SLR camera and HD?

ramkuma

ramkuma

Well-known member
A friend of mine has been shooting HD video with a Canon HD SLR camera and a telephoto lens. The cost for the camera, lens, and audio equipment is the same as the HMC-150. He has been getting spectaculor results (see video below). He said the only draw backs is tha you can shoot only 13 minutes at one time before having to re-set the camera, and you need software to match up the audio with video in post. But the depth of field you can achieve seems worth these concessions. Thoughts?

http://www.youtube.com/user/brightonwest?blend=10&ob=5
 
Thoughts are going to depend on what YOU shoot. I have both and use both frequently. For about half my shoots a DSLR would not work... need long record times, timecode, pro audio, zebras, servo-zoom, remote s/s focus and zoom, ND filters, better ergonomics, rotating LCD, etc.

If you are shooting cinema style with controlled situations and have other equipment to make up for its shortcomings a DSLR would be my choice.
 
Pretty interview, but the sound is terrible. Why interview someone with inferior sound? I'd trade the DOF for a decent audio track any day. Awful pretty though.
 
This has been discussed to death around here, try a search... you'll find (in the mac vs. PC sort of moods this can cause) different strokes for different folks. Shooting events, run & gun, need pro quality audio already synched to your footage? Don't want to mess with a field recorder? Get a (fill in the video-camera from factor model with XLR ins here). Like the DSLR look and can live with the audio and clip length shortcomings (and the moire, and the more film-camera style shooting)? Get a DSLR (which, IMHO opinion, aren't really run & gun setups no matter how badass your "cage" or your "rig" are). (And I feel my DSLR "rig" is pretty badass, not knocking rig-pride...)

They're both great for different reasons. I use both and have zero preference personally or emotionally. Choose the right tool for the look and the project. Don't get caught up in an argument/flame war over it (or the Canon versus GH-whatever fight). Get both eventually, get the one that fills most of your needs first.

I'll add that with Canon DSLRs you can do a lot of work with older Nikon manual glass, an adapter and screw-on ND; the cost-of-entry to shoot with T2i can be well under half the cost of a 150 and give you results that are very hard to distinguish from a 5D with modern, top-line glass. No reason to choose video cam over DSLR long-term. And the 150 makes a very useful audio recorder with a DSLR, with visual synch reference added at no charge.

EDIT: Supporting the above claim: a T2i can be found for $600-750; even the nicer Fotodiox Nikkor adapter is 70 bucks or so; an AF-era Nikon 35-70 2.8 is about as good as glass gets, I bought one for under $300 recently; add something like an 18-35 AF-ED for the wide end (an F3.5-4 zoom but very very good, around $350) or a 20mm 2.8 AI lens (shop around). You really don't need anything faster than 2.8 IMO, if you do, get a 50mm. And for wide shots, you'll find you're usually working at F4 - 5.6. You can get a lot done with just the body and the 28-70, but you'll be limited at the wide end.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top