Why do people use DLSRs over camcorders when...?

I

ironpony

Carbonite Member
I watched some short films shot by a guy I met who I want to work with perhaps. All of this shorts were shot on his HD camcorder and I noticed how all of them were in focus and he used no manual focus. A lot of people say that autofocus sucks cause the camera is fighting to find a focus when their are multiple people moving around in the shot. But his camera is able to put everyone in focus even when their is a lot of movement and action. So why are DSLRs so popular when you can use a camcorder and avoid the need for focus pulling?

The only disadvantage is is that the lenses do not open up as much as a DSLR prime, and you need more light. But since I am such a light enthusiast, I have no problem lighting a movie real bright with 1000 watt lights. With a camcorder you don't get a shallow DOF but that's a minor sacrifice when you have so multiple people in focus and have frantic action going on, even with lighting a set equivalent to f8. He also has a zoom lens for his camcorder that is f1.8 and still a lot looks like it's in focus, much more than a DSLR lens by comparison.

So why are DSLRs so popular for filmmakers, when you need to pull focus as well, even at f8, compared to a really good autofocus camcorder with manual controls, where the autofocus works much better than a DSLR autofocus by comparison?
 
Last edited:
Do you have a sample of a clip shot on the "HD Camcorder"? How are the images compared to the ones shot on a DSLR? The main reason many made the jump from the HD camcorder (excluding ones like AF100/101, Sony FS100/F700, Canon C series line-up) to DSLR was the cinematic image quality.
 
I don't have a clip right now, since everyone I know is using DSLRs accept for one guy. He doesn't post his stuff online though for all to see, but I will ask him. What things in the image quality are we talking about here besides DOF?
 
Focus is more then just keeping everyone in focus, it's a feeling, it's what you want the audience to see. All that fun stuff. Sure dslr's are not ideal for moving images. But the fact that its cheap body with lenses so easily available makes it win for most people cause they can put more money into G&E budgets. I hate DSLR for shooting but I hate "camcorders" for shooting anything cinematic even more.
 
Who says you can't get shallow dof with a camcorder, I used to do it all the time. Not to mention, camcorders usually have xlr inputs, so no syncing audio, they have ND filters, f1.6, 1.8 at it's widest. no big rig usually needed, stabilization, more scene profiles usually, faster setup time, no lens changing, ect... But of course this is my opinion.
 
I tell you if i had a camcorder i would use it for film-style applications over the limitations of dslrs. I would sacrifice shallow dof for all the other benefits. Think about if shallow dof even suits your project. Its not critical for everything. Others will disagree but i thought the remade Battlestar Galactica had great visuals. That was done with a 2/3" chip camcorder. I dont know what Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia uses but that show also looks nice for what it is. Im sure there are other examples out there but i dont know what every show or movie is shot on.

I would take the loss of shallow dof with a camcorder because of sync audio and numerous other things that these cams provide over dslrs. I think the "cinematic look" so many are after comes much more from lighting, color correction, 24fps framerate ,art direction, and composition than it does from having blurry backgrounds.

Also, any camcorder worth its salt should have a lens that opens up fully (fully being 1.8 or so). However you dont necessarily get the low light sensitivity like you do with dslrs. If youre shooting during the day or with movie lights this shouldnt be an issue.
 
Last edited:
I say each has its different merits and demerits alike. One project might have you using a dslr and the next one a camcorder. One thing that you have to remember is that these things are just tools and like any other job, you need something specific to fit what you want to accomplish.

I can imagine if the old masters like Monet, Rembrandt, Picasso, et al... If they ever had a discussion on whether a paintbrush is better than a palette knife, etc...
 
Last edited:
I think the early use was for dramatic shallow dof.... small chip camcorders can get shallow if you stand back and zoom in...but not as easliy done like a DSLR. It was important for many people to have the option of very narrow subject isolation, hence the reason dof adapters were so widely used on small chip camcorders. Then DSLRs came along and people were like..."cool, I can get rid of all this adapter stuff"
But of course, then many found out DSLRs had some bad image issues, but I believe the DR is another reason DSLRs remained popular. The sensors are just better in creating an image at their core (which is why they will destroy any camcorder in a photo contest), the problems with them come from the terrible codec implementations and processing, but that does not take away the general feel of the images, just the pure technical quality.
Look at the 5d raw video....it really speaks to this point. The "feel" of the image has always been there, now the technical quality equals that.
 
For the same reason photographers use DSLRs instead of cameraphones: a bigger sensor gives you a better image. Not just shallow DoF, also DR, color, low light ability.

The sensor in the typical $1K camcorder is smaller than the one in my phone.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
I think the early use was for dramatic shallow dof.... small chip camcorders can get shallow if you stand back and zoom in...but not as easliy done like a DSLR. It was important for many people to have the option of very narrow subject isolation, hence the reason dof adapters were so widely used on small chip camcorders. Then DSLRs came along and people were like..."cool, I can get rid of all this adapter stuff"
But of course, then many found out DSLRs had some bad image issues, but I believe the DR is another reason DSLRs remained popular. The sensors are just better in creating an image at their core (which is why they will destroy any camcorder in a photo contest), the problems with them come from the terrible codec implementations and processing, but that does not take away the general feel of the images, just the pure technical quality.
Look at the 5d raw video....it really speaks to this point. The "feel" of the image has always been there, now the technical quality equals that.
Click to expand...

I remember the 35mm adapter era, with the DVX to HVX and EX1's. A students thesis dream, a gaffer and DP's nightmare. So much light loss, always made the HVX look like SD. And that stupid "film grain" ground glass. Thank god, I never invested in that crap. I know someone who still uses it, though. But I haven't used it since the DSLR arrival. Jumped that ship as soon as I could.
 
The upcoming BMC pocket cam is a nice inexpensive solution that is right in the middle. 16mm sized image format. High end quality video codec. 4 times the sensor area of a Sony 1/2" EX series with good low light sensitivity and a broad range of creative DOF control but still more forgiving to focus for a solo shooter. Adaptable to a wide range of lenses.

I think this little jewel will do much to revive the popularity of 16mm as very practical all around format for indie film making. It is something that has been sorely missing in the low cost indie camera market.

The Digital Bolex will provide a nice step up in a more practical form factor for a film production camera with a better range of features and more organic film like image quality.

Nice to see the range of alternatives expanding.
 
Last edited:
Okay thanks. I guess I thought shallow DOF is nice, but not a big deal, compared to some of the other features you get with camcorders. But if DSLRs have better chips then their you go. What is this DR thing, I haven't heard of that?
 
The main reason for me is selective focus, where you only want a small portion of your subject in sharp focus and you want everything else to blur-out. Larger sensor cameras give you the ability to choose what you want in focus, even in wide-shots, where small sensor cameras often have too much in focus.

For my corporate work I often shoot interviews in very messy offices, so my aim is to have my main subject in focus and blur-out the hideous background of papers, ugly bookshelves, and other crap. The finished shot looks great, and you generally can't tell what a mess the room I was shooting was.
 
wow dating myself here... but reading made me think of the old days... we used to remove the lens off a video camera... then put panty hose between the lens and the body... gave us a soft film look.. there was even debate about which color and brand worked best..
 
ironpony said:
Okay thanks. I guess I thought shallow DOF is nice, but not a big deal, compared to some of the other features you get with camcorders. But if DSLRs have better chips then their you go. What is this DR thing, I haven't heard of that?
Click to expand...

Dynamic Range. DSLR sensors and large chip cameras like the BMCC, Sony FS100/700/F5 Canon C series typically have better dynamic range.
 
The 18MP Canon sensor doesn't have the greatest DR even in photo mode, still better than small chip camcorders. It would be even better if it wasn't for the bad processing going on to get video from the chip. The new Nikons - d5200/7100 have really good DR, but of course they lose something in the processing as well.

The best DR available for a low cost camera, would be the Black Magic cameras or a 5DMK3 with ML installed. Next up the ladder price wise would probably be something like the Canon C100. Lots of DR even with the ISO turned up.
 
Sorry when I said "camcorder" my brain was thinking of the $3k+ price range, so 1/3" and up. If/when I finally get one I would plan to use it for narrative applications.

As far as the BMPC, I think the jury's still out. Not supposed to be the most user friendly cam from what I've heard and may still have to record double system to get decent audio. Granted, a lot of folks say the same about ANY camera but at my level EX1/HPX/etc. audio would be just fine.
 
Josh Bass said:
Sorry when I said "camcorder" my brain was thinking of the $3k+ price range, so 1/3" and up. If/when I finally get one I would plan to use it for narrative applications.

As far as the BMPC, I think the jury's still out. Not supposed to be the most user friendly cam from what I've heard and may still have to record double system to get decent audio. Granted, a lot of folks say the same about ANY camera but at my level EX1/HPX/etc. audio would be just fine.
Click to expand...

As a production camera the BMC pocket cam would be inconvenient and require the same external rigging and accessories as any compact DSLR to be fully functional including double system sound. If the current BMCC is any guide, the on camera sound will be poor, only good for scratch tracks.

The Digital Bolex has what will probably be the best quality on camera sound on the planet. Full 24bit PCM up to 96kHz sample rate, balanced XLR's with phantom power and very good analog preamps, at least in the Zoom H4N class for overall performance. No recordable encoded video output for the base version though. 12 bit cinema DNG raw only. A future broadcast grade uncompressed HD-SDI output module is planned for it though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top