Best sub-$1,000 dslr for video

[slackerinabox]

My buddy and I are going to start filming low budget shorts for fun and would like to put out the best video quality as possible. I've heard the Panasonic GH2's the way to go, but I'd rather spend closer to $500 than $1,000. Possible? Is the canon t2i/t3i a major step down from the GH2? Are there other options out there worth considering? The nikon d5100 gets mentioned but it doesn't look great on vimeo- am I missing something? Or should I just go for the gh2?

Thanks!

 

[jhansman]

Dunno about best, but the vids I've shot with my D5100 have been excellent. The built in mike leaves a bit to be desired, (OK, more than a bit; you'd likely need an external), but I have no qualms about the video quality. I imagine a good camera store will let you take a given model outside to play with (I had to leave my driver's license with the clerk to do this) and they may even have a laptop you can pop the SD card into to view the results. Honestly though, I'd probably get a dedicated video camera for the kind of work you plan on. Nothing fancy, but better than what a dSLR is capable of.

 

[radhak]

And why do you want a DSLR to make videos?

No DSLR video can match a high-quality video shot with a decent mid-market HD Camcorder costing around $400-$500. And I'm sure a $1000 camcorder would be that much better.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

My buddy and I are going to start filming low budget shorts for fun and would like to put out the best video quality as possible. I've heard the Panasonic GH2's the way to go, but I'd rather spend closer to $500 than $1,000. Possible? Is the canon t2i/t3i a major step down from the GH2? Are there other options out there worth considering? The nikon d5100 gets mentioned but it doesn't look great on vimeo- am I missing something? Or should I just go for the gh2?

Thanks!

I've got a T2i and...

1. I'm impressed by the community support for Canon. Magic Lantern, picture styles, etc.
2. I'm not at all impressed by the resolution. It shoots 1080p videos, but there's only about 720p's worth (or lower) of actual resolved detail in the video.

The GH2 actually shoots and resolves close to 1080p. But I don't want to be married to a 2x crop lens system. The GH2 is also supposedly noisier and has less dynamic range than the Canons due to its smaller sensor.

Since I've already got Nikon gear and lenses, I think I would just get a GH2 and use adapters to mount my Nikon lenses onto the GH2.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

And why do you want a DSLR to make videos?

No DSLR video can match a high-quality video shot with a decent mid-market HD Camcorder costing around $400-$500. And I'm sure a $1000 camcorder would be that much better.

The huge stable of lenses at your disposal.

 

[radhak]

The huge stable of lenses at your disposal.

Well, OP does not have any DSLR, so not DSLR lenses. (His 4/3 does not count and is work related)

DSLRs have lotsa problems as camcorders - their DOF is too shallow for video; their focus is problematic during video, and follow-focus is spotty and needs building expertise for; they need prime lenses for good video, and primes are expensive lenses (unless your huge stable is full of primes). Overall - using already-owned DSLRs for video is re-using and saving-money; buying a new DSLR for video is foolish.

But OP, looks like you have had similar questions for the past couple of years or more right here. So this is just an idle question for you...?

 

[blastingcap]

My buddy and I are going to start filming low budget shorts for fun and would like to put out the best video quality as possible. I've heard the Panasonic GH2's the way to go, but I'd rather spend closer to $500 than $1,000. Possible? Is the canon t2i/t3i a major step down from the GH2? Are there other options out there worth considering? The nikon d5100 gets mentioned but it doesn't look great on vimeo- am I missing something? Or should I just go for the gh2?

Thanks!

Any crop body DSLR is inferior to the GH2 when it comes to video. D5100, T3i, whatever, they are all inferior as they have worse controls and weren't designed with video as a priority. The GH2 was designed for video and stills as co-priorities and it shows in the controls and support, including support for external mics, power zoom, etc.

The guy talking about Canon dynamic range is not right about that, either, as the GH2 has about the same dynamic range as Canon's crop body AND full frame DSLRs, thought he's right that the GH2 will be noiser in low light, but it's not a huge difference due to the GH2's superior video recording bitrate/hardware/software. The GH2 at stock already delivers a beatdown of Canon's crop body DSLRs, and hacked the GH2 is obviously better with better controls (most or all DSLRs are not really designed for shooting video in mind; it's something slapped on and it shows) and higher speed autofocus and power zoom options for smooth zooming in and out (more impt for video than stills). The only way you are going to get a DSLR outperforming a GH2 is if you go full frame like with a 5DMKII or something, but that's in a whole other price league and comes with its own problems, such as narrower DoF which sounds cool in theory but might not fit your shooting style in practice.

Also check out the newly launched GH3, as it is supposed to be a significant upgrade from the GH2. But while you can find a used GH2 for closer to $500 than $1000, a GH3 is new and hard to find and very costly. So it may be out of your budget, sorry.

 

[shortylickens]

Maybe the D3200. And you can use the money saved to get some lenses and the usual accessories.

 

[blastingcap]

OP, if you wind up buying something like a D3200 based on forum "advice" God help you. The D3200 doesn't even have an articulating LCD for crying out loud, but some people keep recommending DSLRs with slow or nonexistent in-video autofocus, non articulating LCDs, higher compression and lower bitrate (hi, Nikon), etc. Why? Because it's a Nikon or Canon and that's all they know? Because it's a serviceable videocamera in a pinch? Because they have never shot with a high-bitrate GH2 before? Have they even ever shot with a camera with an external mic option before??? In any case I'm going to lmao if you wind up buying something without an articulating LCD. Too funny.

 

[shortylickens]

OP, if you wind up buying something like a D3200 based on forum "advice" God help you. The D3200 doesn't even have an articulating LCD for crying out loud, but some people keep recommending DSLRs with slow or nonexistent in-video autofocus, non articulating LCDs, higher compression and lower bitrate (hi, Nikon), etc. Why? Because it's a Nikon or Canon and that's all they know? Because it's a serviceable videocamera in a pinch? Because they have never shot with a high-bitrate GH2 before? Have they even ever shot with a camera with an external mic option before??? In any case I'm going to lmao if you wind up buying something without an articulating LCD. Too funny.

The fact you think there is a good suggestion for video when insisting on an SLR is too funny. Also that you get all bent out of shape. Thats freakin hilarious.

 

[blastingcap]

The fact you think there is a good suggestion for video when insisting on an SLR is too funny. Also that you get all bent out of shape. Thats freakin hilarious.

OP may have said "dslr" in his misworded thread title, but the fact that he is even considering a GH2--which he mentioned in his OP if you even read it--is a clue that he is not literally limiting his question to dslrs... he just doesn't want to shell out "closer to $1000 than $500" for a GH2. (And he doesn't need to, with GH2 being EOL so it should be dropping closer to $500 soon. So my rec would be to simply wait a while longer and buy a GH2 when the price drops. Or buy used.) And it doesn't change the fact that you recommended what you recommended--an entry level DSLR without video-handling as a priority, more-compressed video, no articulating LCD, and slow (compared to NEX/GH2/Nikon 1) in video AF. Sorry if you take it personally but your advice speaks for itself.. I'm not getting "bent out of shape," just lmao. Though I guess in all my laughing I am contorting my body somewhat.

 

[slackerinabox]

And why do you want a DSLR to make videos?

No DSLR video can match a high-quality video shot with a decent mid-market HD Camcorder costing around $400-$500. And I'm sure a $1000 camcorder would be that much better.

You're absolutely, 100% wrong. Interviewed a dozen D.P.s and they all told me that, if I can't afford a Red to get a GH2 or a Canon 5D.

 

[radhak]

And why do you want a DSLR to make videos?

No DSLR video can match a high-quality video shot with a decent mid-market HD Camcorder costing around $400-$500. And I'm sure a $1000 camcorder would be that much better.

You're absolutely, 100% wrong. Interviewed a dozen D.P.s and they all told me that, if I can't afford a Red to get a GH2 or a Canon 5D.

Ok, then, I am sure all of those dozen D.P.s must be right, and you should go right ahead and buy one of those DSLRs.

As it is, I'm now sure you are just trolling because I can see you have asked this or similar question multiple times in the past; unless maybe you keep forgetting the responses and need more affirmations from this forum about whatever your dozen D.P.s have already told you.

 

[slackerinabox]

Ok, then, I am sure all of those dozen D.P.s must be right, and you should go right ahead and buy one of those DSLRs.

As it is, I'm now sure you are just trolling because I can see you have asked this or similar question multiple times in the past; unless maybe you keep forgetting the responses and need more affirmations from this forum about whatever your dozen D.P.s have already told you.

What $400-500 (or even $1,000) camcorder has better quality, especially DOF, than say the GH2?

 

[Cattykit]

Ignorance in this thread is quite amazing.

"No DSLR video can match a high-quality video shot with a decent mid-market HD Camcorder costing around $400-$500. And I'm sure a $1000 camcorder would be that much better."

If it's strictly about resolution, you're right. Current vDSLRs (think of it as an umbrella term for DSLT and mirrorless cameras), beside GH2, only outputs 'true' 720p level of detail. However, DR, color rendition, DOF, and tonal range is superior than those cams you mentioned.
Why do you think even professional film crowd went nuts when vDSLRs came out? Why do you think Hollywood to indie film DPs constantly use vDSLRs? Look up the endless lists of films, TV shows, music videos that are shot on vDSLRS and compare them to those cams you think are so good.

EDIT:
BTW, if you really want to bash vDSLRs, you should start with FS100. Anything below that only makes you look like an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. In all, you remind me of those people who claim 12MP cellphones take better pictures than lower resolution DSLRs.

EDIT2:
"Ok, then, I am sure all of those dozen D.P.s must be right, and you should go right ahead and buy one of those DSLRs."
Actually, multiply those dozen DPs by 1000 or higher, compare that number to those that recommend $400~$1000 cams. Then, come back to to us.

Why don't we play a little game? You name a film shot on those $400~$1000 cams, I name a film shot on vDSLRs. Let's see who's list would make more sense.

 

[Kaido]

My buddy and I are going to start filming low budget shorts for fun and would like to put out the best video quality as possible. I've heard the Panasonic GH2's the way to go, but I'd rather spend closer to $500 than $1,000. Possible? Is the canon t2i/t3i a major step down from the GH2? Are there other options out there worth considering? The nikon d5100 gets mentioned but it doesn't look great on vimeo- am I missing something? Or should I just go for the gh2?

Thanks!

I've really enjoyed my Canon T2i (I think they're on the T4i now). It has great aftermarket firmware and lots of lens options since it's a crop camera, not full-frame. I've shot on my 35mm vintage Zeiss and my 50mm SMC Takumar a ton with great results (using M42 to EOS adapters). You can get a really nice image and great depth-of-field.

The GH2 is really cool, but I personally don't care for the lack of dynamic range, even though I think overall it's a better camera for making films. The GH3 was recently announced, so you might want to hold off and check that out - Philip Bloom made an awesome movie on it here: http://vimeo.com/49420579

My recommendation is to go on Vimeo and Youtube and just watch a ton of footage from different cameras and see what you like. If you are picky about video quality like I am, then ultimately you need to select a camera that you're going to love. That's why I went with the T2i instead of the GH2 - I just plain liked how the footage looked better, even though the GH2 has an amazing set of features. The T2i looked the same as the 7D's footage to me as well, so I went with the cheaper option and have had no regrets. If you have Netflix, check out the pilot of "Wilfred", which was shot on a 7D.

I don't know how much you are into film, but here are some tips from my own experience:

1. Nail down your workflow, from batteries & shooting to color correction and exporting. The last thing you want to mess around with when you are working on a project is fiddling with every aspect of the tool chain. This also helps you figure out equipment settings and make choices ahead of time. Do you have spare camera batteries? An extra memory card? Video editing software? Color correction? Do you know how to export to the format of your choice and make it look good? Stuff like that.

2. Get a tripod with a fluid head. I use a relatively inexpensive Velbon DV-7000 with a girl's hair scrunchie for smooth pans. This is the first sign of an amateur - shaky footage. Unless you're filming the next Cloverfield, Blair Witch, or Bourne movie, you'll want some sort of stabilization.

3. Audio is 80% of video. Invest in good audio equipment if you are serious about making short films. At minimum, a Zoom H2 on a painter's pole, or with a cheap lav mic like an Audio Technia ATR-35s. Audio is not hard (just put the mic within 12" of the actor's mouth), but most people ignore it, and it's an instant sign of amateur work (along with shaky cam!). I've made some pretty awesome stuff on my iPhone using a good mic and a tripod! haha. If you have a bit of a budget to work with, I would recommend a Sanken COS-11D XLR lav mic (about $480 on B&H, commonly used on films & TV shows), and a Tascam HD-P2 recorder (on sale at B&H right now for $599, probably the cheapest broadcast-spec digital audio recorder available - 192kHz/24-bit). For about $1,200 you can get a really killer audio kit (Sanken lav mic, Tascam recorder, bag, cables, batteries, memory cards). That sounds like a lot, but you get production-quality audio with that. Here's a quick sample with that setup. If you can capture the vocals on-set, then you can add soundtrack, special effects, foley (footsteps, car engines, etc.) afterwards, and since you have good vocals, everything will match-up & sound real professional.

4. A slider adds a lot to the film. I personally like the Glidetrack, although you can DIY pretty easily if you are handy.

There's tons of other stuff, but hopefully that helps some - feel free to ask questions, I shoot for-fun films with my buddies all the time and we have a blast :thumbsup:

 

[sswingle]

Ignorance in this thread is quite amazing.

Indeed. Love the comment, "DOF is too shallow on a DSLR"

Really? All the people I know using them LOVE having shallow DOF compared to a traditional small sensor video camera.

And yea sound sucks, thats why there is a plethora of external audio recorders on the market.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

I've really enjoyed my Canon T2i (I think they're on the T4i now). It has great aftermarket firmware and lots of lens options since it's a crop camera, not full-frame. I've shot on my 35mm vintage Zeiss and my 50mm SMC Takumar a ton with great results (using M42 to EOS adapters). You can get a really nice image and great depth-of-field.

The GH2 is really cool, but I personally don't care for the lack of dynamic range, even though I think overall it's a better camera for making films. The GH3 was recently announced, so you might want to hold off and check that out - Philip Bloom made an awesome movie on it here: http://vimeo.com/49420579

My recommendation is to go on Vimeo and Youtube and just watch a ton of footage from different cameras and see what you like. If you are picky about video quality like I am, then ultimately you need to select a camera that you're going to love. That's why I went with the T2i instead of the GH2 - I just plain liked how the footage looked better, even though the GH2 has an amazing set of features. The T2i looked the same as the 7D's footage to me as well, so I went with the cheaper option and have had no regrets. If you have Netflix, check out the pilot of "Wilfred", which was shot on a 7D.

I don't know how much you are into film, but here are some tips from my own experience:

1. Nail down your workflow, from batteries & shooting to color correction and exporting. The last thing you want to mess around with when you are working on a project is fiddling with every aspect of the tool chain. This also helps you figure out equipment settings and make choices ahead of time. Do you have spare camera batteries? An extra memory card? Video editing software? Color correction? Do you know how to export to the format of your choice and make it look good? Stuff like that.

2. Get a tripod with a fluid head. I use a relatively inexpensive Velbon DV-7000 with a girl's hair scrunchie for smooth pans. This is the first sign of an amateur - shaky footage. Unless you're filming the next Cloverfield, Blair Witch, or Bourne movie, you'll want some sort of stabilization.

3. Audio is 80% of video. Invest in good audio equipment if you are serious about making short films. At minimum, a Zoom H2 on a painter's pole, or with a cheap lav mic like an Audio Technia ATR-35s. Audio is not hard (just put the mic within 12" of the actor's mouth), but most people ignore it, and it's an instant sign of amateur work (along with shaky cam!). I've made some pretty awesome stuff on my iPhone using a good mic and a tripod! haha. If you have a bit of a budget to work with, I would recommend a Sanken COS-11D XLR lav mic (about $480 on B&H, commonly used on films & TV shows), and a Tascam HD-P2 recorder (on sale at B&H right now for $599, probably the cheapest broadcast-spec digital audio recorder available - 192kHz/24-bit). For about $1,200 you can get a really killer audio kit (Sanken lav mic, Tascam recorder, bag, cables, batteries, memory cards). That sounds like a lot, but you get production-quality audio with that. Here's a quick sample with that setup. If you can capture the vocals on-set, then you can add soundtrack, special effects, foley (footsteps, car engines, etc.) afterwards, and since you have good vocals, everything will match-up & sound real professional.

4. A slider adds a lot to the film. I personally like the Glidetrack, although you can DIY pretty easily if you are handy.

There's tons of other stuff, but hopefully that helps some - feel free to ask questions, I shoot for-fun films with my buddies all the time and we have a blast :thumbsup:

Coming from photography, I didn't think this was possible, but video is a far greater black hole money pit than photography can ever be.

So far:

$800 for a single audio channel. $600 for a glider. $1000 for a motorized slider. $600 for a good video tripod and head. Oh, and all this on top of regular photography equipment.

 

[Kaido]

Coming from photography, I didn't think this was possible, but video is a far greater black hole money pit than photography can ever be.

So far:

$800 for a single audio channel. $600 for a glider. $1000 for a motorized slider. $600 for a good video tripod and head. Oh, and all this on top of regular photography equipment.

Oh are you kidding dude? I've probably spent more money on video than even my computers. Forget being worse than photography, it can be worse than cars man :biggrin: Plus yeah, you still need batteries, a grip for weight on the steadicam, lenses, etc. My audio kit was about $1300 and only has one mic, since that's all my budget allows right now. I don't even have sound blankets, or lights, or anything like that.

And as you're learning, video is a whole different beast than photography. With photography you have so much control over your final image as just one person, with a camera, anywhere you go. With video, you either need a controlled room, or a team of people, or just the right conditions to get the look you want. The video you posted the other day indoors - try viewing that on an LCD TV, it probably looks just fine, but on the computer it looks kinda rough. Even high-end footage like RED Epic cameras look like that, because the final product (a moving image) is totally different than still photography.

I like to do photography, but I've relegated that to mostly my iPhone now. The rest of the time I really like to mess with filming. You can do nature shots, music videos, short stories, independent films, and there's so many areas to play in - music, dialogue, plot, wardrobe, stabilization, etc. etc. I mostly just shoot goofy short films with my buddies and have a blast with it, but even then, stuff can add up. Over the past 5 years or so I've invested in tripods, glidetracks, steadicams, cameras, batteries, memory cards, computer hardware & software, etc. etc. and I still don't have my basic kit where I'd really like it to be (lighting in particular), but it's good enough that I can have some real fun with it.

Eh, I guess all good hobbies cost money

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Ok, I'm going to be an outlier here. I understand that "best" means different things to different people and so I am not suggesting a 4.0 "best" camera.

I recently picked up a Nikon V1 w/ flash, 10-30 zoom, 30-110 zoom, and 10mm prime for right at $1000 (including leather case and three Nikon uv filters for the lenses). This is a very capable camera for video, but where it excels is when used hand-held. The VR for video (and photos) is amazing as is its video autofocus. You can manually focus during video and have manual control over exposure while shooting video.

Here is an example of handheld video shot with the V1 and the 10-100 power zoom lens (think an extra $750), but I can say that the both the VR and autofocus works wonderfully with the two zooms I have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huYo9xTPEEo

Also, the 1080i HD video should help resist rolling-shutter vs 1080p (at least that’s the idea).

I’m taking the V1 on vacation with the Fam to Six Flags this weekend and will share my final thoughts on the camera next week. Thus far I really like the camera.

 

[blastingcap]

Can you do me a favor and leave me out of your posts. It is getting kind of annoying. You can also link to the actual post you quoted if you insist on keeping it up.

 

[slackerinabox]

Thanks guys! Oddly, the t2i/t3i footage I'm seeing out there seems richer, but it looks like the gh2 is my best bet for control and resolution. will be waiting a month or so for the prices to sink (or for the GH3 to be more widely available).

 

[JohnnyRebel]

It is getting kind of annoying.

That was kinda the point. Sig and comment deleted as requested.

JR

 

[Kaido]

Thanks guys! Oddly, the t2i/t3i footage I'm seeing out there seems richer, but it looks like the gh2 is my best bet for control and resolution. will be waiting a month or so for the prices to sink (or for the GH3 to be more widely available).

Yeah, it's kind of a toss-up. I liked the T2i's footage better, but the GH2 is technically superior and I have a lot of buddies who are getting great results with it. The GH3 is looking mighty nice, so if you're not in a rush, I'd hold out and see. Also if you don't need the swivel screen on the T3i, you can find used T2i's for super cheap and even get two bodies if you'd like to do multi-cam and/or have a backup body.

 

[Karsten]

The amount of options you get from filming with a DSLR because of lenses and quality will knock any "cheap" option video camera out of the water. There is a reason why a lot of indie films are made with DSLR.

Here is a good example:

http://youtu.be/ol7-QB_VbqI

Used Equipment:
Kit lens, 18-55mm, which came with the Canon T2i, and the 50mm f/1.8