Need help choosing a documentary/soccer/wildlife system

A

AlexNOR

Active member
Hi guys

I first asked this question in the Canon sub forum. I got many views but less then a handful of replies. So I thought I'll give it a go here and I hope the sort of duplicated thread is not too much minded.

Like the topic describes I need some help choosing a camera system to invest in. I will be using this for quite a few things, but mainly documentary, nature, wildlife, automotive and most likely football (soccer) in the spring. In many cases I will be working independently of others in a sort of one man band style. I come from a photography background, and I have a lot of knowledge when it comes to Canon DSLR's. However I know less about the other systems out there, and almost nothing about traditional style camcorders.

Budget is around $4000.00 - 7000.00, but may change. I also don't have to spend it all. Below is a list of the features that I would like to have, in no particular order.

- Minumum 1080p50 (or gorgeous 720p50) or higher frame rates for slow motion.
- World camera (PAL & NTSC), but not a necessity.
- Built in ND filters, or other easy to use ND solution.
- Zebra / Peaking.
- Image stabilization for handheld work.
- Rings for manual control of focus, zoom and aperture.
- Best dynamic range and image possible (this is all relative).
- Some sort of wide dynamic range profile, or the ability to create one.
- Decent low-light abilities (also relative).
- XLR inputs (or the ability to add them).
- Manual audio control.
- 1/2, 2/3 or larger sensor (M43 / Super35)
- Some sort of time-lapse function.

I know there is no one pony that does all the tricks, and it's all about compromise. I'm hoping with your help that I can get a better understanding of the pros and cons of all the solutions that exist, so I can make a more educated decision prior to my purchase.

I've been looking at everything from the EX1R and PXW-X200 to the GH4 and C100. Even though I am leaning towards choosing a camcorder style camera, I really love the image one can get out something with a larger sensor.

Inputs, tips, advice, recommendations - anything is welcome and very much appreciated.


- Alex
 
hvx200, and Hpx250 are both good camera's that fit all the requirements. The three camera's you listed ex1, gh4, and c100 will do better in low light.
 
See if you can find a used EX3 priced to fit wihtin your budget. It meets all the requirements you have listed -- plus many more important benefits.
The viewfinder alone makes it superior to any other camera on your list. Plus you can change lenses when needed, for example, using a long SLR telephoto lens for wildlife. And it is a joy for handheld shooting compared to the other cameras. I guarantee you would be pleased with an EX3. If you have to increase your budget, do it!

http://www.vortexmedia.com/DVD_EX3.html

.
 
Thanks you both for your replies.

crpa1201, thank you for bringing up the Panasonic's. The HVX200 and HPX250 are not immediately tempting to me (for some reason I put Panasonic kind of on the sideline, don't know why), but because of your suggestion I started looking into the PX270, which is looking quite nice and seems to be a big upgrade from the HPX250.

---

Doug, thank you for your input. I've actually seen your video Nature footage shot with the Canon XF305, which got me really excited about that camera. I've also found some very impressive videos shot with the EX1R, which got me excited about that one. The EX3 I haven't seen much from, and after doing a quick search I couldn't find anything immediately that impressed me the same way it did for the XF305 and EX1R. I guess I'll have to keep searching about and have a better look.

Is the EX3 really such a better choice then the EX1R? I have never touched either camera, and I probably will not have the chance to do so before purchasing. The EX3 seems a little strange to me, it's not a proper shoulder cam, and at the same time it looks too big for a small handheld camera. In my mind it seems the EX1R would be a lot easier to run around with whenever I'm not on a tripod (maybe 50% of the time). But then again, I have never touched either camera so I can only speculate. I think I could very well find a used EX3 and fit it into my budget, but I'm not convinced yet it's the right camera for me.

---

I had pretty much eliminated everything that is not a traditional camcorder style with a power zoom. However since the C100 Mark II was announced today I am very tempted by that. It adds 50/60p, and an improved viewfinder and LCD. In other words; they corrected everything that was putting me off the C100 in the first place. Cons is I have to give up the power zoom, and it will blow my budget after I purchase lenses for it. It is also not available until late December / Januar next year.
 
Alex,

The EX1, EX1R, EX3, PMW-200, and PMW-300 are essentially all slightly different variations of the same camera. The same guts inside. So if you see footage you like from one of those, you can make the assumption that ANY of them could have shot the exact same thing (assuming the stock lens was used). The EX3 and PMW-300 are great cameras to shoot with, but words can't do it justice. You'd have to test drive them for yourself to appreciate the ergonomics and the excellent viewfinder. In my opinion they are very much worth the extra cost compared to the XF300/305 or EX1. If you're not on a tripod 50% of the time, that is ALL THE MORE REASON to look at the EX3.

Here's a couple of ungraded videos shot with my EX1 and EX3.

https://vimeo.com/5640202
https://vimeo.com/5425091

BTW, if you decide you want to go with an EX1 I have just recently decided to sell mine to make room for an FS7. But if I was you, I'd be looking at an EX3. :-)
 
Doug, thanks again for your input. It's highly appreciated.

The footage in your links look very good. If it's like you say that the quality is pretty much the same between the models, then I have nothing to worry about with either choice. I understand your point in regards to ergonomics, it's no way to judge it from a picture on the internet. You make a strong case for the EX3, so I will take your word for it and bring it along to the top of my list. I'm not in any real rush to make the purchase, so I have a little bit of time to look for a decent offer.

One other thing I would like to ask you about if you don't mind. How do you like quality from the 720p50/60 mode on the EX1R and EX3 when scaled up to 1080p? I will be using 720p50 quite a lot, all the time for soccer and quite a lot for wildlife. For this reason I am also considering a newer camera model that offers 1080p50 instead of 720p50.

I'm probably going to hold of purchasing for a little while, and try get an EX3 over the EX1. But out of curiosity, is it the original EX1 you are selling or the EX1R? My interest is in the latter.
 
I don't have an opinion onhow the 720P upscales to 1080 because it is not something I would ever do. 720P isn't even high definition as far as I'm concerned. If I was going to shoot something that required slow-mo on the EX1, EX3, etc. I would keep the whole project based in 720P and not upscale it at all.

The camera I'm selling is an original EX1. I had an EX1R but sold it a couple of years ago and kept the EX1. Like I said, they are all the same camera inside and I was able to get more money for the EX1R so I kept the EX1. Now I don't need it anymore either.
 
Thank you for your advice, Doug. I really appreciate the help.

I'll have to dig around a bit more to see if what the EX1/EX3 delivers at 720p for 50/60 fps is enough for me, or if I should step up to a 1080p50/60 cam.

Thanks again!
 
The new C100 mk II ticks every one of your boxes. Including the price. but of course you will need to work with interchangeable lenses, Canon makes great ones. I would choose as a kit, the 100-400mm L for sport/wildlife. The cheap 10-18mm for ultra wide angle, and a 50mm 1.8 for lowlight/shallow depth of field. And perhaps if you need a general walkaround lens the 18-135mm. These would be a very good kit including image stabilization and even accurate autofocus.
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
The new C100 mk II ticks every one of your boxes. Including the price. but of course you will need to work with interchangeable lenses, Canon makes great ones. I would choose as a kit, the 100-400mm L for sport/wildlife. The cheap 10-18mm for ultra wide angle, and a 50mm 1.8 for lowlight/shallow depth of field. And perhaps if you need a general walkaround lens the 18-135mm. These would be a very good kit including image stabilization and even accurate autofocus.
Click to expand...

Thanks Ebrahim

I have been thinking about the C100 MKII since it was announced. With the 24-105 (or the newer 24-70 F4 with amazing IS and half-ish macro ability) as a general walkaround lens and the new sigma 150-600 for wildlife I have two lenses to cover all my needs. The 50 1.8 I can to I have used the Canon system for years for photography, so I am familiar with that.

But going with this option I will probably blow my budget. And I also loose the power zoom, but I don't really know of how big concern that is.

Good thing I have some time to make my decision.
 
A c100 mk II seems like the perfect camera for you, I think it's worth the little wait. A c100 mk II body + a sigma 150-600 + an 18-135mm IS STM + a 50mm 1.8 would all be under 6500-7000 USD. I prefer the 18-135mm for s35 as it covers the wide angle end, has more reach and generally has the same optical quality as the 24-105mm, you just loose a bit of build quality and f/5 on the longer end vs 4. These should cover everything from wide landscapes, to people/lowlight shots (50mm) to extreme telephoto.
 
Thanks again, Ebrahim.

I'm not in a rush, so the wait is not an issue. But the price for the C100 Mark II in Norway is equal to about $7250.00, which is a bit much for my budget. I may be able to stretch it, don't know yet. Also need to add the price of glass on top. So we'll see.

I really dislike variable aperture lenses (I've been photographing for years, and I've always felt this way). But you seem to really like the 18-135 so I may take a closer look at it if I go for the C100 MkII. Very tempted to go with the new 24-70 F4, as it has a very good image stabilization system and a sort of macro mode as well.

But I'm also still tempted to go the route of a traditional camcorder. Have to make my decision some time.
 
7250 US dollars? Ouch!

Can't you import from the US or europe countries? That's full 2000$ more than the normal price. 2000 would nearly cover the lenses budget alone.

Regarding lenses, I suggest the 18-135mm vs. the 24-105mm because while it has a fixed aperture on paper, it darkens significantly on the long end when shooting video, so it's not really a true fixed aperture lens. This behaviour appears to occur on many lenses because they have to adjust the actual iris opening when zooming in to keep a constant aperture, this can result in flickr, darkening of the image when zooming in whilst recording. It's not much of a problem for photography though. The thing with the 24-somethingmm lenses is that that focal length is designed for full frame photography format, so when using them on an APS-C/S35 sensos, you lose too much on the wide end, and the lens effectively starts from 35mm equivalent. Not very wide and not very useful for a general walkaround lens. To get a general lens for s35 it would have to be 18-somethingmm that way you get both wide angle, normal and telephoto, not just normal and telephoto.

If you have your mind set on only constant aperture lenses (which I find not very important as one never zooms during a take but everyone is different) then you can look at something like the 17-55mm f/2.8. Another option if you're not using the 24-70/105 as a one general purpose lens is to get that and add a ultra wide angle, 10-18mm, but of course that gets away from the whole general purpose concept and is more like ultra wide angle + a telephoto lenses.

There is no s35 suitable constant aperture general lens unfortunately apart from the 17-55 which is too short to be a general lens. I wish they made a 18-135/200 F/4 fixed iris.

I think an 10-18mm + an 18-135mm + a 50mm f/1.8 cover everything one needs for very little money. And of course you need that 150-600mm for sports. That would be the ideal set up in my opinion.
 
Your range of interests is close to mine i.e. (documentary, nature, wildlife, automotive (corporate ads or racing?), soccer).

Based on a posting at HDWarrior, I would go with the new Sony PXW-FS7

http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/page/2/

The big deal with this unit is it apparently works on tripod, handheld and shoulder modes, unfortunately it's a bit pricey.

I have a Panasonic AG-AC 160A but mounting this on a "Gliders Grey" makes the kit very awkward - a huge problem for me some of the time. No issues with handheld, tripod mode.

The zoom on the 160 is great (600+ mm equiv) but the auto-focus hunts too much.

Otherwise I am happy but if I could afford the F7 I would switch tomorrow.

If you can align yourself with the F7, perhaps you could see which cams have most of the features at a somewhat more affordable price.

Each time I try this, I end up getting rid of features I know I would seriously miss.

You range of interests pretty much forces you to get somethng very flexible or go with two cams.
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
7250 US dollars? Ouch!

Can't you import from the US or europe countries? That's full 2000$ more than the normal price. 2000 would nearly cover the lenses budget alone.

Regarding lenses, I suggest the 18-135mm vs. the 24-105mm because while it has a fixed aperture on paper, it darkens significantly on the long end when shooting video, so it's not really a true fixed aperture lens. This behaviour appears to occur on many lenses because they have to adjust the actual iris opening when zooming in to keep a constant aperture, this can result in flickr, darkening of the image when zooming in whilst recording. It's not much of a problem for photography though. The thing with the 24-somethingmm lenses is that that focal length is designed for full frame photography format, so when using them on an APS-C/S35 sensos, you lose too much on the wide end, and the lens effectively starts from 35mm equivalent. Not very wide and not very useful for a general walkaround lens. To get a general lens for s35 it would have to be 18-somethingmm that way you get both wide angle, normal and telephoto, not just normal and telephoto.

If you have your mind set on only constant aperture lenses (which I find not very important as one never zooms during a take but everyone is different) then you can look at something like the 17-55mm f/2.8. Another option if you're not using the 24-70/105 as a one general purpose lens is to get that and add a ultra wide angle, 10-18mm, but of course that gets away from the whole general purpose concept and is more like ultra wide angle + a telephoto lenses.

There is no s35 suitable constant aperture general lens unfortunately apart from the 17-55 which is too short to be a general lens. I wish they made a 18-135/200 F/4 fixed iris.

I think an 10-18mm + an 18-135mm + a 50mm f/1.8 cover everything one needs for very little money. And of course you need that 150-600mm for sports. That would be the ideal set up in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Hehe, yep! It stings a bit. I could import from the US or HK (about the same prices) but I would have to pay 25% import tax, so it ends up very close to the price I have to pay here anyway.

I have shot on every sensor size Canon offers in their DSLR range, so I do have a pretty good idea regarding the focal lenghts (at least I think I have). So in my mind the wide end of the 24-105 or 24-70 would equal to roughly 35mm on full frame (which is sort of normal-wide to me), and the longer ends would be 157mm or 105mm. For landscape 35mm is not wide enough, but for everything else I believe it is. If I were to get the 10-18 as well for those ultra wide shots, I could get away with the 24-105 just fine I think. However I will take you up on the 18-135 and check it out before I make a purchase if I go with the C100.

How is the focus ring on the 18-135 STM lens, is it very plasticy like the cheaper Canon EF-S lenses? I tested the 18-200 once and it was horrible. One of the other reasons I'm skeptical is general build quality and feel of the focus ring.

I may also consider the 100-400 lens for sports. Because of the push-pull zoom design I imagine it is possible to do zooms and refocus with one hand while recording (with practice). Not sure how smooth it is possible to get it though.


kwkeirstead said:
Your range of interests is close to mine i.e. (documentary, nature, wildlife, automotive (corporate ads or racing?), soccer).

Based on a posting at HDWarrior, I would go with the new Sony PXW-FS7

http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/page/2/

The big deal with this unit is it apparently works on tripod, handheld and shoulder modes, unfortunately it's a bit pricey.

I have a Panasonic AG-AC 160A but mounting this on a "Gliders Grey" makes the kit very awkward - a huge problem for me some of the time. No issues with handheld, tripod mode.

The zoom on the 160 is great (600+ mm equiv) but the auto-focus hunts too much.

Otherwise I am happy but if I could afford the F7 I would switch tomorrow.

If you can align yourself with the F7, perhaps you could see which cams have most of the features at a somewhat more affordable price.

Each time I try this, I end up getting rid of features I know I would seriously miss.

You range of interests pretty much forces you to get somethng very flexible or go with two cams.
Click to expand...

Automotive is mostly racing/off-roading.

I would love to get the FS-7. Feature wise it is a bargain, but to me the C100 is a bit over the top already. Imported the FS7 for me cost $10.000, if purchased here it's closer to 11.500 (body only mind you). I'm beat down already before adding the cost of XQD cards and lenses.

Have been looking into the Panasonic PX270 and other similar cameras, but the smaller sensors and lower dynamic range is putting me a bit off.

I get where you are coming from, if I were to start with the FS7 and take out features so it would match more affordable cameras, I would end up getting rid of quite a lot of what made me want to look at the FS7 in the first place.

I'm starting to think that the C100 Mk II would be my best bet as long as I can't budge towards the FS7. I have some decision making to do. Good thing I'm not in a rush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top