is a DSLR as good as a REAL video camera?

X

xDeLiRiOuSx

Member
Hi, I'm coming from a still photography background. We have 3 Canon 5D Mark II cameras we use to photograph wedding. Recently, we've done several weddings with the 5D Mark II's on tripods and monopods with incredible results.

I recently purchased a Merlin Arm + Vest combo + a glidecam HD4000. Thinking to up our offerings as wedding videographers.

Would I be benefiting by getting something like the DVX200 or something along that line? What will such a camera give me over a DSLR? Can I edit DVX200 video footage with a 5D Mark ii footage (24p) together in FCP?

And what focal lengths does something like the DVX2000 offer?

How much would a DVX2000 cost me? Batteries? Memory Cards?

What other options do I have for a real video camera?

Sorry for such a newbie post, but I'm a blind bat in a cave :(

Thanks,
David
 
The thread title is ambiguous. Is a DSLR as good as a real video camera? The answer is: for what purpose?

A "real" video camera will do a million things that a DSLR won't. Such as power zoom, autofocus, zebras, waveform monitor, a headphone jack for monitoring audio, XLR input ports with phantom power for professional audio, flip-out LCD panels, focus assist while recording, unlimited recording time, no overheating, no aliasing/moire contamination in the shots, variable frame rates, better recording codecs, manual audio control, even just being able to hold focus while zooming... the list is pretty much endless.

What a video camera won't do for you is the shallow depth of field that the DSLRs are famous for. At least, video cameras can't do that until the AF100 comes out at the end of this year. Until then, video cameras have super-deep depth of field.

A DSLR can make for a pretty decent replacement for something like a Bolex film camera, but they really don't do the same job as a video camera does, not at all. The GH1 comes closest to operating like a conventional video camera, but even then it's a far cry from something like an HPX170 or EX1.

So if you want to shoot events, yes a conventional video camera has a million features and benefits over a DSLR. But if you wanted to use it as a digital Bolex, as a substitute for a film camera for shooting film-style stuff, then the DSLR is much more competitive in that field.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for the ambiguous title. I really have no idea what a normal video camera has to offer. (kinda like a a caveman buying his first TV).

Just from that list you gave me.... WOW I am amazed at what I've been missing. Thinking that DSLR is the king of videography gear...... (I was mislead by the fact that big shot tv series and even some movies used 5D mark ii for some footage).

Thanks you Barry Green.
 
Is there a website that I can read up about all the features that a real video camera like the DVX2000 has to offer?

Thanks.
 
IMO, HDSLRs have three main purposes: an ALTERNATIVE (not replacement) to a DOF rig, a low light camera, and a video journalist camera (which is what they were originally designed for).

I think in each of these scenarios, a HDSLR can shine. If you try to make the HDSLR into a full blooded video camera, you'll be very disappointed.

I use my 5D for all the things listed above. I used to have a DOF rig which, by it's nature, didn't have electronic zoom, or auto focus, etc. I use my 5D now because it's smaller and easier to setup. Plus I get better low light performance.

And if I'm covering an event for my blog, I like having a video and stills camera in one body.

BUT, I wouldn't grab my 5D and offer to shoot a wedding with it. I know people that do but they have a team of 5+ camera operators so they can cover everything.
 
xDeLiRiOuSx said:
Those articles explained a lot.

now.... is the HVX200 the best video camera under $5000?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

The HVX is a solid choice. I'd also look into a used EX1 in that price range. The bigger chips offer a good range of DOF if you're looking to match footage.

You wouldn't be able to edit the different formats natively in the same timeline, but you should transcode your 5D footage anyway so that shouldn't be a problem.
 
xDeLiRiOuSx said:
now.... is the HVX200 the best video camera under $5000?
Click to expand...
"best" is never an easy answer. There's no such thing as "overall best", there's only "best for a particular purpose."

For wedding work, I'd recommend an HMC150 over an HVX. It's much less expensive, has great low light performance (more sensitive than the original HVX, and equal to the new HVX200A), uses inexpensive SD memory cards that can record up to three hours continuously without swapping cards, which is important in wedding work.

If low light sensitivity isn't the most important thing, but appearance is, look to the new HMC80 -- it looks like an event videographer's dream rig because it's a big ol' shoulder-mount camera, at a $2895 suggested retail (probably under $2500 street price). But it won't be out until something like September.
 
Having just finished my first wedding (not my first but the first) with a GH1 as the main camera and an HMC40 (outdoor wedding with plenty of light so the HMC40 worked great) as the second camera, I can tell you, I was very surprised at how great the GH1 was for the situation after reading all the reports about how hard it was to use a DSLR for wedding/events.

I used the HMC40 on a merlin for tracking shots, and kept the GH1 on a tripod for most of the event ( Gini- rig came in today.. wish I had it on Saturday!). I have used several full size cameras in the past for events with no problems although I did miss a standard iris dial on the lens with smooth feedback. Having the clicking iris was a pain but not that big of a deal when I could cut to the second camera.
Editing it is a breeze in Edius 5.5. Footage matches up very well.

You will get used to saying this though: "It's video... not photo.." every time someone stops to pose for the shot.. LOL
As for audio, I've been using an olympus digital recorder anyway so not being able to monitor the audio wasn't a problem for me. I'm used to it and don't think I'd ever go back to wireless mics and their issues. Syncing in post took me like 2 minutes today so no biggie.
 
But that may be largely due to you using a GH1 instead of a Nikon/Canon DSLR. The GH1 has many, many changes that make it much more of a traditional "video" camera than the actual DSLRs. Including a live histogram for exposure, articulating LCD, usable autofocus, no recording-time limitation, and no overheating.

GH1 is far from perfect, but it's much more of a traditional video camera than the mirror/prism DSLRs are.
 
Barry_Green said:
But that may be largely due to you using a GH1 instead of a Nikon/Canon DSLR. The GH1 has many, many changes that make it much more of a traditional "video" camera than the actual DSLRs. Including a live histogram for exposure, articulating LCD, usable autofocus, no recording-time limitation, and no overheating.

GH1 is far from perfect, but it's much more of a traditional video camera than the mirror/prism DSLRs are.
Click to expand...


Oh absolutely.. Those reasons are specifically WHY I picked the GH1 over the T2i/7D.
 
ATL - glad you like the GH1, I know you were on the fence for a while :)

I had to run into all the canon problems my 1st time out with a DSLR.

I love the GH1... for the money don't know if I will ever get rid of it!
 
Barry_Green said:
...For wedding work, I'd recommend an HMC150 over an HVX. It's much less expensive, has great low light performance (more sensitive than the original HVX, and equal to the new HVX200A), uses inexpensive SD memory cards that can record up to three hours continuously without swapping cards, which is important in wedding work.....
Click to expand...

Thank you everyone for helping me understand what the differences are. Looks like I will be giving the HMC150 a bit of research.

Thank you,
David
 
I'm sure there are video cameras that are a lot less expensive. t2i with a lens is $900. The Canon Vixia RF100 lists "manual exposure" as one of its features, and it costs less than $500.
 
your right.

thanks! i'm looking to buy a camera and wondered if there were alternatives in that price range that i overlooked.

the d5000 would be really cool if it had manual everything (and a better sensor) @ $630.
 
IMO the video quality you will get from a DSLR blows anything out of the water under the $10k price range in the video camera market. Your gonna get a very shallow DOF, and much better lowlight capability. As mentioned earlier, you are also going to have to invest a lot of money into support for the camera to make it as ergonomically friendly as a video camera. You'll need a rail system, some quality lenses, most likely a Z-finder or external LCD, follow focus unit, and then a mattebox. All in all your looking at a minimum of $4,000 to do it "right". Obviously, this is again my opinion.
 
Jon Chema said:
IMO the video quality you will get from a DSLR blows anything out of the water under the $10k price range in the video camera market. Your gonna get a very shallow DOF, and much better lowlight capability. As mentioned earlier, you are also going to have to invest a lot of money into support for the camera to make it as ergonomically friendly as a video camera. You'll need a rail system, some quality lenses, most likely a Z-finder or external LCD, follow focus unit, and then a mattebox. All in all your looking at a minimum of $4,000 to do it "right". Obviously, this is again my opinion.
Click to expand...

yeah i've been researching this video stuff for a while. these dslr's are a nice bang for buck for what they do-as long as the limitations are known. the only reason i wouldn't get one is if i needed long recording times or the like. but, they are also a modular approach to movie recording. dslr's provide a "pay as go" alternative to professional camcorders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top