DSLR vs HD Camcorder
- Thread starter garyyyyt
- Start date
If you're just shooting for home video/amateur video applications, I think the DSLR will work fine.
But if you need more precise & accurate video documentation (eg. medical grade video documentation), you may have to opt for a proper HD camera.
Having moire effects, image skewing, color & detail reproduction inaccuracies are definitely not acceptable for some applications.
But if you need more precise & accurate video documentation (eg. medical grade video documentation), you may have to opt for a proper HD camera.
Having moire effects, image skewing, color & detail reproduction inaccuracies are definitely not acceptable for some applications.
I think DXNmedia has been shooting for awhile and he's used to pro cameras so its hard for him to look towards DSLR as usable in professional terms as he's more concern on the details (like those 422 colors, basic functions, etc)
If used correctly and skillfully + dependent on the output media (like for broadcast or for web, home viewing, etc). I think generally, DSLR gives a huge fight towards those $20k cameras in many areas especially image quality.
There are a lot of missing attributes (in DSLR) which are standard on video cameras but many of it can be worked around if your output media allows.
End of the day, the most important thing for shooters is balancing price & image quality.
And at the moment, no video camera (*At the price range) can match the DSLR's huge 35mm full frame sensor with very usable ISO ranges coupled with interchangeable lens which can give a f1.2/f1.4's impressive depth of field. Again, i emphasize "Price range" so don't shoot me with Cameras like RED one cause those cost $15-20k at least.
Lastly, I agree on the 'medical usage' thingy but no offense to the "home video/amateur video applications" remark. There are great companies charging USD$8000-12000 for 1-2 day event shoots using JUST DSLR's. I communicate with some of them and i know they shoot at least 4-5 projects a month. Go figure yourself what kind of money they are earning. (And Yes, their big money comes from broadcast & events, not weddings) If that is 'amateur video application', i won't know what to comment.
Cheers
If used correctly and skillfully + dependent on the output media (like for broadcast or for web, home viewing, etc). I think generally, DSLR gives a huge fight towards those $20k cameras in many areas especially image quality.
There are a lot of missing attributes (in DSLR) which are standard on video cameras but many of it can be worked around if your output media allows.
End of the day, the most important thing for shooters is balancing price & image quality.
And at the moment, no video camera (*At the price range) can match the DSLR's huge 35mm full frame sensor with very usable ISO ranges coupled with interchangeable lens which can give a f1.2/f1.4's impressive depth of field. Again, i emphasize "Price range" so don't shoot me with Cameras like RED one cause those cost $15-20k at least.
Lastly, I agree on the 'medical usage' thingy but no offense to the "home video/amateur video applications" remark. There are great companies charging USD$8000-12000 for 1-2 day event shoots using JUST DSLR's. I communicate with some of them and i know they shoot at least 4-5 projects a month. Go figure yourself what kind of money they are earning. (And Yes, their big money comes from broadcast & events, not weddings) If that is 'amateur video application', i won't know what to comment.
Cheers
Last edited:
In my opinion, I think it depends on what you are shooting. If you are shooting an event, i.e. Dinner and Dance, Graduation..etc, the client expects you to capture the content in full. You can't be using a DSLR to do that. That's just too many limitations for this kind of application.
But if you are making a short film, a wedding video... DSLR will be WOW!!
But if you are making a short film, a wedding video... DSLR will be WOW!!
I own a 7D rig to support some corporate clients, and I agree that they do what they do.
Full frame DSLR do achieve cine-like images which are pleasing to the eye, at a fraction of what the larger cine-grade cameras can do.
But unfortunately, I also have clients who demand accurate video reproduction for reference purposes.
The lines are getting blurred, but a tool is a tool. You choose the right tool for the right job at the right budget.
Ultimately, content is king....you can shoot something with no good storyline with an Alexa and it'll still turn out crap no matter how good the technical quality is. Shoot something great with an iPhone and nobody will care what you've shot with.
Going in to this discussion reminds me of the days when audiophiles like to argue on LP Records sounds better than CDs.
Full frame DSLR do achieve cine-like images which are pleasing to the eye, at a fraction of what the larger cine-grade cameras can do.
But unfortunately, I also have clients who demand accurate video reproduction for reference purposes.
The lines are getting blurred, but a tool is a tool. You choose the right tool for the right job at the right budget.
Ultimately, content is king....you can shoot something with no good storyline with an Alexa and it'll still turn out crap no matter how good the technical quality is. Shoot something great with an iPhone and nobody will care what you've shot with.
Going in to this discussion reminds me of the days when audiophiles like to argue on LP Records sounds better than CDs.
chrisyeong
Member
"medical grade video documentation", definitely not for the 5D (presume this the cam you guys r talking about, won't consider anything less, not even 7D). Corporate videos still call for harsher look, 5D's too beautiful, more for filmmaking. Moire, aliasing, rolling shutter is definitely managable with careful story telling and planning. Besides, this trade-off is more than worth it for a Vista Vision sensor and there's even gonna be a filter that'll fix 70% of the M/AA problem. And also a software to fix rolling shutter. The combined cost for all these r still less than C300 or $10k "proper HD camera". "for home video/amateur video applications"?, definitely much more than that.
Syafiq Jaafar
New Member
chrisyeong
Member
Well, limitations for the 5D to shoot for long duration is definitely plenty. People would also come up with an endless list of negatives just to discredit this baby. But, for those who embrace it, the rewards are unsurpassable knowing that all the hassle they go thru will eventually yield cinematically gorgeous visuals on a shoe string budget. Beautiful 35mm movie-like images that you can only dream of in the past are now within your reach. Of course with that kind of compression, theatrical projection is not recommended but who are we kidding here, it's wedding/corp videos we talking about and at best ,TV. Having said this, there'll soon be an ACT OF VALOUR, and I can't wait. A camcorder can shoot forever, which is what it for, just whack lah!
Bamboopictures
Senior Member
If you want DSLR look with unlimited recording (subject to battery life and SDcard capacity) go with either the GH2 or the VG20.
Keithdot Pyro
New Member
low light, longer filming duration = video cam
i think george lucas and some of his producers were quite impressed with the image quality shot with a 5Dm2 by philip bloom and projected on a 40 foot screen at skywalker ranch... enough said about dslr image quality!
link here:
Exactly 2 years ago my favourite ever blog post and the my most memorable job ever! Going to Skywalker ranch to show them how great the 5DmkII was | Philip Bloom
link here:
Exactly 2 years ago my favourite ever blog post and the my most memorable job ever! Going to Skywalker ranch to show them how great the 5DmkII was | Philip Bloom
Similar threads
