Which 'cheap' camera would you buy to teach students video/photography?

M

Mavoz

Well-known member
Hi,
Our growing school is beginning a journey teaching our Senior students (age 13-17) Film Production and Photography.

I need to find a good 'budget' camera model as we'd like to buy several cameras....Functionality and cost efficiency is far more important to us than the 'latest' quality...720p would be enough res.

I would like to teach students the 'basics' so need a camera that lets us:

* Use interchangeable lenses for bokeh 'depth of field' effects, wide angle, macro etc. (I'm thinking Canon or Nikon mount ....so we can even buy a range of second hand lenses etc.)
* Use a microphone input and headphone socket with external mics to capture better sound.
* Edit friendly footage

My thinking is to buy a camera model we can use for both Video and Photography.

Does anyone have any thoughts on a good 'value for money' camera model that would tick these boxes?

(I'd even wondered whether we should consider a second hand model...something like my older Canon 60D...just shoot at 720p)

Thanks for any advice!

Matt
 
FOR FILM:

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera with a Speedbooter shooting in ProRes.

ALL other cameras have a GAZILLION settings and picture profiles and this and that and ALL this confusing headache that really has nothing to do whatsoever with the fundamentals of photography - exposure, Depth of field, Iris, F-Stop, Shutter speed, shutter angle, ISO/Gain.
All those millions of other settings are guaranteed to totally take over the conversation and distract from everything else, and most of that stuff will be gone after a while anyway as technology gets cheaper and RAW takes over.

ProRes LT is about as easy to edit as anything in the world too.

Now the Speedbooster can be confusing - but I would have it permanently in place and just call it the "lens adapter" and try to ignore it.
It will be necessary to teach depth of field.
Without it the small sensor simply won't easily give shallow depth of field. But with it you have the same as APS-C or Nikon's "DX" format.

External mic input - Yes.
Headphone output - Yes.

FOR PHOTOGRAPHY:

Canon.
They just look better, the interface is simpler, and the lens selection is massive.
Even very affordable Canons shoot spectacular stills.

Pick your price range.
 
Last edited:
I would look at the Nikon D5200 or D5300 which produces a nice video image, that has close to no moire ( unlike the Canon equivalent cameras ), and you can monitor audio via an external HDMI monitor. I've seen used D5200 bodies selling for as little as $250 US. Both are very good still photo cameras too.
 
Since you're stressing budgetary considerations going for the Canon 60D used might be the way to go. They're affordable and used lenses are widely available cheaply. They seem to be pretty durable too which is important given who you're intending to turn loose on them.
 
I was also going to say Nikon D5200 (or D5300 or D5500), but it has no headphone jack. Like the 60D or the G7, by the way. And the a5100/a6000 doesn't even have mic input.
 
Samuel H said:
I was also going to say Nikon D5200 (or D5300 or D5500), but it has no headphone jack.
Click to expand...

But it does output the camera audio signal via it's HDMI output, so if your monitor has a headphone jack you are good to go. ( I discovered this by accident when setting up my sister's D5200 for her, I am pretty sure that all of the more advanced Nikon models have the same feature. )
 
Agree with ED299. Canon 60D is a very well-designed camera to learn on if you need something simple and lots of flexible lens options. If you want to go hardcore on teaching a proper end to end workflow the Black Magic Pocket Cinema would give you a lot to work with.
 
Thanks for all the replies and ideas. Much appreciated!

Another option I've thought of is the 70D...has good autofocus apparently...quite cheap now...but doesn't have a headphone jack.

Maybe I need to buy a couple of different models...one slightly higher end option that has proper mic inputs and headphones..preferably xlr inputs...(not sure what though)

And then a bunch of 60D or 70d's.

We just need to keep things as simple as possible....prefer to avoid dual audio syncing etc....but is such a shame a reasonable mic and headphone socket can't seem to be found on the cheaper cams....
 
If you're buying two models, then using the same lenses on both would be a plus. One option would be a D5200 for stills (and maybe also for video with no audio), and a blackmagic with speedbooster for video with audio.
 
Mavoz said:
And then a bunch of 60D or 70d's
Click to expand...

Both of these cameras can have moire issues depending on your subject, and the 60D has pretty noisy audio. I have heard that the Magic-Lantern hack can fix the audio noise, but I can't confirm as I sold my 60D before the ML hack was available for it.
 
How about older Sony nex cameras (5, 6, 7)? They go for peanuts nowadays, super35 like sensor and you can adapt any glass you want (and couple it with manual aperture adapter).
 
13-17? The finger problem is the least of your worries. I think you are over thinking. Cheap handicams will be much more reliable, and fit the requirements of the major exam bodies and providers. 13 year olds (and the 17 year olds too) have no need for bokeh - getting shots that are wobble free and in focus are far more challenging topics. There could be in perhaps the 16+ age group a small number of students who understand composition, narrative and the science - but they'll be few and far between. It's actually quite common here to give students cameras with hardly any controls at all. Encouraging them to plan and prepare, and then almost edit in the camera comes first. DSLRs are enthusiasts tools - far better to learn basics on real camcorders. DSLRs encourage weak foundations, and of course DSLR is not the be all and end all - as in the BM recommendation for serious camerawork. If you read national qualification specs for media studies and film studies, the camera is not that important at all. Serious sophistication is simply not needed - apart from, of course, where the school or college have a keen technician or teacher, who like the idea of being able to use the clever kit themselves. 13-16 really needs to be one button push and shoot for the majority of the kids. My experience with school kids of this age is that remembering to push record can be a challenge - loads end up in week two in the edit suite with nothing usable to even edit. For Higher level study clever cameras come into their own, but they MUST learn the basics first - as in zoom to wide angle, then if you need them bigger in the frame, get closer - else you get the dreaded trombone video with built in shaky cam.

Catching a 13 year old trying to use the lens to set fire to bits of paper in the sun, and poking the mirror with a chocolate covered finger to see it go up and down is as scary as hell, and everyday activity. Ever watched a 16 year old drop a shotgun mic into a pond because they got a tired arm and it slipped? I have!
 
I know this isn't photography-specific, but... when I take some friend's kid aside for an hour because dad said he wanted to learn about video, I start with explaining exposure, and the 3 main factors (shutter speed, f-stop, and media sensitivity, formerly "film speed").

I've found if you really want them to quickly grasp that, find an old film camera with removable lens. Open the back, set the lens wide open, and show them what shutter speed actually is. Show them a half second and a 30th and so on. Hold up the lens and show them what the aperture does. I've found people can grasp that instantly when they really see the shutter open and close (even if they'll shoot video without a mechanical shutter).

The other trick that really explains something visually is shooting stills with a DSLR to show subject motion blur. Shutter speed, f-stop, DOF and motion blur can be understood in about 2 minutes if you do it that way.

Now back to supporting your favorite cheap camera (I'd say if you wanna go really really cheap, grab some used T2i's and some aperture-ring Nikon mount 50's from eBay, and cheap adapters. That was my son's first video rig and I think I spent $250 or so.) (He's now graduated from film school and doing animation for adult swim... but he still has that setup).
 
I've had a 70D for over a year and like its AF a lot. As you've noted the downside is no headphone jack. It does show audio input levels. Back to the AF - for tracking moving subjects and face recognition it works great. Also, being able to touch the subject you want in focus on the screen is really handy (like a group of people when you're shooting with shallow depth of field).
 
paulears said:
13-17? The finger problem is the least of your worries. I think you are over thinking. Cheap handicams will be much more reliable, and fit the requirements of the major exam bodies and providers. 13 year olds (and the 17 year olds too) have no need for bokeh - getting shots that are wobble free and in focus are far more challenging topics. There could be in perhaps the 16+ age group a small number of students who understand composition, narrative and the science - but they'll be few and far between. It's actually quite common here to give students cameras with hardly any controls at all. Encouraging them to plan and prepare, and then almost edit in the camera comes first. DSLRs are enthusiasts tools - far better to learn basics on real camcorders. DSLRs encourage weak foundations, and of course DSLR is not the be all and end all - as in the BM recommendation for serious camerawork. If you read national qualification specs for media studies and film studies, the camera is not that important at all. Serious sophistication is simply not needed - apart from, of course, where the school or college have a keen technician or teacher, who like the idea of being able to use the clever kit themselves. 13-16 really needs to be one button push and shoot for the majority of the kids. My experience with school kids of this age is that remembering to push record can be a challenge - loads end up in week two in the edit suite with nothing usable to even edit. For Higher level study clever cameras come into their own, but they MUST learn the basics first - as in zoom to wide angle, then if you need them bigger in the frame, get closer - else you get the dreaded trombone video with built in shaky cam.

Catching a 13 year old trying to use the lens to set fire to bits of paper in the sun, and poking the mirror with a chocolate covered finger to see it go up and down is as scary as hell, and everyday activity. Ever watched a 16 year old drop a shotgun mic into a pond because they got a tired arm and it slipped? I have!
Click to expand...

This is the stuff I was trying not to have to say because it is discouraging, but every bit is so very true. Wish it were different, but it certainly isn't. A cell phone with some way to attach it to a tripod and maybe some magnetic lenses to go with it sounds like a much better deal. We are trying to develop just such a course for non-majors. Framing and composition, looking for distracting elements in the background, holding the camera in the horizontal... and on and on. One of our people is starting to toy with this with his kids (4yr and 5yr) with little 7 inch android tablets starting with some basic stop motion sequences (like lego animation) because it is fun. Have to see what happens in another couple of years with his kids.
 
Hi There, I also run a film/television program in a middle high school. I've found it best to teach on dslr's, good in low light, small, cheap, it's a great tool to utilize for the basic fundamentals of filmmaking. I don't want my students using anything auto. I like to see them think about lens choice/lighting/ settings/ movement. I've also found they like the image over 1/3rd inch chip cameras. My kids like it to look more cinematic. We also have a Mac Lab with Adobe premiere loaded. My point, the outcome of your decision must take into account the post process.
 
alohype said:
How about older Sony nex cameras (5, 6, 7)? They go for peanuts nowadays, super35 like sensor and you can adapt any glass you want (and couple it with manual aperture adapter).
Click to expand...
Those are great but they don't have mic input, let alone headphone jack. The restriction that it has to have those is restricting the choice a lot more than it should, given how cheap it is to add these to the design.

Regarding the deeper discussion, I'm all for not treating kids as if they were stupid, until they prove themselves to be stupid: I would at least try to go for a cheap big sensor body with cheap interchangeable lenses (the kit lens plus a $25 vintage fast 50).
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure how education works in the US, but the UK system is sadly a bit broken. Most schools stream their kids. Top set are the high flyers, often even labelled as 'gifted' and fast tracked. They get the exams that include the A* can't get better ones. They are a pleasure to teach, and have responsibility levels to equal many people who are quite a bit older. There's usually a middle set, and then, the 'others'. These people sit the easier exams in the same subject, and even if they got every question right, wouldn't get more than the middle grades - no chance at all of decent grades, merely those required to get to the next level (16+) on the lesser standard courses.

These people are the ones that destroy everything, have no respect for the equipment or anyone else. Lending them a ruler usually guarantees it comes back in two pieces. I can se that if the students firmly fit into the UK top set quality, then DSLRs might be the way forward, but they put too many learning obstacles in the way, and force students into sometimes quite limited ways of working. I don;t want to get into the DSLR debate, but many DSLR video features like in particular depth of field, work against new users. Pointing the camera and keeping it steady are hard for new users. Once you have a handle on composition, framing, and sharpness can you understand lack of sharpness as an artistic effect. Studying movies from the huge back catalogue, plus TV material is really important. Shallow Dof is an effect - and a really good one, but NOT for everything. A camera that takes nice pictures, on auto is the first stage, or at least, should be. I realise every teacher will do things differently, and I have been in the same position, specifying a really nice set up to discover the kids couldn't get it at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top