Best sub-$1,000 dslr for video

[gevorg]

Sony SLT-A57 + lens/accessories

The A57 builds on its predecessor's reputation as one of the best stills cameras in its class for video work.

 

[kbp]

I have a D90 for sale. No lens but it will leave you plenty enough to buy the one you want. I've never done video with it as I only do stills.

 

[sswingle]

D90 is a great camera and all but it should NOT be recommended for video. It uses motion JPG instead of a true video codec.

 

[iGas]

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.

There is a reason that people are going with DSLR and specially FF, because of Hollywood like shallow depth of field of large sensor and large aperture lenses (fast ultra wide angle FTW).

To answer the OP question. IMHO, it make sense to pick what ever the cheapest (second hand) you can get your hand on to learn, then move/save for a better setup once you have some skill.

<-- 14mm f2.8 Rokinon on order for the 5D mkii, and the main purpose is for video mode.

 

[Karsten]

It's amazing what you can do with a T2i and a lens or two.
Not even to mention what video editing can make a difference and is a science in itself.
Do yourself a favor and start with Premiere or similar. It will be a while until you can wield it, but your options are awesome.
You can buy the educational version for cheap if you, your kids or your wife go to a school.

 

[krumme]

So for video sony slt a57 or panasonic gh2?
What about picture quality of the two?

I have a sony dsc hx9v now and woud like to have a noticiable step up in quality especially at video.

Edit: How about the nex sony nex6?, then it can be smaller

 

[Kaido]

So for video sony slt a57 or panasonic gh2?
What about picture quality of the two?

I have a sony dsc hx9v now and woud like to have a noticiable step up in quality especially at video.

Edit: How about the nex sony nex6?, then it can be smaller

What kind of video? Like short films? For anything "filmy", I'd recommend a dSLR. If you need to shoot a lot of video, like school plays or soccer games, a video camcorder is much better.

 

[slackerinabox]

Thanks for the advice guys, I'm still a bit conflicted. The GH2 seems like the logical choice based on reviews but there's something so flat about the footage I'm seeing out there, while the Canon xTi line tends to look fantastic even though I can get it for 1/2 the price of a GH2 (the used market seems strange for it - it sells on ebay used for more than amazon's new price).

I'm thinking that the potential for the GH2 is much better but the 4TI is more idiot proof - any truth to that? As a guy who wants to focus on writing and directing and wants to make great looking shorts without having a hard on for the nerd side of the technology, is it wrong to say that canon tends to give non-professionals a better out of the box experience? I respect that the GH2 is a superior tool but most videos out there are camera buffs doing tests in their backyards vs being used to make actual shorts, like canons and nikons. Also, please comment on stock cameras and not hacked firmware - my bud's splitting the cost and I would feel awful if I void the warranty and then brick the thing, as rare as that be.

 

[happysmiles]

the most IMPORTANT thing is the lens.

so spend 2/3 of your budget on lens and the last bit on the body

also the "flat" colours is good for post production because it gives you more dynamic range instead of crushed blacks or highlights.

 

[blastingcap]

+1 to what happy said. "Flat" footage is a good thing, you do not want something overly processed with punchy colors and all that jazz; you can do that in post-processing. The reverse, not so much.

 

[krumme]

What kind of video? Like short films? For anything "filmy", I'd recommend a dSLR. If you need to shoot a lot of video, like school plays or soccer games, a video camcorder is much better.

I need a camera that can be used for all purpose - pictures and video. I dont need it for something "filmy". Shoot and play, some of the video will be lightly clipped together. Very short learning period required.

Its for turist, homevideo and for work to to some presentations and for filming interviews.

For sound i wonder if there is some mic to clip on, and then send it to reciewer for camera?

I think sound is probably the most critical part, because i need good sound for the presentations and interviews.

I dont need a lot of lenses. Its very seldom i use other that wide ange 24mm. And i would prefer a video/picture camera that can make sharp filming indors with normal interior light, and some gear for the sound, if the build in sound is not sufficient.

Man, all that gear. I am willing to cut some corners, to have as less boxes as possible. Think simple.

I dont need viewfinders, mirrors, all kind of manual control. But a good solid AF, a video that doesnt shake, and can capture smooth filming.

I like the 1080 50p 24M/bit in the sony hx9v, but will prefer something more sharp like i can see the gh2 does, better for lower light, better for shaking, better for smoothness, and higher bitrate with less "blocking". And i would like the still pictures to have less "pop" and more sharpness.

If i can have it in less that dslr size i would really appriciate it. And preferably under 1.5k without sound gear. I someone have some advide for "cheap" clip mic for interviewing it would be nice.

Thanx for all the good advide in this thread. I know nothing so its a good start.

Hacks is okey and ofcource sony is preferred because of the learning curve.

Edit: just saw some video of the gh2, using a new hack flow motion v2, and really like the color, and neutral picture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IE_sVV2qsy8

4gigs for 22min yikes.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Record the audio separately, combine later with software (e.g. DualEyes, PluralEyes. super easy, will autosync based on audio recorded on camera's internal mic)
http://www.adorama.com/SOPCMM10RD.html

The Nikon V1 is super for "video that doesn't shake" due to how well the lens VR works and has very usable autofocus. ($499 via link on nikonrumors.com). 1080i/60 (interlaced) helps with rolling shutter.


V1 sample video (hand held)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huYo9xTPEEo

$750 thus far, add a mic and you are good to go.

JR

 

[CuriousMike]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IE_sVV2qsy8[/url]

4gigs for 22min yikes.

As a recent HX9V owner, I gotta say that it has superb video for the price. (I purchased mine for $265USD new.)
The GH2 video above didn't strike me as WOW - certainly, it was good. Maybe too neutral for me.

 

[Garming]

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 show House has been filmed using a Canon 5dmarkii. Many film productions use dslr to film because they are so versatile.

 

[krumme]

Record the audio separately, combine later with software (e.g. DualEyes, PluralEyes. super easy, will autosync based on audio recorded on camera's internal mic)
http://www.adorama.com/SOPCMM10RD.html

The Nikon V1 is super for "video that doesn't shake" due to how well the lens VR works and has very usable autofocus. ($499 via link on nikonrumors.com). 1080i/60 (interlaced) helps with rolling shutter.


V1 sample video (hand held)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huYo9xTPEEo

$750 thus far, add a mic and you are good to go.

JR

Thanx for advice, but i dont think, judging from the video, the Nikon V1 is that much of a step up in video quality compared to my existing one. But i like the compactness and that its only 10mpix.

I would rather go for the Sony slt 57 compared to this Nikon. But still the gh2 looks sharper and less noisy than the slt 57??