URGENT! Filmaking - Investing up to 5 000$ - Need help - Buying Prosumer Camcorder

[benjaminstgermain]

(I hope this is the right place to post this)

Hi I’m new here and great forum by the way; I’m here straight out because I’m investing into filmmaking equipment – more specifically – a Camcorder. I’m not new to filmmaking (amateur for the moment) but I sure am very new to purchasing a quality “semi-professional” (or prosumer) camcorder. I’m looking particularly for those that can record at 24fps to have that “movie look”. 1080p Full HD of course and all the fun features a prosumer camcorder should have. Overall; the best & affordable for overall types of shooting.


I’ve been researching a lot in forums/youtube and I’ve come up with a range of camcorders, even digital SLR cameras such as the Canon 5dMK2 and 7d; for its price, great for pictures and also record stunning 24fps videos.


As far as camcorders, I’ve also read a lot on cheap 24fps camcorders such as the Panasonic AG-DVX100A, AG-HVX200 but were not really convincing for me reading the reviews; I’m worried about the quality and performance of these cameras; and since they aren’t that expensive, there has to be a ‘catch’ somewhere if you know what I mean.


I know there are plenty different cameras out there for people with different needs; and I don’t know where to start! I heard Sony’s EX1 or EX3 were actually great but I can’t make a decisive choice just yet. I need guidance or suggestions, any help is much appreciated.


Note: I’m ready to invest up to 5000$ CAD *crosses fingers*

 

[recordingwhiz]

First thing you need to do is define YOUR needs better than just a budget.

What filming style are you wanting to emulate?
what type of shooting do you intend to make a priority? because not all cameras are good for everything.
are you making sport documentaries or romantic movies? weddings? football games? claymation? in a cave? from an airplane? on a boat? in your living room? in the snow? underwater?
it will be easier for people to recommend something when there is a lot more specific information.

If you're looking for the "Film like look" 24p is only a small part of the equation BTW. and the DSLRs will probably allow you to achieve that easier, but you'll have to get separate audio rig (well you should anyways regardless of cam choice but with DSLRs its pretty much mandatory) and they arent too well suited for run and gun ENG style stuff unless you outfit them properly.

If you want to run and gun then there are cameras better suited for such things.

Try to outline what your wants and needs are then make a list of what is important to you, then it will be alot easier to help out.

 

[Snapper123]

At the end of the day, you have to make sure that you don't rely a bit on the camera to make your film look good - it won't do that one bit, and even a camera like the Red will make real life look worse - but the principle is finding a camera that is in theory compatible with the purpose. Most filmmakers, even budget filmmakers, will probably want to show their films at least with a minimal distribution in indie cinemas, which means it's important to have a resolution that, no matter how good or bad your film is, can at least be stretched to cinema screen proportions. The sad thing is that you won't find a camera that can really do that perfectly for under $20,000, but the resolution of 1080P is really the closest that anyone is getting to that. Which means, from all around, cameras like the Canon DSLR series, the $1,000 range pro-sumer camcorders, and the $4,000 range pro-sumer newscast-type cameras are all what people are using.

The negatives that you have to look for in that small range of choices though, are things like progressive frames vs. interlaces frames, the amount of depth of field, the available in-camera settings, and how great the codec is.

For the DSLR market, Canon is currently about the only brand that has it's DSLR cameras fully in order from all directions. Nikon rarely has manual controls, Panasonic has interlaced frames, Sony has something wrong I forgot what, and Olympus only does 720P resolution. Some people are choosing the Panasonic G series ONLY if they intend to hack the camera with the instructions on this forum, but for those who aren't computer savy, I truly wouldn't suggest that. So yeah, Canon DSLR's are usually the way to go.

But another option to consider is that the Canon DSLR's have insanely thin focus planes no matter what aperture properties you think you've learned in photography. Unless you're doing very specific work on set or with immobile faces (interviews), these cameras are not well used in casual situations (for many other reasons as well), and a pro-sumer camcorder from Panasonic (these do have progressive frames) is not something to rule out. If you screw an ND filter on the front, they will achieve depth of field to a good extent and the properties of these cameras allow for much more casual work and they also do indeed pick up quite a bit more detail than DSLR's, also without aliasing, moire issues, and rolling shutter, and they also have great built-in lenses with zooming features. The negative is that I'm not sure that the lenses have any sure way to keep up with what focal length you're using when you zoom, but as long as you have an eye for what's right, this shouldn't matter.

The last option is the shoulder-type cameras on up in the $4,000 range. Now, to be honest, these have been the trusted source for years, but I don't have any experience with them, and with them both lacking depth of field, having what seems to be only minimal quality differences from a pro-sumer camcorder, and being very large with confusing controls, I'm not sure I'd consider them in the budget filmmaking department. If I had to spend $4,000 on a camera, the honest truth is that I would put that money toward either having multiple cheaper cameras, or learning a bit about the Red and renting that from a local rental house. Again, the thing that you have to remember is that these cameras won't make your footage look better, they'll only make it look 10x worse than what your eye is seeing in real life, so you at least have to get a camera that is both the best for the purpose, and you simply have to make sure that you're well taught in the filmmaking department on how to achieve certain looks. Good luck!

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Like others have said, what are your goals in 'filmmaking'... interviews/corporate videos, then I'd suggest the Panasonic AF-100, which from the various pricing places, is in your budget. If you are more towards the narrative film making, where setup/breakdowns are not 'as quick as you can', then I'd recommend looking at the 7D, the T2i, or from Panasonic the Lumix GH-2 (I have the GH-1 but the GH-2 is the new and improved model.). With any of the DSLRs you will have to do a dual system setup for sound. So, since you saved about 2K on the DSLR... you can buy a couple of mics and a reasonable recorder to fill out your filmmaking kit.

As a note the DVX-100 venerable as it maybe, and I have one, is a Standard Definition camera, and so, given the HD direction of most people these days, an HD camera would be preferred.

For me one of the attracive features of the DSLRs, at least for the Canons and the Lumix, one can buy adapters and put different lenses on them. With many of the 'camcorder' cameras, even expensive ones, the lens is fixed. The 'benefit' of the interchangeable lenses is the control/choice one has. I've been shooting stills for ages, so I do have a set of Nikon lenses that I can use for different situations. As it is, I've pretty much only used the 'kit' lens with the GH-1, as it seems to be pretty sharp, has a 14 to 140mm zoom, and the only detraction seems to be it's maximum aperture is f-4, (which is pretty slow...).

As for 'movie' look. Read some of the stickies about 'cinematic/film' look... there is a lot more to 'movie look' than just frame rate and resolution. (in fact many 'film' effects are because they run the frame rate up or down as needed for the shot and mood of the film...) For me 'film look', for image technical issues, has to do in descending order... composition, lighting, set design, lens choice, color grading, frame rate( here anything 'progressive' is preferred to anything 'interlaced').

There may be a more subjective evaluation... 'control'... if the shot looks like the filmmaker was 'in control' of the environment, camera, talent... it looks 'filmic'... at least compared to something that is shot, with those attributes lacking.

So, for example, a news cameraman dashing down the street to capture an event... for a filmmaker to 'simulate that'... means they have to control the situation so the resulting shot 'reads like it was shot
by the news cameraman'... all the while controlling everything... so if there's 'shaky cam'... it's controlled shaky cam...

If one is using talent that has little or no film experience, dealing with 'bobble head' action while lines are delivered, hitting marks if motion is in the shot, even moving the head during an extreme close up with extreme shallow depth of field, all add up to 'film look'.

 

[zaarc]

All of these guys are right, of course, as far as defining your intended applications, but since you seem to be mostly interested in a prosumer camcorder, i would suggest you look deeply into teh HMC150. the actual camera would use up a little over half your budget (not sure how a canadian dollar stacks up to the american one these days) which will leave you lots of flexibility for further outfitting your rig for your specific needs.