New to DSLR for video: questions inside

T

themagichoof

Active member
I've been using a Canon HF100 for a few years now. I didn't even know photo cameras these days were taking video. So, I went on over to YouTube and saw some video that was shot with a Canon 5d, and what I saw I could not believe :Drogar-Love(DBG):. Maybe I'm just doing something wrong with my HF100, but the 5d and other DSLR footage I've seen KILLS the HF100 as far as the film-look. How is that even possible? It really gives more of that cinematic film look that I've been trying to get for years with my HF100 and these DSLRs seem to nail it better than the Canon camcorders. This makes me want to put my HF100 on Ebay and get a DSLR.

So here's another question: I don't know too much about DSLRs and what to get that will work the best for video. I'm not much of a photographer so I need it almost strictly for video, though a photo sometimes may be nice. I shoot interview footage and green screen/chroma key footage in a studio mostly. Which DSLR should I look into that can handle those things best and give me the closest thing to a film look as possible? Or, should I actually just wait for a little bit and see if Canon releases something else soon?

I'm torn between the 60D, 7D, but I also don't rule out a lower end model like a Rebel. As long as the video looks about the same, it's got an LCD to monitor, and it has a jack for a lav mic input, I'll go with the cheapest option for video footage.
 
Last edited:
The main reason they look so much more like film is that DSLR's allow you to get very shallow depth of field, which gives those out-of-foucs backgrounds that differentiate (or used to) film from video. DSLRs have much bigger senors than camcorders like the HF100, and also take interchangeable lenses. The combination of bigger sensor and wide aperture lens is what allows you to control depth of field. There are other factors in film look, but these two are what gives DSLRs the edge.

If you're interested, this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SensorSizes.svg has a comparison of common camera sensor sizes. The HF10 has a 1/3.2" sensor, which is smaller than the smallest (1/2.5") size on that page.

The 5D has a full-frame 35mm sensor. Most DSLR's have APS-sizes; micro four thirds cameras have the four-thirds size. You can see they're all much bigger than the HF100. For all practical purposes. APS sensors are about the same size as movie film frames, so with equivalent lenses, they get equivalent depth of field. Also, still camera lenses are designed differently from camcorder lenses, and are more similar to movie film camera lenses in their approach: that also affects the look.

If you want to go this route (which, I can tell you, is massively rewarding, speaking as a someone who shot 35mm stills for years, then moved to video camcorders, and is now doing DSLR video), here's a summary of options:

1. Canon 5D: full frame 35mm sensor, *bigger* than film size on movie cameras. Produces lovely images. Disadvantages: kit is expensive (body and lenses), *very* shallow depth of field can make it hard to focus. Probably overkill for interview work, but if you love the look, don't need lots of kit, it's very good. Can be hacked to improve usability.

2. APS (Canon 7D/60D/300D(T3i is the same as the 600D): sensor size is pretty much the same as 35mm movie frame, so depth of field for equivalent lenses is effectively the same. Kit is substantially cheaper than 5d. Note that 5D lenses will work on these cameras, but APS lenses won't work on a 5D (they don't cover a big enough area of the bigger sensor). All these cameras have the same sensor, so choice is down to price (7D highest, 600D/T3i lowest) and camera features. 60D and 600D have tilt/swivel screens, like the HF100, which can be a boon for some styles of shooting. If all you ever do is fixed interview stuff, that may not be much of a factor. 60D and 600D can be hacked to improve usability; no hack for 7D yet.

There are other makes of APS video-capable DSLRs, but Canon probably are probably still leading the pack at present.

3. Micro four thirds: Sensor size is a little smaller than APS-C, but not by much, and can give very similar look. The main advantages are smaller and more portable, and generally cheaper. The killer is that, with use of very cheap adapters, pretty much any manual lens from the last 50 years can be used with these. It means you can build a kit on the cheap, but still get excellent quality. The pack leaders are the Panasonic GH1 (now discontinued, but still around the place) and GH2. The GH2 has a better sensor that the GH1 and some improvements, but the GH can be hacked easily to improve bit rates, which helps with green screen, I think.

All these cameras have drawbacks for video: no XLR audio (although they'll all take external mics via a simple jack socket; limited audio control; no headphone sockets (in other words, for pro use, you *must* record audio separately, or invest in Beachtek type gear). No Zebra stripes (60D and 600D get these with the hack). No built-in ND filters (not an issue in controlled lighting), and other camcorder goodies. Mind you, the HF100 doesn't have this stuff either, so you don't lose out.

I would look at options 2 and 3. The general consensus appears to be that, for video, the GH2 and GH1 are leading at present, but opinions are strong on both sides. If you're happy with the HF100, I think you'll be delighted with the Panasonics. If you want very high quality still imaging as well, the Canons are probably a better compromise.

Hope this helps
 
That killed all the questions I could ask about deciding, thanks :thumbsup: So, I think I'm going to go with a 60D after looking at all of this. The 60D is only a tad more than the t3i and it'll give me just a few more options in the photo department. Comparing the 60D with the GH2, the 60D looks like a slightly better deal. Let me ask some dumb questions about the 60D though:

1) Does the 60D provide true 24fps (progressive) video, or will I need to deinterlace? Also, the HF100 was 24p but within a 60i wrapper and I definitely didn't like that, so I had to apply a 24p pulldown to get it to look right. It would be great to bypass all of that now.

2) I know nothing about lenses and what they help with. For video purposes, would getting the lens kit help? It says it has an 18-135mm lens thing, and I'm going to guess that you can switch in between say 16mm and 35mm for example. Or something. I don't know, I know nothing about this :grin: But thanks a lot, that helped a lot.
 
I think the 60D gives you native 24p (I'm in 25p PAL-land, so 24p isn't my area of expertise)

Lenses are a big subject. The 18-135 gives a range equivalent to about 28mm (moderate wide-angle) to 200mm (moderate telephoto), which will cover most uses other than architectural, wide landscape, wildlife and some sports). The kit lens is OK, and if you know nothing, it's a good place to start. You could work with it, and understand your style and needs better, then get different lenses. I would advise not buying loads of lenses right now - you need some experience to make the right choices.

Other people have very strong opinions about lenses. I say get some experience before spending loads of money.
 
Hm... so should I actually skip the lens kit and get that later? When I say I know nothing about lenses, I really mean it. I mean, I don't even know what they DO :grin: If I could get away with not getting the lens kit at first I would. Not sure if I actually 'need' one to start with.
 
themagichoof said:
Hm... so should I actually skip the lens kit and get that later? When I say I know nothing about lenses, I really mean it. I mean, I don't even know what they DO :grin: If I could get away with not getting the lens kit at first I would. Not sure if I actually 'need' one to start with.
Click to expand...
Umm...yes, you do need one :). The thing won't work without it.What I meant to say was - get it with the kit, learn the ropes, then decide whether to get a different one.Hope that makes sense now
 
themagichoof said:
...Comparing the 60D with the GH2, the 60D looks like a slightly better deal...
Click to expand...

Magic - welcome to the world of DSLR filmmaking! If you want "cinematic" shallow depth of field moving images, these cameras are the most affordable way to do it.

Nick's awesome answer to your initial question covers just about everything that you'd need to know - but there are a few things that were not on his list that may surprise you as you transition from camcorder world:

- No power zoom on DSLR lenses - and no stalk for smooth video zooms
- Very few constant focus (parfocal) lenses. In other words, when you zoom in with a still lens, the focus changes. Most camcorder and video lenses maintain focus throughout the zoom range.
- Aliasing and, especially, moire - there are complex reasons for this, but most DSLRs have a hard time with complex patterns (e.g., shingled roofs and patterned fabrics). Unless you shoot around them, you'll see crawling colored lines in patterned subjects on most DSLRs (except the GH series from Panasonic - see 60D vs GH2 moire test here)
- Shot duration limits - your camcorder can record for as long as its memory or tape lasts -- DSLRs are limited to ~12 minutes (Canon) or ~20 minutes (Nikon) due to file limit sizes or overheating. Panasonics have no such limit.

I don't want to scare you away -- but I thought you should be absolutely clear on the pros and cons of the transition to "DSLR world" :smile:

Hope this is helpful,

Bill
 
Also to add to what brunerww said...another con is the OIS on the DSLRs lenses doesen't touch most camcorders. With a lot of camcorders you can move/walk and shoot and get very stable images. Not so easy with a DSLR. Also not trying to scare you away! Just something to keep in mind.
Fast lenses are important to take full advantage of the DSLR strengths. The kit lenses are much slower than your typical camcorder - which have 1.6 or 1.8 aperture lenses. The Canon DSLR kit lens is 3.5 so even though it has a big sensor it's not going to knock your socks off with low light shooting. Once you put on a faster lens you'll be amazed at the light conditions you can shoot in....and you'll get more control over shallow DOF.
 
Just to restore a little bit of comfort - all of pulpfiction's comments are accurate - but I still think you should start with the kit lens. Simply because you need to get your "feet wet" with this new format. As you'll have seen, there's a lot to learn and, if you're not clear on what the lenses are for and how they work, that's something you need to get straight before worrying about whether there's a better lens.

I love my HG10 - it's pretty much point and shoot - but it has the limitations of your HF100. I have the advantage of 25 years of still photography, and I now know all about aperture, depth of filed, image circles and all kinds of other wonderful details that become relevant when you get into the world of DSLR video.

BUT - when I started, I knew nothing, and I had to take baby steps, and I think your first priority is to master the basics. That's why I think the kit lens is OK as a starter. But the other guts are right - when you get your head round this stuff, there are many wonderful alternatives around.
 
Keep your video cameras but buy the DSLR for a different look.

DSLR's are great but if you shoot strictly video and do green screen work then I definitely would not sell your vid camera.

Sometimes stuff may look great on online but the ugly side will show up once you watch it on a real broadcast monitor or HDTV and your clients might not like some of the artifacing and problems that occur. Keep that in mind.

Have the best of both worlds.
 
A couple a facts that might help you come to grips with DSLR lenses:

1. They can be either zoom or prime (non-zoom) lenses.

2. You can tell what angle of view/zoom they have by the numbers in their name - (eg 17-50mm = a 3x zoom, 50mm = a prime)

3. SLR lenses have a 'crop factor' of 1.6 when used on an APS-C DSLR (eg 550D, 7D, 60D) compared to a full frame camera (5dmkII). This is beacuase the smaller APS-C sensor only sees a smaller part of the image projected by the lens. So a 24mm lens on a 7D has the same field of view as 38mm lens (24x1.6) on a 5dmkII. This is important to know because of the next point:

4. Camcorder lenses usually have a specified "35mm equivelant field of view." Basically, this tells you what lens you would use on a full-frame DSLR or 35mm film camera if you wanted to get the same zoom range as your camcorder. This is basically a way of comparing the zoom range of different lenses while also taking into account the sensor size of the camera, by using the 35mm field of view as the standard comparison.

5. The HF100 has a 35mm equivelenat of about 43-515mm. So, taking into account the 1.6x crop, if you get a 60D/7D/550D, you would need to cover the 27mm to 320mm range in order to have the same zoom range as your HF100.

6. SLR zoom lenses generally perfrom better if they have a shorter zoom range. You will get better quality lenses by having several short-range zooms, than by having one 'superzoom' lens. (eg you'll get better quality from a 17-50mm combined with a 70-200mm than you will get from an 18-200mm). Prime lenses (which do not zoom at all) usually give the best quality.

7. All lenses have a maximum aperture which controls how much light is let through the lens, as well as controlling the Depth of Field. It is displayed as an F-number (eg f/2.8). Lower numbers are better because they give you more DOF control and let in more light.

So, knowing these basic facts, you can see that if you get the 18-135mm lens kit with the 60D, you will have a zoom range that starts out much wider than your HF100 but doesn't zoom in as far. This is a pretty handy range to start out with, and like others have said, is good for somebody who knows nothing about DSLR lenses. You'll quickly learn whether you need more telephoto reach, a wider maximum aperture so you can shoot in lowlight, etc after a few weeks use. Then you'l be able to review these points about DSLR lenses, combine it with your own experience and figure out roughly what you need.
 
I've got a t2i and an HF S100 and they are killer as a team. It takes a little bit to get the pictures to cut together well, but those little vixias work great for the money. i can shoot shows solo, i just leave the vixia running on a static wide shot and handhold my t2i up front. works great. plus, those vixias are going for nothing on ebay these days as everybody is ditching them for dslr, might as well hold onto yours, i've found it really comes in handy with some of the dslr shortcomings.
 
If you are planning to use your DSLR for things such as interviews and don't need zoom lenses, I suggest ditching your kit lens and using the money you save to buy the super cheap but super nice Canon 50mm f/1.8 ($150). Because of the smaller aperture, you can get some nice DOF and use it in a range of shooting conditions. If you need the telephoto functions of the kit lens, keep it and learn some more before buying any more lenses.
 
or the Sigma 30mm 1.4 or if you can afford it 35mm L Canon 1.4.

50mm is a bit too tight for everything, but it is nice and cheap and for interviews it's like using a telephoto on a crop sensor.
 
nicksnow said:
I've got a t2i and an HF S100 and they are killer as a team. It takes a little bit to get the pictures to cut together well, but those little vixias work great for the money. i can shoot shows solo, i just leave the vixia running on a static wide shot and handhold my t2i up front. works great. plus, those vixias are going for nothing on ebay these days as everybody is ditching them for dslr, might as well hold onto yours, i've found it really comes in handy with some of the dslr shortcomings.
Click to expand...

Totally agree...I have an HFS 200- which takes great images esp. if you play with the gain and color/wb settings and get it just right. I've been on the 2 cam bandwagon for a while now. Telling everybody who will listen: If you can't get an FS100 or AF100....the next best thing is something like a Canon HFS (or their newer equivalent) AND a DSLR. They complement one another very well. The HFS is best at high detail shots/deep focus/tracking shots/heavy motion and the DSLR is much better for the shallow dof beauty shots/close ups and low light shooting.
 
I've got a Canon Vixia HV30 and HFM31 and take at least one of them with me whenever I'm going on a shoot in addition to my T3i. They work great for wide angle shots and getting multiple angles.
 
Thanks a lot for all of the replies, this has definitely helped me narrow lenses down. Well here's where I currently stand: I'm definitely getting a 60D. And here's where I stand with a lens:

95% of the time I left my HF100 zoomed all the way out. Set it and go! I won't need to zoom in pretty much at all. And actually, even though I always knew nothing about lenses, I remember telling myself one time, "maybe they make lenses where I can get a wider shot without having to move the camera back?" when I was using the HF100. So right now I'd want something that has either an equally wide shot or something that can capture an even wider space (compared to the HF100).

I think I understand the F/aperture/light thing. I don't know exactly what the numbers mean, but I'm guessing the lower the F/aperture number, the better the lens performs in low light, no? Shooting in low light is definitely something that I'll be doing. Not at night, but in my little recording studio where I film documentary footage - I like to keep it dim in there. I'll have some really good lighting though, but if for some reason it helps with the 'blacks' in some way, then all the better.

So right now I'm leaning toward a lens that can get me a wider shot and do well in low light. The 50mm lens as pointed out seems good, but I'm not sure if when you do the math, that the 50mm lens will get me as wide of a shot to capture more space than a stock HF100 (it seems it's worse?). If not, I may just in fact get it, even though it's a Prime lens. I admit, it would be nice to have a zoom lens, but if I can save a few hundred bucks by getting that cheap lens at first, I can always upgrade later.
 
Last edited:
And speaking of which, I've got a retarded question: if I do get a prime lens, can I control the DOF? Let me explain. I'll just call the DOF thing 'blurriness'. I'm not sure if you can actually control that or not. Is there a 'control the blurriness of the background' knob/switch? Like, say I'm shooting some footage and I want the background to be blurry - focusing in on the subject. Can I somehow adjust something where I can go from the blurry background to a sharper one, where everything in the shot is crisp and clear - subject included? Or can I only do that with a zoom lens, or something?

In a year or two I'm going to read this thread and laugh at myself :grin:
 
Before you purchase I would strongly recommend getting down to your local camera shop and get your hands on a 60D and some different lenses. You need to see what they really do, how they operate, and get an idea for your comfort level. Seeing as you have minimal experience with SLRs, I wouldn't just go on the recommendations of an internet message board (no matter how helpful they may be). SLRs are capable of some great video, but using them is just not as simple as picking up and shooting with a dedicated video camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top