Members pressthekey Posted August 26, 2011 Members Share Posted August 26, 2011 I'm posting this on this forum because you guys really helped on my thread about Youtube. Need a video camera with broadcasting recording quality or as close as possible, does not need to have massive memory or over heavy on features as long as the quality and price is right, on tight budget. Video camera needs to be able to record inside and outside for promo video. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ed A. Posted August 26, 2011 Members Share Posted August 26, 2011 I'd recommend something like a Canon Rebel T2i HDSLR. Video quality is fantastic, but limited to 12 minutes per clip. It has a stereo audio in for an external mic, plus a mono internal mic. The HDSLR solution is much cheaper than getting an actual low-end prosumer camcorder like a Sony NX5u for 4 grand. The quality of the HDSLR is better because of the very large sensor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted August 27, 2011 Members Share Posted August 27, 2011 I don't think you'll get too many more replies because Ed kinda nailed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted August 27, 2011 Members Share Posted August 27, 2011 I don't think you'll get too many more replies because Ed kinda nailed it. Then I'll answer with a slightly left-of-center choice. Actually, no, it's not left of center if you're a filmmaker. You'd be surprised at how many filmmakers are using a Canon EOS 5D Mark II. Read this: http://www.slashgear.com/canon-5d-mark-ii-video-capture-is-comparable-to-500k-pro-video-equipment-2116819/ We told you the video feature on Digital SLR is the next big thing in digital SLR camera industry, and we are not far off. Vincent Laforet, an international acclaimed photographer from New York, which also the Pulitzer winner has published a short review of Canon EOS 5D Mark II video aspect on his personal blog and a commercial-grade film is forthcoming. In reference to his article, Vincent was given a hands-on opportunity. It comes unexpected while visiting Canon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Huh? Posted August 28, 2011 Members Share Posted August 28, 2011 Ken, I seem to recall you are a Nikon guy. But you are 100% right about the 5D and 7D being used on pro movie shoots, commercials and music video's etc. I have done shoots with both. Many people prefer the 7D for video. My friend has a 5DMkII with a whole bunch of accessories for it and some super lenses. It is the prime Panavision lens thing that has to do with the 5D being better suited for that, as it has a full 35mm sensor. However the chip in the 7D is almost the same size as 35mm movie camera's so it can be modded to take the Panasonic or Arri lenses. These camera's get stunning footage with these lenses. The 5d MkII having the 35mm chip is better for still photography as far as the image. Video-wise, the 5D only has a dead nuts 30P video frame rate. Not 29.97. The 7D has 24P, 25P. 30P (29.97) and in 720 it has 50P and 60P. So the basic differences are that the 7D has more video frame rates, has a dedicated video button, is much better weatherproofed and has full HD HDMI video monitoring.....meaning that it does not drop down to SD mode when you hit record-like the 5D does. The 7D will also do slo-mo perfectly by shooting in 50P or 60P and then tweaking it to 24P in post. The 5D, having a full frame sensor, leads to a slightly more shallow depth of field and some people say finding focus is a tad more difficult. Lastly, the 7D has a built in flash. The 5D does not. Overall, the 5D is the better image but not so much more than the 7D and the above features the 7D has over the 5D, makes the 7D the better overall for video. If you do not want a still/video camera and want a dedicated video camera.......take a look at the Canon Vixia HF S21. Or other Vixia models. Or of course get into the really pro video camera's. Watch in full 1080. The problem watching these demo's is the compression etc YouTube puts on footage being uploaded. I hear good things about Panasonic camera's also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted August 29, 2011 Members Share Posted August 29, 2011 Cool info, interesting!!! I do use Nikons, yes, but I'm not dogmatic about it. Whatever works. I think that most of the Canon line offers better bang for the buck than Nikons, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pressthekey Posted August 30, 2011 Author Members Share Posted August 30, 2011 Some cool info all, the canon rebel looks the biz, so does the 5D. I'll be making a decision within the next few days.A question i've been meaning to ask. What do companies actually mean when they say the camera does 1080i ? what is 1080i ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pressthekey Posted August 31, 2011 Author Members Share Posted August 31, 2011 I'd recommend something like a Canon Rebel T2i HDSLR. The canon rebel T2i it is, decision is made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted August 31, 2011 Members Share Posted August 31, 2011 What do companies actually mean when they say the camera does 1080i ? what is 1080i ? "1080" refers to the number of vertical lines of resolution available to capture. It is currently the standard for high definition (HD) television. A typical high-quality HD cam will offer 1080x1920 resolution (the standard "widescreen" picture ration of 16:9). "1080i" and "1080p" refer to two different formats of HD capture and playback. "I" is for interlaced while "P" is for progressive scan. Do a little Googling to determine which one is better for your purposes. The other spec to look for in a cam is the frame capture rate. The higher, the better. My cheap-ass little Sanyo VPC-FH1A will do 1080x1920 at 60fps, which is damn fine for a camera that cost less than $300. Technology is amazing these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hard Truth Posted August 31, 2011 Members Share Posted August 31, 2011 If you really need broadcast quality, the best strategy is to rent a video camera designed for broadcast. I say this because many inexperienced people don't think about rentals. Whether a rental works for you depends on how often you need the camera among many other factors. Another major reason to rent is so you can also rent a high quality tripod for little additional charge. A good tripod (or other quality mounting hardware) will make you seem to be a better camera operator because they are much, much smoother. Broadcast quality cameras are actually easier to use than prosumer cameras, if you know how to use it, because the functions and settings are easier to access. If you want quality you should consider hiring an experienced operator also. You'll save a lot of time in post production if your start with good footage. DSLRs with a good lens can have excellent image quality. A major downside for most, if not all, DSLRs used for video is audio quality and the number and type of audio inputs. A real broadcast video camera has the following features: Three 2/3" or 1/2" CCDs instead of the 1/4" or 1/3" CCDs found on prosumer video cameras. XLR inputs that can be switched for mic or line level-often with four or more inputs. Many switches and knobs- so more functions can be accessed without digging through menus. They do not default to automatic functions. It is designed to be stable when shoulder mounted. The option to use remote controls for zoom and focus-which helps keep the camera stable. The ability to have more image control. (color, black and white balance and levels, gamma etc. They are sturdier. And most important-better quality lenses that can do smooth, controllable variable speed 15x or greater zooms. These lenses start at $10K and have much higher quality than any video camera that costs less than the price of the lens alone. What is right for you depends on your intended use. If you want to spend a lot of time with your camera and experiment, don't need to zoom, aren't going to use it professionally every day and aren't concerned about the short recording time, buying a DSLR can be great. But if you want to only do a few big shoots and be certain to get pro results, renting can be best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted September 1, 2011 Members Share Posted September 1, 2011 The canon rebel T2i it is, decision is made. I believe that's also a good still camera. It's either that or the T3i, I seem to remember being very nice for a still camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ed A. Posted September 1, 2011 Members Share Posted September 1, 2011 The only differences between the T2i and the T3i are that the T3i has an articulating LCD monitor, manual audio control (aren't forced to use AGC), built-in flash transmitter for firing a remote flash unit (for still photography) and digital zoom (pretty much worthless). Otherwise, the T3i is exactly the same as the less expensive T2i. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ronan Murphy Posted September 1, 2011 Members Share Posted September 1, 2011 Need to be clear about what you mean by broadcast quality. There is quality that looks fantastic, and then there is resolution that networks insists upon for broadcast constant. You can achieve the former much cheaper than the latter. Anyone with doubts about great quality should check out this amazing footage (not mine)[video=vimeo;22080133] I use a Canon Vixia HF S200 that i am very happy with and if the lighting is right can look amazing (check out this video http://vimeo.com/23725129 at 3:55 to see what I am talking about). I also have an older Vixia HF100 that does not have quite the resolution but has better low light performance, so I often prefer that in low light settings. It can look amazing some times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted September 1, 2011 Members Share Posted September 1, 2011 The only differences between the T2i and the T3i are that the T3i has an articulating LCD monitor, manual audio control (aren't forced to use AGC), built-in flash transmitter for firing a remote flash unit (for still photography) and digital zoom (pretty much worthless). Otherwise, the T3i is exactly the same as the less expensive T2i. Thanks, Ed! The articulating LCD monitor, assuming that mean s that the T2i one is fixed and the other one swivels out and the built-in flash transmitter for firing a remote flash unit would be valuable to me and probably to a lot of other photographers!! But obviously, many probably wouldn't use this. I know this sounds horrible coming from someone who has used Nikon for years, but I think Canon generally makes better bang-for-the-buck cameras than Nikon. I continue to use Nikon because I've own several lenses, which I like, so it's cheaper for me to upgrade the body and keep going. But if I were to start fresh, I'd probably take a look at Canon and Sony for still photography unless I were buying the Nikon D3s, which is the one Nikon that smokes Canon, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted September 1, 2011 Members Share Posted September 1, 2011 Need to be clear about what you mean by broadcast quality. There is quality that looks fantastic, and then there is resolution that networks insists upon for broadcast constant. You can achieve the former much cheaper than the latter. An excellent point, and one I meant to bring up earlier. "High quality" and "broadcast quality" are not necessarily synonymous, technically speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pressthekey Posted September 1, 2011 Author Members Share Posted September 1, 2011 My cheap-ass little Sanyo VPC-FH1A will do 1080x1920 at 60fps, which is damn fine for a camera that cost less than $300. Technology is amazing these days. I googled your sanyo but could not find the european model equivalent, model numbers are different over here. I was impressed with your video but sanyo was not even stocked in jessops, a major photography store. If i could find your sanyo or newer model i could still be tempted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted September 1, 2011 Members Share Posted September 1, 2011 If you have the option of getting that Canon Rebel T2i, I'd say it's worth the extra money. I bought my little Sanyo from Amazon. I just looked it up again; for some reason, even though I paid $279 for it in 2010, it's now $600. Guess I got very lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.