Just bought a DVX100B and then found out about DSLRs. =/

B

Boxing Fanatix

Member
I'm so disappointed. I found a DVX100B for $1200 on eBay but I discovered cameras like the Canon 7D and Canon T2i which record amazing HD quality and automatically seem to give a nice depth of field.

I bought the DVX100B to shoot my first feature with. Should I sell it again and use the money to upgrade to these HD cameras?

Or is it not worth it?

Any feedback will be appreciated, thanks.
 
On the one hand, you could probably get back exactly what you paid. On the other, you'll have to consider the fact that in order to obtain quality results using a DSLR, you'll need to pay a lot more for accessories such as lenses, a loupe or external monitor, an audio solution, and a follow focus system.

It's not a bad idea to learn everything you can while using the DVX and saving for a DSLR that will join it. There's a reason why a new DVX100B still runs $2500.
 
It all depends on what your are shooting and skill/technical level

It all depends on what your are shooting and skill/technical level

The DVX100 is a great camera. But it is SD in a HD world. But if you were new to this stuff shooting video for the web it would be a good purchase. It is a much easier camera to start with and combine it with almost any computer with firewire and that is almost all you need (well except for lights, microphones, sticks, - OK you will need a lot more)

There is no question the DSLR's blow the image quality of the DVX away, but there are two big factors to consider with DSLR's:

1. It takes much more equipment to get started - You need the camera body, lenses (usually several), CF cards, a much faster computer capable of dealign with HD files, more Hard Drives for storage, an external audio recorder (the on board audio is horrible - except for the 5D mark II which is usable with the new firmware) in addition to the basics (lights, microphones, sticks, etc)

2. DSLR's are much more work - focus is all manual in video mode, Focus is critical in HD and downright tricky with the shallow depth of field of these cameras. Working with external audio means more fiddling and chance for error. You have to be a pretty technical person to remember all that needs to be done.

BUT.. The results can be astounding if you put time into it and practice a lot if you are new.

Hope this helps. Maybe if you gave more info about what you hope to use it for, and your experience level, we can be more help. You will find there are everybody from pre-teens with dreams of being a movie producer, to pixel counters who never shoot anything, to wedding videograhers, to pros who make there living doing this, to bollywood producers, to hollywood film-makers who have made films you can see this weekend in your theater. So let us know more.
 
sell it,dont get scared by accesories in DSLRs' they arent must haves.you need lens ,camera and microphone with external recorder for sound.
 
Boxing Fanatix said:
Should I sell it again and use the money to upgrade to these HD cameras?
Click to expand...
What's the rush. Try it out. See how you like it and the images it produces. Then, if you want to get rid of it and go to a dslr, go for it. The value of you camera isn't going to drop much in the next month or so.
 
Thanks guys.

I will try out my DVX until I see more into everything.

I will probably buy a DSLR soon. I just wanted to know one thing, I'm seeing a lot of videos shot with the Canon 7D and the focus is, I don't know how to say it, but too deep. Normally, I will complain about the shallow depth of field, but it's just too much. Is it because of the lack of people not knowing how to focus correctly or is DSLRs in general focusing like that?

Thanks.
 
Boxing Fanatix said:
Thanks guys.

I will try out my DVX until I see more into everything.

I will probably buy a DSLR soon. I just wanted to know one thing, I'm seeing a lot of videos shot with the Canon 7D and the focus is, I don't know how to say it, but too deep. Normally, I will complain about the shallow depth of field, but it's just too much. Is it because of the lack of people not knowing how to focus correctly or is DSLRs in general focusing like that?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what you mean by too deep. Too deep for what? Do you mean too shallow?

I do think there is a habit with these DLSRs for people to overuse the ability to get the more shallow depth of field. The varying degrees of DOF you can acheive with these cameras is a great tool for your filmmaking, but you need to use it for a purpose and not just because you can.
 
I just purchased a canon t2i and I must say I agree. I've noticed a lot of films shot with the new Dslr's appear too shallow for my taste. but I suppose that's a matter of opinion . If your new to film making I think the dvx 100b is a great camera to learn to shoot on. if you don't know what your doing just having the new toy won't be good enough. Learn what you can then upgrade.
 
I do know what I am doing. I have practiced on countless Mini DV cams with manual control.

And yes, I did mean the Canon 7D has way too shallow depth of field. At least on many short films shot on it on YouTube.

I am probably going to sell my DVX100B and get a Canon 7D.

I mean the quality of the Canon 7D is amazing. To shoot in HD from an SLR? I never realized these cameras existed.
 
Before you jump ship on the DVX, consider this:

The DVX shoots amazing video that uprezzes to HD quite gracefully. No, it's not true HD, but the camera (in the right hands) can make images beautiful enough to compensate.

SD isn't dead. In fact, for Internet-based distribution, HD doesn't make that big of a difference. And unless you have Blue Ray authoring, you're down to DVD (SD) distribution for non-Internet viewers.

HDSLR footage requires conversion to edit properly, and though you have instant access to the files from the SD card, the conversion process can end up taking just as long as (or longer than) real-time capture from miniDV.

HDSLR cameras are not the right tools for everything. If you plan on shooting anything requiring long takes, forget it. Plus, they tend to overheat once in a while which means down time while the camera cools (having a second camera body can help here).

On the flip side, don't use all those YouTube videos to judge that the 7D's DOF is too shallow for you. That's a product of the shooter, not the camera. People are shallow-DOF-crazy right now. It's the new (old) thing. Just because the camera can achieve that shallow focus doesn't mean that it has to, or will, for everything. You're in complete control of the lens selection and the aperture and shutter speed.

Just some food for thought. And hey... if you're doing anything for profit (commercials, etc.), your DVX can pay for itself and a new 7D in a very short time. then you have the best of both worlds.
 
Sd is dead. Having worked extensively with a Dvx you simply cannot compare the quality. Honestly it's not even close, sure a DVX in the right hands can produce a good image, a dslr in the right hands can produce Astonishing drop dead images.
 
Cieloent said:
Sd is dead. Having worked extensively with a Dvx you simply cannot compare the quality. Honestly it's not even close, sure a DVX in the right hands can produce a good image, a dslr in the right hands can produce Astonishing drop dead images.
Click to expand...

Never said the quality compared. I just said that the DVX is still a good camera that can hold its own. There are still professionals out there who shoot with the DVX for certain projects, and judging by the constant activity in the DVX100 forum here at DVXUser, that camera isn't going anywhere any time soon.

As for SD, there are hundreds of local network affiliates that are still generating local content in SD. They may pass on HD from the network feed, but the local stuff is SD.
 
C2V, thanks for giving two sides to the argument.

But I'll make it more clear so you can help me more detailed.

I'm not here to make profits making commercials or anything. I'm here to make feature films that will be sent to countless film festivals. Now, would going from a DVX to a Canon 7D be neccessary sending to film festivals?

Vague, but hopefully it will help.
 
so it's either the dvx100, or a DSLR? how about an actual video camera that shoots HD. it's amazing these things don't get mentioned much anymore in certain threads.
 
Boxing Fanatix said:
DSLR does shoot HD though. What's the point?
Click to expand...

DSLRs shoot HD... but with some major challenges and limitations. Yeah, they make stunning images. However, they are still, first and foremost, DSLR still image cameras.

A true HD video camera is a moving image tool first and foremost. This opens up more control, more flexibility in shooting. You'll have much better in-camera audio support, and no limitation on clip length or file size (only limited by the media card itself).

And if you get an HD camera with CCDs in stead of CMOS chips, you don't have to worry about rolling shutter.
 
If he is just now learning of DSLRs he probably has no knowledge of Rolling shutter, which give JelloCam if you don't shoot in a steady manner. Probably also doesn't know of the Moire problems. The lack of Zebra stripes and built in ND filters. The DSLR cameras are NOT automatic beautiful image factories.
 
DSLR Cameras and the DI Process

DSLR Cameras and the DI Process

Hi.

I've been reading this thread with a lot of interest.

Full disclosure: I work at a major DI facility in Mexico City and have some experience (~7 years) in the so-called 'high end postproduction' market.

From my personal experience you need to have a lot of hands-on practice and a good knowledge of the film production and post workflows to get good results from the DSLRs.

I'm speaking about doing a feature film or documentary for theatrical release in 35mm prints or DCPs.

Most DSLRs record to some flavor of the H.264, nice for viewing or delivery. Not so nice for acquisition and post. It's very processor-intensive. You need to transcode it to a codec more suitable for editing and processing (color grade, compositing, etc.) Apple ProRes 422 is the more popular choice. You need to take that into account.

Personally I don't like the quality of the image: if you load a clip from a DSLR into a good color grading system (i.e. Resolve, SpeedGrade, Lustre, Scratch), visualize it in a proper monitor with a porper LUT and isolate one of the color channels you can see big ugly blocks (from both color sampling and compression schemes). If the material is not exposed carefully there's not much you can do to rescue blown highlights or sub-exposed areas.

For broadcast or electronic delivery one has to be very careful the risk for concatenation artifacts is high. Yes I know about the episode from "Dr. House" but if you read carefully they spent a lot of money in post just to make it look decent...

In the other hand we have finished 5 documentaries that were recorded in a DVX-100B and they looked great in the final 35mm positive print; of course the DoPs in charge of these projects knew the camera and its limitations very well, and the editors were very careful to maintain frame integrity through the whole process.

Of course DV video with its limited color sampling and small frame size also has severe limitations; but the workflow is pretty well understood and (IMHO) very robust.

Also, when working with DSLRs you need to be very disciplined and have experience in what is called separate audio system production: if you are not careful you'll end with takes with no sound or with very serious lip-sync issues.

From the production standpoint (I used to be a camera operator man years ago) I believe the video camera package is more compact and robust: if you don't have a good crew (necessary for separate audio work) you'll encounter a lot of trouble.

In the end it all boils down to the kind of project and the resources you have.

Sorry for the long post. English is not my native language so please excuse my poor grammar and orthography.

Regards,

Jj
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top