Who went from the DVX to a DSLR?

Futchibon

Futchibon

Well-known member
Just wondering if those who have moved up from a DVX to either the 7D or 550D could share their thoughts on the pros and cons.

How does the image compare, in both SD and HD?

If I use a fast lens like the 50mm 1.8, will I get noticably better lowlight performance?

Any thoughts, or better still any footage, would be greatly appreciated.
 
I've used DVX as well as other HD cameras (HVX, EX1) at school over the last few years and just got a T2i.

Don't know too much about all the insides, but the biggest difference right off the bat is DOF. It's nearly impossible to get any shallow DOF with those video cameras (w/o an adapter). With a DSLR you can get it without even trying.

But too get it to the point of a regular video camera so you can work faster you need rigs, monitor, etc.

It all depends what you are using it for. Personally I'd rather spend more time working my way around things to get a better image, and the image is far better plus bigger sensor. You begin to love being able to reach for lens' based upon the look you want.
 
It compares closer to something like an HMC150 or an HVX200. You're already going a few notches up just with HD. That said, the DVX100 is far easier to operate.

Noah
 
The DVX is a great low-light cam, as you know. It's wide open at F1.6.

I have a 7D and a DVX. Yeah, shallow dof on an hdslr is easier than a hot knife through butter. But if the DVX was the same size as the 7D...
 
"Just wondering if those who have moved up from a DVX to either the 7D or 550D could share their thoughts on the pros and cons."
Click to expand...

I'd say about 1/3 - 1/2 have jumped into a HDSLR. The HDSLRs are lighter, faster setup and shoot HD 35mm video. 7D has an aluminum body, weather proof shell, longer battery life, a higher shutter speed (1/8000 vs 1/4000), a 100% pentaprism vs a 95% pentamirror, and 27 custom functions vs. 12, the 7D also works with the Wireless File Transmitter WFT-E5A, higher ISO, 550D doesn't. The 7D is a much lager camera and is almost twice its weight. In my opinion they're pretty much the same exact camera, but have a few different features "bells & whistles" to look at. If you're shopping for price, then I'm sure you've already made your mind up.



How does the image compare, in both SD and HD?
Click to expand...


Very crisp, and not bad color sampling for its cost.




If I use a fast lens like the 50mm 1.8, will I get noticably better lowlight performance?
Click to expand...


Yes. The 7D has amazing low light, and if using a prime lens you're set. Now that doesn't mean you'll be able to shoot everything with just the camera, need lights too.
 
Pros, cons and examples are sprinkled all over these forums.

I've gone from a DVX100a to a 550D by way of an XHA1. My advice would be pick up the 550D cuz it's so inexpensive and experiment for yourself.

Do it! :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
I went from a DVX100 to a 7D and love it. With the 5D Full Frame Sensor getting a firmware update to handle 24p. I wish I would have waited lol Nothing is wrong with 550D or T2i either
 
From what I've seen, a T2i or other DSLRs are far better than a DVX in low light. In fact, I think the DVX is pretty terrible in low light.

I haven't changed my DVX and don't plan to. It's a far better video camera than a DSLR. That said, I still plan on getting a T2i, but never to replace my DVX.
 
DVX to HVX to T1i to 7D here
DVX and HVX are "real" video cameras made for the task and are much easier to setup and shoot with. DSLRs make shallow DoF super easy which equals a "sexy" image to most people (including me, ok especially me) but EVERYTHING ELSE is MUCH harder.
 
Me and My business partner were using the DVX 100b for everything until we got the T1i then we used it more until the T2i came out and we traded in the T1i for it and now we just got the 7D so we have the DVX 100b, the T2i and now the 7D and we barely use the DVX but it still has its advantages over our Canons. like it doesnt overheat. but if u have the chance to get a T2i or 7D id do it but keep the DVX because it has features that the DSLRs do not have.
 
I thoroughly disagree with those claiming the DVX is easier to setup and to shoot with.

Perhaps that's from people who are newer to using an SLR in general, and a DSLR in particular.

The DVX has a very deep menu structure. You can get a lot of image control out of it, and you need to, as the footage can fall apart pretty quickly in post.

I've shot Nikon film SLRs professionally for something like 18 years now, and got a DVX three years or so ago. Got a D90, loved/hated it, now have a 550d with a Nikon adapter. Really love it. But I haven't sold my DVX yet - here's my pro/con list:

AUDIO: you can run & gun audio with the DVX - the internal mics are decent (for internal mics). But with phantom power, level control, switchable AGC, on-screen metering, XLR inputs and the ability to use one channel with the internal mic and one with an external, the DVX is ridiculously capable for audio. Throw in the fact that the DVX preamps and converters are really, really good sounding, and I imagine there will be times I use the DVX as a field audio recorder.

ND: 2 levels of ND built-in on the DVX. Want to get that sexy DSLR DOF outside in full sun? You could need up to 9 stops of ND. Screw-on filters for every lens, or a matte box with pricey flat filters. DVX wins here (though it often needs a little more ND than it has).

TAPE vs. CARDS: Start using a DSLR and you'll curse the guys that invented tape with it's non-random access, almost real-time copying, head problems, finicky transports, etc etc etc. The DVX is a robust tape machine, but tapeless is the future.

DEDICATED FORM FACTOR: You can shoot decent handheld with the DVX out of the box - try that with a DSLR. You've got a viewfinder for bright days and critical focus. You've got mics. You could certainly create a viable handheld rig for your DSRL and simply keep it attached and work your case around that, and I see nothing silly about that. There are a few Z-finder style viewfinders too, though they're awfully after-thought-ish.

SD vs. 720 or 1080: Big win for most DSLRs. Nikon's 720 is OK, but you really need to know how to get the best from it. Canon's 720 and 1080 are really damn nice.

COMPRESSION: Nikon - ehh. You REALLY have to know how to light for the D90. DVX - very pretty, but don't try to key it, don't push it too hard. Canon: pretty damn amazing footage.

JELLO: DVX - nonexistent. Whip-pan til your neck hurts. Nikon - godawful. Canon - not great, but you can work around it.

OVERALL CINEMATIC LOOK: For all the love the DVX gets, it has ALWAYS looked somewhat video-ish to me. Canon nails this, even without DOF.

DOF: Gorgeous on a DSLR. I have seen very very few DOF rigs for video cameras that looked "right". Almost bought in several times, never felt comfortable.

EASE OF USE: I give the DSLR a slight edge here. I much prefer all the dedicated buttons for shutter, WB, etc, as opposed to menu-digging. And turning a lens for aperture. May be my still-shooter past.

SHOT LENGTH: DVX - full tape. DSLR - very limited.

AF: DVX seems more useful than Canon - Nikon nonexistent for video.

ZEBRAS: haven't seen a DSLR with these. Usually takes longer to dial in proper exposure without 'em.

SLO MO: Canon gives you the 50% (60p at 720p conformed to 30p) and a little more if going to 24p. And it's gorgeous. Nikon nothin'. DVX using interlaced, which I never used - looks like crap if you ask me.

KEYING: DVX - hair pulling nightmare. Nikon: tried it, reasonably good for web-sized video, took some doing. Haven't tried the Canon, but with H264 and a 1080 frame, I have high hopes.

WORKFLOW: Transcoding DSLR still wins for me when you get tape out of your workflow. MPEG streamclip does it fast, and you can do your trims and batch it all, too.

MONITORING: Both give you an SD feed. DVX gets the edge over (at least) the 550d, which (as I recall) shuts off the LCD when you plug in a monitor. 550D requires a special cable as well.

REMOTE CONTROL: DVX has a big edge here - hell, you can make your own zoom and trigger remote for about $8. I tried the wired & wireless canon remotes - they both just triggered a still. Think I need the newer wireless for the Canon. But for crane shots, someone's gonna have to stand in front with the remote.

THE BOTTOM LINE (For my needs anyway).

Just shot a web commercial - footage may broadcast if company succeeds. Shot 90% of it with the 550d. Client has a decades-plus infomercial background - and was floored by what he called the "panavision look". Floored by the speed & low cost.

I shot several shots with the old DVX - all outdoors stuff in midday Texas sun, as I simply didn't have the ND to pull it off. One shot I wanted a lot of lens flare. And one handheld "action" shot just came faster with the DVX. Did the edit at 720p, DVX footage looks a little weak. But at web size it's fine.

I may do a testimonial video with lots of talking heads - will take the DVX and likely shoot 2 cams.

But I'm more of a "visual art" guy than a "videographer", I know lighting and I know how to get what I see in my head to show up in the viewfinder - when I use a DSLR. I'm hooked, but until something like Scarlet comes along, I'll keep both rigs.
 
I simply would not trade in my DVX because it's a VIDEO CAMERA, not a still camera with video capabilities.
And honestly, as nice as footage from DSLRs look, I always find something off about it. I think DVX by far gives a much more cinematic look.

In my mind, the DSLR is for shallow DOF, low light, music videos, commercials, etc. A DVX is for deep DOF, handheld, short films, etc.
 
Last edited:
Different cameras are for different needs. I sold my hvx+letus after shooting with my 7d for a couple months. Do I regret it? Not one bit. That doesn't mean you should do that. It worked for me and now I am picking up even more work. I think it is more so the dslr is a trend. People love it. They love how cost efficient it is and the shallow dof. Trends always change!

However as everyone knows with these little cameras comes workarounds and I think a video camera shouldn't have any workarounds. If I want to shoot someone in a striped shirt then I think I should be able too. But I am willing to deal with it FOR NOW.

My suggestion... If you are going to buy a dslr don't spend money on accessories that can't be moved onto an actually video camera when the "right" one comes out. Just my 2 cents.
 
I got the DVX100b and now the 7D and the T2i and been very happy and satisfied. I still have the DVX though for some corporate work but for weddings and personal stuff I use the 7D and T2i all the time. As Noah said the DVX100b is way easier to operate. I got these DSLR's mainly for short films, music videos and weddings. Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Michael Carter said:
WORKFLOW: Transcoding DSLR still wins for me when you get tape out of your workflow. MPEG streamclip does it fast, and you can do your trims and batch it all, too.
Click to expand...

SD is probably 50 times friendlier to your computer than H.264 QuickTime. If you edit, you'll have to learn a completely new workflow.
 
UltimoJP said:
SD is probably 50 times friendlier to your computer than H.264 QuickTime. If you edit, you'll have to learn a completely new workflow.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the line regarding transcoding (specifically for me using MPEG Streamclip)? Nobody should be editing H264, it's a delivery codec. Come on, this isn't even an issue.

And I could certainly transcode all the way down to SD with the same batch functions & speed. But why would I do that?

My old workflow: attach a camera or deck via firewire, scrub through hours of footage, do trims, batch import (and worry about tape issues and dropped frames).

My new workflow: copy the card, open shots in streamclip, trim and send to batch. I find it dramatically faster than the DVX method.

After that, it's all the same - my machine edits SD at the same speed as ProRes. Of course, with ProRes I can do a tremendous amount of color grading.

Also, I can transcode & edit at 720p for final SD or web delivery (or even HD broadcast), but if i want to zoom or reframe a shot, I can do a 1080 transcode of that clip and have zero quality loss and a huge amount of reframe & resize options. You can zoom in on DVX footage, but man -have you tried it? Ouch.

The DVX has plenty of benefits as I pointed out in my (massive) post you quote from - post workflow is simply not one of 'em (unless you're editing on a G4 or something). DSLR - in my opinion - completely blows DVX ingesting and editing away. The ingest process, grading options (and framing flexibility at 720p) are just huge.
 
Last edited:
I have both a HVX200 and Canon T2i, I use them both in different situations.

I find the footage from the T2i slightly more forgiving (skin tones, low light situations). A little easier to set up as well. I use a 17-50mm 2.8L, so the low light shooting is great and DOF is wonderful too.

The one limitation of the T2i is the 12 minute recording time in 1080p but you can work around that easily.

Footage side to side between the two cameras? I'd say the T2i's settings makes skin look better and some colours pop, but that's just what I see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top