Just some re-assurance I guess...

W00DPUSHING

W00DPUSHING

Active member
Hey all,

I'm posting what is probably a regular going on but I just wanted some sort of re-assurance for myself that switching to HD and going the hdSLR route would be good.

I'm used to SD filming and using the vx1 etc.... and well the whole dlsr thing kinda scares me with the extensive range of lenses and f stop numbers on them aha. I've done a lot of research, don't get me wrong and I know a lot about the positives of the HDSLR but I guess the one thing that scares me is the some time slight jerkiness of HDSLR footy. I mean can this just be sorted by using the right shutter speed/ISO? I mean, I know the likes of Jason Hernandez are using HDSLR's primarily and I saw that he does use the 550d/T2i with ML and a Tokina fish and it does look amazing.

So if everyone could gimme' a vote of re-assurance then would be much appreciated haha! :)

cheers,
 
personally, im pretty turned off to the whole dslr thing. having used a 5dll, 7d and owned a gh2 i can tell you that EVERY model from the high end to the lowest, is just a series of compromises and hoops to jump through. this one doesnt have x frame rate, that one doesnt have hdmi out, and NONE of them have pro-standard audio inputs.

yeah, there is one work around or another for much of it. but im just not sure if its all worth it... not to me anyway.

i know all the DSLR fanboys are going to scream bloody murder (especially those canon ones) and say im full of crap. but i think a LOT of people are brainwashed by specs and blinded by the fact that xyz director or 123 tv show uses them.

yes the resolution is nice
yes the multiple lens thing is groovy
yes they CAN BE better in lower light situations
and yes the recording media is CHEAP relative to P2

but having previously owned a 35mm adapter rig, (brevis+nikon) i can achieve the same stylistic end result with a LOT fewer workflow compromises.

YES a lot of nice work is being done with DSLRs but just as much good work is still being done with proper video cameras - with or without 35mm adapters.

people will also argue that its easier and smaller to get "filmic" end results with a DSLR as opposed to a video cam with an adapter rig.
but once all is said and done, and youve added your rails, mattebox, follow focus, etc. its not that much of a difference

DSLRs have a LOT of handy uses. and im not sayingthat people simply shouldnt use them. but be smart about your decision making.
if you do ANY run-and-gun or eng type work. i would STRONGLY suggest against a DSLR if its going to be your only camera.
however, if you do mostly indie feature / artistic work, or you do a lot of still photo work as well. then a DSLR will be likely be a good investment
 
Last edited:
wgzn said:
personally, im pretty turned off to the whole dslr thing. having used a 5dll, 7d and owned a gh2 i can tell you that EVERY model from the high end to the lowest, is just a series of compromises and hoops to jump through. this one doesnt have x frame rate, that one doesnt have hdmi out, and NONE of them have pro-standard audio inputs.

yeah, there is one work around or another for much of it. but im just not sure if its all worth it... not to me anyway.

i know all the DSLR fanboys are going to scream bloody murder (especially those canon ones) and say im full of crap. but i think a LOT of people are brainwashed by specs and blinded by the fact that xyz director or 123 tv show uses them.

yes the resolution is nice
yes the multiple lens thing is groovy
yes they CAN BE better in lower light situations
and yes the recording media is CHEAP relative to P2

but having previously owned a 35mm adapter rig, (brevis+nikon) i can achieve the same stylistic end result with a LOT fewer workflow compromises.

YES a lot of nice work is being done with DSLRs but just as much good work is still being done with proper video cameras - with or without 35mm adapters.

if you do ANY run-and-gun or eng type work. i would STRONGLY suggest against a DSLR if its going to be your only camera.
however, if you do mostly indie feature / artistic work, or you do a lot of still photo work as well. then a DSLR will be likely be a good investment
Click to expand...

I've recently come to that conclusion as well.
I like the videocamera form factor and would prefer great ergonomics over shallow depth of field.
As much as I love the look of shallow depth of field I prefer ease of use more.
Plus you can always purchase a 35mm adapter if you see a need for it later (or a DSLR as a B Cam)
You cant purchase a "run n' gun" adapter for a DSLR without again working with compromises.
 
How you shoot becomes way more important when using a DSLR as opposed to a modern day video camera. With my HFS 200 I can shoot handheld, and everything remains super stable...with a T2i or other DSLR it's harder to do that way. Locked down shots, or shots with some sort of rig come out looking much better.
The way I choose to think about them goes like this - shoot them like they're like giant film cameras even though they're small....what I mean is you couldn't just grab a 35mm film cam and go running around with it. The same is true of DSLRs, I mean you can...but your results will be superior with careful shooting, be it tri-pod, real study hand held, or some kind of rig.

On another note...and this is just my opinion that some others share as well. The reason I have an HFS 200 is just for the types of shots where a DSLR can fall down...or where it is far easier to shoot than a DSLR. It kind of saves me from having to have all the gadgetry that goes with making a DSLR shoot like a video cam. If I want a moving shot with lots of stability...I break out the video cam and there are other places it's better as well - nice deep focus shots with complicated detail. Then the DSLR can be used for where it really shines, close ups, low light, and shallow dof beauty shots. It might save you some headaches and money in the long run to buy a mid level to high end consumer camcorder to use in conjunction with the DSLR. The Canons are great because they shoot 1080 24P AND 1080 30P just like their DSLR cousins. The picture is pretty damn good as well.

See posts above...looks like I'm not alone in not wanting to rely on a DSLR by itself. Not saying it can't be done...but there are compromises to be made or money to be spent one way or the other.
 
Last edited:
I've never shot with DSLR, but while the footage I've seen with it looks good, there's nothing about it that makes me want to sell my HDV cam at this point. I'm certainly not going to shoot with still cameras. Everything about it's a hassle, and you just don't get much control over the image or audio with them compared to a full-featured HDV pro or even semi-pro camcorder. Now something like the Panasonic AF100 is a different ballgame, but then you're talking about a ton more money by the time you invest in lenses. Nothing about the AF100 looks better to me on a typical home HD television though. I would only invest the money into something like the AF100 if I was shooting for the big screen full-time. Otherwise I just don't see the point. My HDV cam already looks terrific on HD TV. Anyhow, that's pretty much where I'm at with it. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that someday we'll all be shooting with camcorders that have DSLR type abilities when the prices and features come down to where good semi-pro HDV units currently are, but I think that's at least a couple of years off. When I can get something like the AF100 with a complete lens set (or at least one good lens in the 35mm area) for under $3500 new, then I'll consider it.
 
I agree with all of you above with such thing's as the ease of use and like primary camera. I loved having my vx and just sticking a fish on there as my second lens aside my standard vx stock lens aha. I mean the thing is, I love the HMC and really want that but right now I can afford the HDSLR and not the HMC... /:
 
I'll agree with the rest here so far. The DSLR thing is a royal pain in the rear, but...........

There's just something about the "feel" they create that is very difficult to get without spending close to 10 times as much and in reality the hassle factor there won't be much less, IMHO!

Cheers,
Pete
 
I can never go back to small chip cameras... But then, I'm a cinematographer, not a director. Maybe someone like me is just more willing to jump through extra hoops for a gain in image quality, while someone who is more of a director would rather just shoot with actors and not have to deal with the camera's quirks.
 
For me, it was price. DSLR's have a lot of issues, but for the cost to quality ratio, it was the right decision. Having my own camera has increased the amount of shooting that I do 10 fold. When the time comes, I'll upgrade. But for now, the DSLR is moving me forward. Learning about how cameras actually work (in regards to lenses, field of view, f-stops and the like) is just a bonus.
 
For the work that I've done ... I've moved from a HVX200 + Brevis set up to canon DSLR, at first I had the HVX/Brevis and the Canon 60D until this week where I finally sold off the HVX and brevis unit and purchased a Canon 5D (but keep in mind I already had many of the sound and other accessories handled)

I do low budget indie film work (both my own and I DP for other directors), events, music videos, etc etc

I'm happy with my move, and more less I decided on the line for the personal and shoe string budgeted items, the DSLR is where it's at .. but for anything higher I plan to rent the FS100 and probably I'll own an atomos by then to use with it, but wont own the actual camera

Though I'm still eager to see Canon's answer to the FS100 and panasonic AF100 be it another camcorder or the 5D mark iii .. but in the end ... it's all about you behind the camera and what you put infront of it and how you light it -- there will always be a better camera.

but that's my random 2cents.
 
Well I've done the math and for me to go HD right now and do all the things properly (like Rig, monitoring etc) it'd cost me the same If i went with a real videocamera.
So the only difference for me isnt cost but ease of use and image quality.
If you have time for a film workflow and can fiddle and coax the image out of the cams then DSLRs are great.
If you have clients who want speed and "time is money" kind of work ethic (and cant afford to miss a shot) then videocameras are good too.
This is especially true for me with the upcoming Panasonic AC160/130 with built in dual recording. No more lost footage/corupted files. Less worry rather.
Size is also a plus as believe it or not, a handheld videocamera is a smaller package than a rigged out DSLR.
Sure you could use the DSLR body as is but shakiness and lack of autofucus make it difficult.

Thats my view of things anyway...
 
pulpfiction007 said:
The way I choose to think about them goes like this - shoot them like they're like giant film cameras even though they're small
Click to expand...

that is very good advice

if you stick to that, and hop throught he hoops, these cameras can provide gorgeous footage that's only second to that from cameras costing 10 to 100 times as much (F3 to alexa)

but it's true: until you get used to all that (a point that is not reached by everybody), it is a pain in the ass
 
Personally, I love the form factor. That you can have a full frame HD cam that hangs off of your neck is still a little mind blowing to me, having come from heavy-ass film cameras.

The freedom and ability to run and gun is simply awesome. All that available glass - basically everything with an adapter - sure doesn't hurt either.

Crap sound and not enough dedicated buttons is a small price to pay for that form factor in my world. Moire & rolling shutter issues always seem to be overblown to me. When the next gen of Canons arrive, hopefully some of those performance based issues will be addressed.

But even if not, you can still buy a brand new T2 and the nifty fifty for a little over $800 - that's an insane bargain for what you get.
 
I sold off my HVX/Brevis combo and have been shooting with a 7D since they came out, and have a GH2 in the mail. I have not missed the BREVIS at all!

Sure XLR inputs were nice, but I never really needed to use that except on a few jobs where I just didn't wanna bother syncing the double system sound in post. Back when I was shooting HVX/Brevis half the time I'd be shooting on a sound recorder anyway, just to get all those damn cables off my camera.

It took the motion picture industry 100 years to free up the camera, then digital comes in and all the cables go back into it!

Pluraleyes has made double system sound syncing even easier, and it's really no different now then when I was shooting on Super 16 (except I don't have to worry about throwing sound blankets over myself to mask the camera noise now).

Sure DSLR's have their drawbacks, but so does every camera. Who cares about the 12 minute clip limit, have you ever needed more than a 12 minute take (outside of event shooting)? Working on a doc with the 7D it was never an issue just starting a new clip, even during interviews that lasted two hours.

Grab a T2i, GH2, 60D, buy some old manual lenses, a zoom h4n and you're still under the cost of buying a used HVX package. Sure you will need a mattebox, rails, follow focus, but those will work just as well with whatever the next camera is on the horizon.

You wanna shoot a handheld skate video with a fisheye lens, maybe a video camera form factor is better for you. Shooting shorts, maybe a DSLR will work for your application. Need to shoot weddings, events maybe an HVX and a 7D two camera shoot.

In the end all it's about is the right tools for the right job. Myself I don't miss having to shoulder a 22lb Brevis/HVX rig in a run and gun situation when my 10lb 7D shoulder mounted does the same exact job.
 
If you shoot alot of fisheye stuff you shouldn't be as worried about the shakes because of the extreme wide angle you will have. I have an opteka 6.5mm fisheye that I use on my t2i and you can get amazing stuff with it. It looks way better then my fisheye adapter on my canon hfs100 because it is an actual lens and not an adapter on the front. The low light is better and overall the image is way cleaner.
Also, if you are using a fisheye lens you won't be touching the focus very much, so it really is similar to using a camcorder and is one of the easiest lenses to use on a dslr.
 
I replaced my ENG camera with DSLR's since I was straying away from ENG type filming. Its really difficult to shoot ENG type work with DSLR's. If all you got is prime lenses like me, your assed out. Nothing beats the speed of a regular ENG video camera. HD DSLR is really for EFP or things that allow time for setting up a shot, changing a lens, ect. Factor in the need for dual system audio, rigs, ect, and its a real challenge to get things done fast. So far, I've been able to justify the extra work with the sudo-high quality HD DSLR aesthetic, but I eventually want a real s35 or 2/3 ENG camera that can utilize servo lenses, XLR inputs, ect.
 
Each type of camera has it's benefits. Like some others I work with both camcorders and DSLRs. I guess the ones who can pick up the DSLR and find few hassles that bother them will be those who've worked with SLR cameras pretty heavily.

I've been behind the viewfinder of different SLRs (35mm, 120, & 70mm) for 5 decades now and when Canon came out with DSLR models that would do HD video also, it was like working with an old friend. What matters to us is that we can now use them to do with video the same visual management we've always done with still photography.

But there are some projects or parts of projects where the conventional camcorder works better or easier and I'm glad I have both types.
 
Efexone said:
I replaced my ENG camera with DSLR's since I was straying away from ENG type filming. Its really difficult to shoot ENG type work with DSLR's. If all you got is prime lenses like me, your assed out. Nothing beats the speed of a regular ENG video camera. HD DSLR is really for EFP or things that allow time for setting up a shot, changing a lens, ect. Factor in the need for dual system audio, rigs, ect, and its a real challenge to get things done fast. So far, I've been able to justify the extra work with the sudo-high quality HD DSLR aesthetic, but I eventually want a real s35 or 2/3 ENG camera that can utilize servo lenses, XLR inputs, ect.
Click to expand...

Its that kind of speed that i favor over depth of field. Time is money for me lol
Mind you I would love to work with the AF100 eventually (by then it'd prob be an AF100A) and get that DOF control along with the speed of a real video camera.
Its just out of my price bracket at the moment.
 
I think on conclusion on what everyone's said, I can SAFELY say that whether it be a HDSLR or HD CAMCORDER they BOTH have there pro's and con's. When you look at it closely they both cost around the same amount of money for getting what you need, It's just that maybe you simply prefer the look of a camcorder or a dlsr. I think if your like me and have switched from shooting SD skateboard footage on a Vx1 then switching to HD is always going to be a scary thing BUT now I've thought about it a bit more... It's not to bad. I can pick up a 550d/t2i next to $100 more than a decent vx or something and shoot amazing HD skateboard footy. I mean don't get me wrong, I'm not a full on director or cinematographer but I'm very exact about how I want my footage to look.. End of the day, for me as long as I've got all my usual settings set well i.e white bal, shutter, exposure etc set right and a good Long Lens & fish eye then I'm happy because I know it will come out well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top