but the metering and audio features don't match my HVX.

If I shoot with a T2i, or similar, for audio I could use a lav mic on one channel and my Zoombox or a boom mic on the other channel, right? So no post production sync would be required. As far as the lack of Zebra, I suppose I would just have to be extra-careful about checking the lighting.

This leads me to think if I had both cameras, I should just use the HVX for run-and-gun-type shooting and shots that need zoom and use the DSLR as the main?

I'm a bit perplexed.
 
JosephZar said:
Thanks for the advice, guys! I am going to keep it and also get the T2i!
Click to expand...

I would get the 7D because of its benefits down the road
1x1.jpg
 
Don't forget about the GH1. It may be not be full-frame, but it produces a nice image and the body can be picked up reasonably inexpensively (we got ours for $700). That leaves some money around for picking up a few nikon primes, and have the best of both worlds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top