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

I call it MCC or module camera concept, by choosing an dslr, you are separating all the different modules that make up a video camera into their different components. Like the lens, Audio, recording system, chip etc. If you have all these modules separate, then you don't have to replace the entire camera when it comes time to upgrade. All you do is replace the module that has become absolute. http://newagetv.co.za/videographer/why-i-switched-to-dslr/

That's why dslrs are cool.
 
Welcome to 2008.

Fortunately technology and cameras have moved forward since then.

Dslrs are fine for some things but recording video will always be a secondary function on them, and the accessories needed to make them perform like a proper video camera necessitate hanging a bunch of external boxes from them, as your rig shows.

And the juiced link mixer is a very low quality noisy piece of gear. You can definitely do better in the audio department.

I absolutely agree on the lenses though. Good glass is forever.
 
mcgeedigital said:
Dslrs are fine for some things but recording video will always be a secondary function on them, and the accessories needed to make them perform like a proper video camera necessitate hanging a bunch of external boxes from them, as your rig shows.
Click to expand...

Id rather have external boxes attached securely to my rig than have them all inside my camera if it means that i dont have to throw away a perfectly good lens thats permanantely attached to my camera that needs to be upgraded. And clients like the setup cause it looks complicated and serious

mcgeedigital said:
And the juiced link mixer is a very low quality noisy piece of gear. You can definitely do better in the audio department.
Click to expand...

I also added the beachtek. Is there another?
 
Beachtek isnt any better. Very noisy.

Look at a small mixer with a good limiter and quiet mic pre's like the sound devices mix pre-d.
 
sadude said:
Id rather have external boxes attached securely to my rig than have them all inside my camera if it means that i dont have to throw away a perfectly good lens thats permanantely attached to my camera that needs to be upgraded. And clients like the setup cause it looks complicated and serious
Click to expand...

Oh i agree completely.

Thats why i went with the C100, so i could use all of my Canon and Nikon glass.

But i also have real xlr inputs and a great codec with a form factor just slightly larger than a dslr.
 
mcgeedigital said:
Oh i agree completely.

Thats why i went with the C100, so i could use all of my Canon and Nikon glass.

But i also have real xlr inputs and a great codec with a form factor just slightly larger than a dslr.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a great camera and it does incorporate an xlr input. Its more than twice the price of the 5D mark III though.
 
I think your modular idea is pretty good. I have a GH2 and and AF100. I would LOVE to use the GH2 more. I have a TVLogic monitor that will help me expose, sound gear, etc. The problem is no Optical Low Pass filter on the GH2 and so the digital artifacts, aliasing and moire make it unusable. Just last week I needed to pick up some b-roll of traffic and, for the most part, it looks fine but I can see those shimmery highlights and jagged diagonal lines deep in the frame. It's OK for some things but for most things, it's a show stopper for me.

I do not know what's involved in engineering a selective OLPF for a DSLR or if it would even be desirable but if they made that, I'd use them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top