Shooting video with DSLRs

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (68 of them)

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

caek, Sunday, 5 December 2010 13:12 (eleven years ago) link

1 hour later

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

caek, Sunday, 5 December 2010 14:21 (eleven years ago) link

what are your goals?

steendriver DUMB BIG, his HOOS got HOOS (dayo), Sunday, 5 December 2010 14:50 (eleven years ago) link

ridiculously narrow depth of field shots of neon lights

caek, Sunday, 5 December 2010 15:03 (eleven years ago) link

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, 5 December 2010 15:05 (eleven years ago) link

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.

shirley summistake (s1ocki), Sunday, 5 December 2010 16:33 (eleven years ago) link

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?

caek, Sunday, 5 December 2010 17:02 (eleven years ago) link

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

caek, Sunday, 5 December 2010 17:02 (eleven years ago) link

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

shirley summistake (s1ocki), Sunday, 5 December 2010 17:09 (eleven years ago) link

was the 60d not around when you were looking?

caek, Sunday, 5 December 2010 17:25 (eleven years ago) link

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

shirley summistake (s1ocki), Sunday, 5 December 2010 18:00 (eleven years ago) link

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

steendriver DUMB BIG, his HOOS got HOOS (dayo), Sunday, 5 December 2010 23:45 (eleven years ago) link

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.

caek, Monday, 6 December 2010 13:51 (eleven years ago) link

one year passes...

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

Cane it for the original white tees (admrl), Sunday, 29 January 2012 01:15 (ten years ago) link

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

caek, Sunday, 29 January 2012 14:13 (ten years ago) link

It isn't film.

Cane it for the original white tees (admrl), Monday, 30 January 2012 19:26 (ten years ago) link

lol +1

admrl are you going to buy the canon c300??

dayo, Tuesday, 31 January 2012 13:19 (ten years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.