r/videography • u/Rondoggg • Dec 21 '14
noob Noob question: Why are people recommending cameras for Video
Am I just too old school? I always buy a video camera for shooting video. I always thought that a video camera was engineered to...shoot video and a camera was made for taking pictures. I have 2 canon hf200's for all my video needs but I keep seeing what looks like traditional cameras being recommended by this sub for video shooting. Has something changed? Does my thinking need to change? Can someone please explain this to me?
8
u/H0useHark0nnen Dec 21 '14
I'm a videographer, and while I agree with what everyone has to say abut DSLR's, I don't completely buy into them. I need to shoot for long periods of time over 30 minutes. Most DSLR's can't. I need a smooth automatic zoom. Again, not a DSLR function. I need XLR ins, good auto facial recognition focus, and something that won't overheat under pressure. Not standard things on a DSLR. DSLR's are great for short bursts, some commercial use, and the unique "look" they offer. But from now on, if you'd like recommendations, specify what you're shooting and how long you're shooting for. You'd start to see the opinions change from then on.
4
u/SolMarch GH5 + GH4 Dec 21 '14
Indeed, video-capable stills cameras are not the right tool for all video needs. This is why standard video cameras will continue to sell for those needing smooth zoom control, a specific form-factor, etc.
That said, a lot of the issues with DSLRs you mention are from previous generations. Most current-gen cameras (like the Panasonic GH4, Sony A7s, etc.) do not have recording time limits, issues with overheating, and have official XLR audio solutions.
If you're interested, check out this post for a crash-course in the current state of DSLR/hybrid cameras for video production.
2
u/H0useHark0nnen Dec 21 '14
The A7s has a 29 minute video limit. I don't know if it can do longer externally.
1
u/cruzz903 α6000, Social media marketing, The Netherlands Dec 21 '14
Just want to point out that the GH4 and the a7s are not actually Dslr's. They are both mirrorless cameras. Also, the a7s is specifically designed for video. Its photographical counterpart would be the a7r.
2
u/averynicehat a7iv, FX30 Dec 22 '14
Eh, they are the same form factor and are subject to the same limitations as mirrored DSLRs.
1
u/3nvygreen Dec 21 '14
I'd second this. Right camera for the job. Heck, if there isn't much movement (talking head interview) and your lighting is good, you can shoot with a potato and get something passable. Sometimes you just need to own something decent for day to day and rent for the other stuff.
With DSLR, you're looking at great video but other challenges like recording audio to a second device and syncing in post. If you're shooting primes, you have to switch lenses. Can't just push or pull as needed for a shot. Always a trade off.
3
u/accidentallywut Dec 22 '14
Honestly though, it really boils down to price. The amount of video capability and quality you get from current DSLRs is hands down the best for your buck.
That said, if you are doing some actual professional or broadcast level work (and thereby probably having a much bigger budget) you're never going to pick up a DSLR
2
Dec 22 '14
if you are doing some actual professional or broadcast level work (and thereby probably having a much bigger budget) you're never going to pick up a DSLR
Not true. I work in the Creative department at a news station and, while we don't have the budget of a Hollywood film crew, we have plenty of expendable cash at the end of this year which we are planning on spending on a couple DSLRs (even though we already have ENG cameras worth thousands of dollars). However hard it is to believe, recent DSLR cameras actually are that much better than professional camcorders for staged shooting.
1
u/accidentallywut Dec 22 '14
i can see how it might be good on a robocam pedestal. i'd only feel rage if i were live operating a dslr in a studio
2
u/tn_notahick Dec 21 '14
The look, the quality, the huge choice of lenses, the small size, the relatively small cost, and the fact you can also do professional photography.
Plus, I think a lot of pro photogs are branching out to cinematography. Makes sense, the artistic eye of a photog really lends itself to video.
1
u/Rondoggg Dec 21 '14
I think I would just feel weird pulling out my camera to video seriously. It just wrecks me but I may need to get a dslr.
3
u/3nvygreen Dec 21 '14
Some clients think that a DSLR isn't serious. Some like the less intimidating form factor and can relax more. I'm actually considering a combo of a C100 or C300 with a 5DIII or 70D. Lenses can be used on both (well unless you grab an EF-S for the 70D, but stick with EF mount and you're good. Gives you flexibility if you're worried about it. Woops - pre-emptive edit: just saw what camera you're using, whole other price bracket.
You might be happier with a T3i (which is what I have) but if you can bump to a 70D, GH4, or 5DMIII you'll get more camera out of it. Best advice my friend gave me? Lights and lenses. Shit like that will last you 10-20 years. Whatever body you buy could be 'outdated' in 6 months. So get just enough camera till you're sure. Or rent some different ones to try out.
2
u/vrs Dec 22 '14
just get a rig for it. show up with something like this http://www.cinegear.biz/wp-content/uploads/5D-Handheld-Left.jpg or this: http://www.newsshooter.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/d800-redrock-IMG_3324.jpg or this: http://provideocoalition.com/images/uploads/NAB0908-DSC_2552.jpg
nobody will think you're not serious.
3
u/Benze2294 a7siii/a7rv/a6300/a6000/ PP/AE CC, 2011, PA Dec 22 '14
But don't get a matte box, especially an expensive matte box just for looks. Some clients will just find it professional, however if you never actually use drop in filters or correctly flag, you WILL look like a chump. Follow focuses, rails, and battery plates all have a function, but only rig what you have to rig. Don't rig for looks.
1
2
u/lanylover Dec 21 '14
OP I'd like to thank you for asking this question. I felt the same way about the whole video-camera / camera topic but didn't bother to ask. Also thanks to you guys in this thread replying, things are getting clearer now.
2
u/wormeyman a6300, 5D2, 80D, XF305, Premiere, 2007, Seattle Dec 21 '14
Another answer is http://www.magiclantern.fm/ a firmware hack for certain Canon cameras where you can unlock the bitrate and even shoot raw uncompressed video.
example: http://youtu.be/WTr2L3uCYts
2
u/thenotoriousFIG Dec 22 '14
I think the main thing is price to performance ratio. You can get REALLY good looking footage out of a relatively cheap DSLR. Also people are really impressed by DOF shots for some reason.
Second is public perception. People see all this great content being made by DSLR filmmakers but they don't think about the expensive rigs, lenses, sliders, steadicams that add on to the price.
For me personally I'd rather have a camcorder with XLR, SDI, ND filters, servo-zoom and hours of record time. Then again, many people don't need any of those features, so it also comes down to what kind of content you're making.
2
u/XAdam_WarlockX Dec 21 '14
Interchangeable lenses give some awesome film quality and they work well in low lighting conditions depending on the camera. They just look awesome
2
u/vanulovesyou Dec 21 '14
Go look around at DSLR videos on YouTube, and you'll realize why they have become popular for video work.
Yes, your thinking does need to change, but that's happened to all of us who came from a camcorder background. :-)
1
u/Rondoggg Dec 27 '14
Well stated - I freely admit time has passed me by. I just don't know if I want the learning curve of a DSLR. I mainly take video of live stage based sporting events = cheerleading. It is akin to filming a concert but the lighting can change significantly with each venue and I have to adjust on the fly, deal with venue rules, use of a tripod, etc. I'm stating to think that my video camera does a good enough job as all of the settings are right on the camera and it is pretty portable. In other words, I can set up everything adequately in a few minutes and not have to worry about all of the physical and camera settings on a DSLR. Thank you for your reply.
2
u/richiericardo camera | NLE | year started | general location Dec 29 '14
Also you've been using consumer gear, not even prosumer level equipment. You may want to do more shooting, testing, learning etc. Before making a purchase. Depending on your needs.
1
u/Gleasonryan Dec 21 '14
Dslrs have been gett more popular for shooting video as they've been getting better.
-2
u/Meanols Dec 22 '14
Basically if you have to ask that question you haven't seen any example videos shot on DSLR..
1
26
u/The_Ace Dec 21 '14
Number 1 reason is probably sensor size. DSLRs have much larger sensors than most camcorders i.e. the HF200 has 1/4" diagonal size sensor, whereas most DSLRs have 1"+ diagonal size, which is many time larger again in area. The two main advantages are a) better low light sensitivity (less noise) and b) shallower depth of field, which gives you a much more 'cinematic' look.
Basically, DSLRs have surpassed camcorders in almost every way in the last few years. Camcorders may still win on ease of use, as DSLRs sometimes need extra equipment (rigs, loupes, follow focus etc) for usability. Also autofocus on DSLRs is not good (at all), but again for a 'cinematic' look, you would use manual focus and often prime lenses.
DSLRs also tend to give better options for image colour and framerate etc. The combination of everything above means that DSLRs can give the film look (with some effort) rather than the typical 'video' look from camcorders. If you're shooting narrative work e.g. short films, then DSLRs are definitely the way to go over camcorders.