Some purchasing advice

[RustBeltRaw]

Manfred, I will not pretend to have anything like as much video experience as you do - I'm just scratching the surface, but there are a number of tools available that can help overcome some DSLR drawbacks.

Magic Lantern: This is a fairly unobtrusive, free firmware hack available for a number of Canon cameras. It provides some video controls that current DSLRs lack. Manfred mentioned (among other things) focus peaking, over-exposure warning ("zebra stripes"), focus ramping, and microphone gain control, all of which are provided by Magic Lantern. The interface is not very intuitive, but with patience, it can help you patch some holes in DSLR video controls. It's available for the 60D, T3i, 5D, and a few others.

Canon STM lenses: Manfred also mentioned lenses with stepper motors to control focus. They're smooth, and essentially noiseless, so they're less likely to be picked up by nearby microphones (one of several reasons lots of video shooters use off-camera sound). All Canon lenses with an STM designation in their name have these motors. Currently, there are 3. The EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS STM, EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-4.5 IS STM, and EF 40mm f2.8 STM. Note that only the 40mm is compatible with full-frame cameras.

Shoe-mountable audio recorder: No current photo DSLR offers an XLR microphone input (they're huge compared with most camera auxiliary connections), which is the most common connection for professional mics. However, there are fairly inexpensive recorders which mount where a flash would normally go and can record dramatically cleaner sound than a camera's built-in microphone (which are all pretty poor). This one runs on AAs, has pretty darn good mics built in, provides phantom power, and can record from up to 4 mics simultaneously.

As you mentioned, your budget doesn't really allow for a dedicated video camera. Fortunately, in good light, the video quality from a T3i compares well to video from a 5D. Both kick out 1080p up to 30fps or 720p up to 60fps. Although, it's worth mentioning that the 5D will have considerably better low-light performance, and higher dynamic range. Many features that set high-end cameras apart are much less critical for video. You'll be focusing manually more often, so quick autofocus with lots of points isn't really necessary, and you don't need a high shutter drive speed.

If you're buying new, I would recommend looking at the following setup (1,070USD total).

• Canon T3i camera body with Magic Lantern (550USD or cheaper used)
• Canon 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS STM (250USD)
• Zoom H4n 4-track recorder (270USD)

I'm certainly not the world's greatest authority on video, but I think you'll have a hard time finding a better combination for the money. There are a number of accessories I'd recommend, but without knowing more about your needs, it's hard to say what will work best. Nevertheless, you will probably need the following(not necessarily immediately).

• Manual white balance tool (grey card or ExpoDisc)
• Video tripod with pan/tilt head. Recommend Manfrotto's mid and high-end 'pods, or a Gitzo.
• Microphones.
• "Dead kitten" (furry) wind noise cover for your audio recorder.
• Good editing software. Available pretty cheap if you happen to be a student.
• Stabilizer. There are dozens of rigs designed to keep SLRs stable while moving. I use a ghetto-fabbed GlideCam to film skiing, but what's right for you will depend on what you're shooting and how you're moving.
• Lots of camera batteries (2 minimum). Video runs the sensor continuously, so your camera won't last nearly as long shooting video as it would shooting photos.

Note that no current DSLR setup can change aperture smoothly, or zoom without borking focus. Those are two features of dedicated video cameras that the DSLR accessory market hasn't (to my knowledge) matched yet. But it's still possible to get really good quality with relatively inexpensive equipment. Manfred's points are all excellent, and there's no substitute for the right gear, but I think this should give you a very good starting point.

[jcuknz]

I have not read all the comment but as a dual movie/still photographer there is a major difference in lenses for each. If you are getting zoom lenses you need to get constant lenses for movies so that you can zoom at maximum aperture without loosing light as you zoom out. This business of starting at f/4 and closing to f/5.6 or worse is a still photography concept with little adverse effect but simply not on for movies. My movie lenses were all f/1.4 or at worst f/2 and that was a x10 zoom. Since you cannot use longer shutter speeds with movies you need the fast lenses ....This maybe not that important with production shooting but for general shooting very important. A 'constant' lens maintains its aperture thoughout the zoom ... I still have my constant f/4 90-230 zoom which is f/4 at 230 as well as 90.

[DDK]

Thanks again, some very helpful and thought-provoking information.

But...

I am thinking that your $1500 budget for still and video equipment might be on the rather bare-bones side!

I don't doubt that for a second. But it's what I have to work with and short of winning the lottery, it's not going to change. As much as I would love to spend several hundred thousand dollars on equipment, right now, at this very moment, I'm not even a beginner let alone an amateur. I am committed to learning about this and making a go of it, however I need to learn a lot first before I can even begin to look at higher end equipment.

So I'm getting what I can with what I have and for now, that will have to be good enough to use as learning tools.

My current budget for a camera is $500. If there are better video cameras than a 600D that I can get for that price, then I'm all ears.

[Manfred M]

My current budget for a camera is $500. If there are better video cameras than a 600D that I can get for that price, then I'm all ears.

Again, stop looking at DSLR lines; The Panasonic G3 or GX1 are interchangable lens mFT cameras that are running at about $250US, and then you can look at lenses. The other cameras in your price range are from Sony - the mirrorless Alpha NEX3 or the fixed mirror A57 are going to be in or close to your price point.

Again, these are still cameras, but are built by two of the biggest names in the high end consumer and pro video markets. The companies were building video equipment before they got into consumer still cameras and their video heritage shows.

Unfortunately, I would not touch one of the pure video cameras in your price range; the override features one needs for good video work don't start appearing in the below $1000US cameras.

[DDK]

Unfortunately, I would not touch one of the pure video cameras in your price range; the override features one needs for good video work don't start appearing in the below $1000US cameras.

I get that you wouldn't, but I think the pertinent point that it seems is being missed in this thread is that my purposes are to learn the basics. I don't want to make a movie or become a photographer. I want to learn how to make a movie and all about photography. For me to do that, I need some tools to start the learning process.

$50,000 cameras can come later, when I have the faintest idea of what I'm doing and an income to match that knowledge.

Again, stop looking at DSLR lines; The Panasonic G3 or GX1 are interchangable lens mFT cameras that are running at about $250US, and then you can look at lenses. The other cameras in your price range are from Sony - the mirrorless Alpha NEX3 or the fixed mirror A57 are going to be in or close to your price point.

I will look into those, thanks.

[RustBeltRaw]

If you are getting zoom lenses you need to get constant lenses for movies so that you can zoom at maximum aperture without loosing light as you zoom out. This business of starting at f/4 and closing to f/5.6 or worse is a still photography concept with little adverse effect but simply not on for movies. My movie lenses were all f/1.4 or at worst f/2 and that was a x10 zoom.

I'm nit-picking a bit, but for Djoran's benefit, you only need a constant-aperture lens when you're planning to zoom during a shot. Without constant aperture, the shot will get darker as you zoom in (aperture is not as wide as focal length increases). I believe the general preference is to move closer instead of zooming, which looks considerably more natural to the viewer. Zooming (outside a narrow range) is all that you lose with a non-constant-aperture lens, so it's entirely possible to work around this limitation. As you've said, your budget doesn't allow perfect equipment.

Manfred's mFT camera suggestion is interesting. I am totally unfamiliar with that market - do some of these cameras have the focus peaking, zebra stripes, and focus ramping? Are there stepper-motor lenses available? Depending on how much you think these features are worth, you may prefer the T3i, even at higher cost (a used T3i is about 400USD, or 550USD new).

[DDK]

Ok, so, out of these which would be the best?

http://www.kogan.com/au/buy/sony-alp...-sam-lens-kit/
http://www.kogan.com/au/buy/sony-nex...50mm-lens-kit/
http://www.kogan.com/au/buy/panasoni...2mm-kit-black/

I'm still trying to figure out what these have that make them better than a 600D. I guess I should probably read through this thread a few more times until I get it.

Depending on how much you think these features are worth, you may prefer the T3i, even at higher cost (a used T3i is about 400USD, or 550USD new).

The T3i is a 600D and the one that, up until Manfred decided to throw a spanner in the works by educating me, I had settled on getting.

[Manfred M]

Djoran - I fully understand what you are saying about your budget and that you want to get into video work. As an avid shooter and editor I want to help ensure that you get the best camera for your budget with the understanding of where you are in your learning curve. If you get some gear that is too challenging to use, you won't enjoy it and you will have wasted your money. If you get something that is not "good enough", you will likely have a similar end result.

My first video camera cost me about $400 Cdn around 10 or 12 years ago. That is where I learned to shoot video and started learning how learning how to assemble footage with some fairly inexpensive commercial video editing software. Hardware and cost effective software have gotten a lot better in the interim.

My second camera was a used Panasonic AG100a that I picked up when a local video production company was refreshing their rental inventory. This was a non HD tape camera that I still use occansionally. I think I paid about $2000+ Cdn for a camera with about 70 hours on the clock. At the time, all of the gear I got would have cost me well over $5K. The quality of the camera was obviously a lot higher, and I would have been way over my head had I gotten a camera that is that sophisticated as a first camera. As it was, I still had a bit of a learning curve. Part of the reason that I got it so inexpensively is that HD had just come out and the company was dumping the non HD gear.

I stepped up to a pro HD a couple of years ago, but frankly have not done enough with it due to circumstances outside of my control, but am getting ready for some serious shooting in about a month.

[DDK]

Djoran - I fully understand what you are saying about your budget and that you want to get into video work.

Thanks and please don't think I'm being uppity questioning what you're saying, I genuinely appreciate the advice. I'm just trying to sift through everything I'm hearing here and elsewhere to figure out what I'll actually spend money on.

As an avid shooter and editor I want to help ensure that you get the best camera for your budget with the understanding of where you are in your learning curve. If you get some gear that is too challenging to use, you won't enjoy it and you will have wasted your money. If you get something that is not "good enough", you will likely have a similar end result.

Oh, this won't be something I'll give up on. This won't be a hobby for me. I've wanted to get into film-making since I was a kid. Actually that's not entirely true. Story-telling is my real passion however telling stories through film is, for me, the ultimate expression of that desire. I've studied film and writing most of my life however I've avoided following my dreams up until now because I always thought it was unrealistic to chase them.

I still think it's unrealistic. The only difference now is that I'm willing to try and prove myself wrong

[Manfred M]

Djoran - another path you might consider following is to see if there are any video cooperatives in your area. You live in a major city, so this is certainly a possibility.

These will have pro gear, video editing suites, courses, etc. I've been a member of the main one in the city where I live for about 4 years. Basic membership is $25 / year and that goes up to $75 if you want to use their equipment.

This is the website of the one I belong to: http://www.sawvideo.com/ It will give you an idea as to what they do.

There is often someone doing some work and volunteering to help will give you exposure. I got some of my early experience working with a friend who is a filmmaker, holding the boom mike during filming.

[DDK]

There is often someone doing some work and volunteering to help will give you exposure. I got some of my early experience working with a friend who is a filmmaker, holding the boom mike during filming.

Yeah, I've been looking around for volunteering opportunities but they are either few and far between, or I haven't found a good place to look yet. The other thing is that I have some (health) limitations which don't make me a very attractive option even as a volunteer.

[Manfred M]

Yeah, I've been looking around for volunteering opportunities but they are either few and far between, or I haven't found a good place to look yet. The other thing is that I have some (health) limitations which don't make me a very attractive option even as a volunteer.

This is why I suggested joining a video co-op. This will allow you to get known in the community and increases the likelihood of making contacts. Medical conditions; tell me about it; severe arthritis in my foot = not being able to walk or stand and often needed a cane to get around. That did not stop me, but it did slow me down.

My previous comment:

I stepped up to a pro HD a couple of years ago, but frankly have not done enough with it due to circumstances outside of my control, but am getting ready for some serious shooting in about a month.

This is due to the medical condition; things had gotten so bad I had to have surgery last summer with 1 -2 year recovery period. It's hard to shoot video when you are hobbling around on crutches and in a cast. It's slowing me down, but certainly not stopping me.

[Bill Yeung]

video and photography is 2 different things, to my understanding.
I spend a fortune on 7D, 24-70, 70-200, 580 flash, flash bracket, tripod...
I never use my 7d to take video. Just not the same feel on buttons as a camcorder.
while I also do video on my daughter figure skating. Friend sold me his Canon DV with 30 x zoom. Not handy in post processing, but powerful lens which I never need to stand in the front of skating rink, graduation ceremony hall, in gym, , fighting for space to video with other parent.
DV color is very natural too.
If I were you, I will join a short term course in video making , and a course in basic photography and you will learn, and got a very real picture on the way you would like to go.
I joined a 3 months video making course before I start buying my first camcorder.
Otherwise, very likely, you will spend you limited budget and 1,2 yrs later, sell it for another direction- it is costly.
Don't rush. Try out more. Technology is newer every second, buy later always enjoy better latest technology.

[dje]

Hi Djoran

I'm a bit late coming in on this thread but I thought I would make a suggestion based on your circumstances.

Another option you could consider is a high end compact such as the Canon G15. This is a fixed lens camera with a sensor slightly larger than the "standard sized" compact sensor but much smaller than the sensor in a DSLR. It does still and full HD video and you have full manual control for stills if you wish to use it (but not for video). You should be able to get one for about $450A. It has a 5x zoom which gives more range than a 600D with a 18-55 kit lens.

I have one of these as well as a 600D. I use the 600D for "serious" still photography and the G15 for snapping the grand-kids and some travel situations. I much prefer to use the G15 for video rather than the 600D. The G15's video performance is really quite good - as good as if not better than the 600D IMO.

With video it depends what you are shooting but I have two concerns with the 600D for video in circumstances where the subject is moving a lot or where you have to move with the camera to follow the action. (Eg kids at play).

• The 600D does not have continuous autofocus during video recording whereas the G15 does.
• A DSLR camera is designed to be held up to the eye with two hands and the balance of the camera is very good in this situation for stills. However for video the camera must be used in Live View mode (ie usung the viewing screen on the back) and as a result, must be held out "in mid-air" in front of you. Under these circumstances, the balance of the camera is not so good and if you have to move around, you will get some very jerky video. If you are able to use a tripod then this is not an issue of course. But this isn't always an option.

You will also need some editing softawre for stills and video. One option here is a combo package of Adobe Photoshop Elements (for stills) and Premiere Elements (for video). There are lots of others around too of course. I think you can get the combo package for about $150 - $200.

Good luck with your choices and adventure with digital imaging.

Dave

[Harpo]

This is certainly an educating thread! That leaves me wondering about all the second shooters at weddings that walk around with a DSLR on those balancing poles taking videos of the wedding… I came under the impression that DSLRs must have come a long way and have become just as good as small video cameras. Otherwise why would all these wedding photographers employ them? Even saw some excellent wedding videos online produced this way. Recent Kickstarter campaigns are offering a lot of those rolling tracks so you can put your camera on and make videos. I guess after reading this post, Im scratching my head!

[RustBeltRaw]

You should be able to get one for about $450A. It has a 5x zoom which gives more range than a 600D with a 18-55 kit lens.

[...]

A DSLR camera is designed to be held up to the eye with two hands and the balance of the camera is very good in this situation for stills. However for video the camera must be used in Live View mode (ie usung the viewing screen on the back) and as a result, must be held out "in mid-air" in front of you. Under these circumstances, the balance of the camera is not so good and if you have to move around, you will get some very jerky video. If you are able to use a tripod then this is not an issue of course. But this isn't always an option.

True, but hand-stabilizing a compact zoomed to 5x (140mm equivalent on full frame) is nigh-impossible. Part of the reason I recommended an 18-55mm lens instead of an 18-135mm (216mm equivalent on full frame) is that the latter would be difficult to use without a serious stabilizer system. The greater the camera's mass, the less difference small twitches in the user's grip will make. So additional mass can be an advantage, especially if it's strategically placed (GlideCam, for instance).

The 600D does not have continuous autofocus during video recording whereas the G15 does.

True. If this is a problem for Djoran, the T5i with any STM lens can autofocus continuously during video recording. Really, I've found very few situations where I would have liked continuous video autofocus, but I suppose in low light with a wide aperture and a moving subject, it would be a god-send. Most of my shooting has been in bright sun or excellent indoor lighting, so I tend to shoot at apertures that allow a pretty wide margin for error. I would also point out that the G15 lacks many of the software assists (zebra stripes, focus peaking, and focus ramping) that Manfred mentioned earlier. A Magic-Lanterned T3i retains those advantages, and now that I use them, I understand why they matter so much. They really do make life much easier.

hat leaves me wondering about all the second shooters at weddings that walk around with a DSLR on those balancing poles taking videos of the wedding… I came under the impression that DSLRs must have come a long way and have become just as good as small video cameras.

Quality-wise, yes. 1080p is more than enough for most videos. Though the recent rise of 4K and 5K resolutions in dedicated digital video cameras hasn't trickled down to DSLRs yet. And, at the end of the day, DSLRs are designed for still shooting. While they can take some superb videos, their control layouts still aren't ideally suited to video.

Hope out little debates are informative, Djoran.

[dje]

Hope out little debates are informative, Djoran.

Hi Lex

I don't want to start a big debate for Djoran's sake as it might be getting all a bit too much. And besides, there is a much more entertaining "debate" going on in that "other tread".

But just a couple of comments

I agree that trying to hand stabilise a camera shooting video with a lens set to 140mm FF equivalent is nigh impossible. But this applies to any camera, not just the G15 which can be tripod mounted also. I'm not sure that I agree with you on the stability of an SLR vs a compact for video. It hasn't been my experience. I know what you are saying about the inertia of a heavier camera but part of the problem I find with the DSLR is the way the weight is distributed - the lens is cantilevered from the body so you have to continually counteract that turning moment when hand held. It depends of course how heavy the lens is.

One thing about the G15 is that it's smaller sensor means larger DOF for larger apertures (than a DSLR). This means that, focus wise, it is less sensitive to changes in subject distance during shooting. I believe this is a useful feature for beginners or for ad-hoc shooting situations.

Dave

[Manfred M]

I'm not sure that I agree with you on the stability of an SLR vs a compact for video. It hasn't been my experience. I know what you are saying about the inertia of a heavier camera but part of the problem I find with the DSLR is the way the weight is distributed - the lens is cantilevered from the body so you have to continually counteract that turning moment when hand held. It depends of course how heavy the lens is.

I quite agree with you Dave; when I shoot with my video camera and hand hold I either cradle it in my arms around waist level or hold it by the handle in a crouch when shooting near the ground. I hardly ever handhold at any focal length above 25 or 30mm with my mFT sensor camera; even with a stabilized lens. My dedicated video camera is long enough and well balanced enough to do that. I’ve tried it with my DSLRs and there really is no way to balance the camera in a traditional hand-hold position. The closest analogy I can think of is trying to handhold a DSLR when shooting in liveview.

One thing about the G15 is that it's smaller sensor means larger DOF for larger apertures (than a DSLR). This means that, focus wise, it is less sensitive to changes in subject distance during shooting. I believe this is a useful feature for beginners or for ad-hoc shooting situations.

Agreed, but one pays the price too, as everything is in focus, which is why a large sensor is so important to serious video work; the ability to shoot shallow DoF. The f/1 and f/0.95 Vogtländer lenses are quite popular with the mFT video shooters.

By the way; this is what I shoot most of my video with:




A DSLR can come close in performance, but it takes a lot more effort and attachments to do so.

[Dave Humphries]

Though the recent rise of 4K and 5K resolutions in dedicated digital video cameras hasn't trickled down to DSLRs yet.

Yes, I was thinking that the other day, when I was advised that "4K" is 4096 x 2304 - well within all current DSLR sensors. Somehow, I suspect we won't see the manufacturers that also sell video cameras jumping to provide this feature although I suppose it depends, if the margin on a DSLR is higher ....

And, at the end of the day, DSLRs are designed for still shooting. While they can take some superb videos, their control layouts still aren't ideally suited to video.

Absolutely, handling is paramount to achieving smooth results, all the more important the larger/closer the images are viewed.

Quality-wise, yes. 1080p is more than enough for most videos.

Not to mention that we don't have affordable 4K monitors available to be able to benefit from it

[Manfred M]

Yes, I was thinking that the other day, when I was advised that "4K" is 4096 x 2304 - well within all current DSLR sensors. Somehow, I suspect we won't see the manufacturers that also sell video cameras jumping to provide this feature although I suppose it depends, if the margin on a DSLR is higher ....

While if may be within the sensor range, it seems to be outside of processing power of consumer cameras at normal frame rates. We are looking at tad under 9.5MP per frame; now shoot that at 60 fps, this means that the video encoder / compressor has to ingest data, process and store at a rate of 566MB/sec. That’s a lot of data!

Absolutely, handling is paramount to achieving smooth results, all the more important the larger/closer the images are viewed.

Yes; big heavy duty and stable tripods for shooting this size of image. Not only are the buttons in the wrong place, the shape and balance of a DSLR, especially with a high quality zoom lens are all wrong for handholding.

1Not to mention that we don't have affordable 4K monitors available to be able to benefit from it

Right now this is the realm of feature length movies for large screen theatre production. I imagine distribution is going to require some technology breakthroughs for this to be viable to the consumer market. Watching 4K HD on a normal size screen seems to be a bit of overkill.