Shooting video with DSLRs

in the market for a camera for stills and video for < 1000 units of currency.

used gh1, or the last gen entry level canon?

if i were to buy a gh1, is there anything i need to know about firmware beforehand?

you have to hack it to get really great vid quality. later production units may not be hackable? I dunno, check luminous landscape for details

ty

rebel t2i/550d ftw imo

is that what you have? did you get the kit lens?

afaict, and this is only according to what I've read on LL, panasonic designed the GH1 with both videographers and photographers in mind, whereas most other DSLRs that also shoot video are stills cameras first, movie cameras second. for example, the GH1 comes with a lens that has silent AF, so the mic won't pick up any AF sounds. also it has a stereo mic built in? and mic input.

anyway I'm not interesting in shooting movies so I would just warn that most reviews you find probably come from photography websites whose authors don't really know anything about shooting video. (except LL... I think).

hmm according to LL the GH2 is probably the camera to get for video work. maybe you could have a friend smuggle one back for you from hte states

is that what you have? did you get the kit lens?

― caek, Saturday, December 4, 2010 5:56 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark

yes it is. and no i did not. i have not done anything 'pro' with it yet, but check my vimmers for a bunch of examples:

http://vimeo.com/user698403

Yah I did a bunch of reading this morning and that was my conclusion too, dayo.

GH2 has swing LCD screen (which I would definitely find useful) and HDMI out (which I would maybe find useful one day) and is smaller than the 550D. But it costs a lot more. What it costs is in my budget, but I'm not sure I can justify it over the 550D given the tooling around I intend to use it for at this stage.

thanks for the links, slocki. seems like you mainly use that fast sigma prime? it doesn't have image stabilization, right? how much does that limit what you can do?

i guess a lot of the price of the GH1/2 is the lens though, and maybe i would save money in the long run?

hmm there is certainly something to be said for paying a little more at the outset and not being tempted to upgrade. and yeah a lot of the price is wrapped up in the lens - you could probably sell the lens and make back maybe half the money you spend on the kit? not sure what you would end up replacing it with though.

if you're going to use it as a stills camera first and movie camera second then a canon probably makes more sense? what kind of lenses are you looking at?

i don't know much about lenses! my last camera with changeable lenses was a 35mm film camera and i was fine with a 50mm prime then. obviously i wasn't shooting video or low light though. i'm reading around now but kind of overwhelmed.

this makes me think i will be starting with the kit lens whichever i end up getting

1 hour later

http://www.icis.com/blogs/asian-chemical-connections/confused.jpg

what are your goals?

ridiculously narrow depth of field shots of neon lights

nah jokes. just want to experiment really, so i guess flexibility is a virtue, but assuming the experiments work out then i will be in a position to make a more informed decision about lenses and sell the kit.

http://prolost.com/blog/2010/11/14/hdslr-shopping-what-you-want-is-a-canon-60d.html

thanks for the links, slocki. seems like you mainly use that fast sigma prime? it doesn't have image stabilization, right? how much does that limit what you can do?

― caek, Sunday, December 5, 2010 7:47 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

no it doesn't. but i am a bit skeptical about how useful in-lens stabilizaysh is when shooting video. if i were ever to do anything serious with this camera i would get a rig.

you've shot with real videocameras and live monitors and stuff, right? i know an SLR can't compete with that, but how limiting do you find the lack of a flip-out monitor? have you done anything with the built-in audio on it?

thanks for the link kerm. i guess the point is either (1) 550D or (2) spend more and choose between the GH2 and 60D.

yes i have.

i haven't foudn the lack of a flip-out to be too limiting. but like i said i've only been doing casual stuff. pretty sure you can run a line out to a monitor through the hdmi cable... but not 100% on that.

i was gonna get a 7D until i realized the video capabilities were exactly the same and i could get the 550 for literally half the price

was the 60d not around when you were looking?

no it was just before it was released. i prob would have still stayed with the 550d tbh.

nah jokes. just want to experiment really, so i guess flexibility is a virtue, but assuming the experiments work out then i will be in a position to make a more informed decision about lenses and sell the kit.

― caek, Sunday, December 5, 2010 11:05 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

fwiw the 14-140mm lens holds its value pretty well because its still one of only a few lenses that was designed for movie shooting (i.e. silent AF, stepless aperture control). the 14-42 is kind of worthless as is whatever will be bundled with the canons, which don't resell too well (maybe $1-200 max here in america).

I feel that the canons have the advantage in low light performance and also it'd be easier to get shallow depth of field. otoh the four thirds format is already pretty close in size to 35mm movie film and if you really want blurred backgrounds just move the camera in and focus closer.

but probably all of these cameras will be more than sufficient for your purposes. I'm still a proponent of buying the best camera available at the time to suit your needs, that way you don't have to go through the rigmarole of selling and upgrading.

or fuck it and just get this

http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-camcorders/panasonic-hdc-tm700/4505-6500_7-33976887.html

i don't really like that narrow dof hdslr look. it has a place in demo stuff, but it doesn't really belong in 99% of shots in narrative stuff. feel like people who call it the "film look" have never actually seen a film.

low light performance is useful, since at the tooling around stage i will be working with available light, but when a modern camera is working at 1080p rather than 18MP or whatever, i assume what is possible in low light is much more a function of the lens rather than the camera.

the flexibility of the 14-140 (and the resale value for when i figure out what i actually want to do with the camera) is relevant to my interests, so if I was going to pay extra for the 60D or the GH2, I think i will get the GH2.

i am not buying until i am in the u.s. in february. i have time to get my hands on a couple to try out. will maybe go to tottenham court road after xmas with a memory card and try the GH2 and to 550D.

thank you all for your comments.

What did caek get? I have a GH2, but I can't say that I love it...yet

life intervened and i got nothing. any particular problems with it?

It isn't film.

lol +1

admrl are you going to buy the canon c300??