Viewing 24 posts - 1 through 24 (of 24 total)
  • DSLR Camera with Video Capabilities any advice?
  • spokess
    Free Member

    Looking for a Digital SLR camera that I can do some form of good quality filming on and take great photos. That seems an easy question, but I don’t want to spend a fortune on it.

    If anyone has any advice that is welcomed and further if anyone knows of a cheap ish second hand one going for sale, please put me in contact. Looking to spend around £200.

    Thanks everybody

    5thElefant
    Free Member

    You’re looking at older stuff for £200. You’re limited if you want autofocus in video.

    An older sony would fit the bill. A55,A33.

    Or, mirrorless options would be Sony nex3 or nex5. Or the slightly smaller sensors open up Panasonic m4/3, which is another good bet, along with Olympus m4/3.

    Even smaller sensor… Nikon one can be had within budget, but that’s getting into compact territory.

    stuarty
    Free Member

    Video on a dslr,
    Got to be canon.
    Try cex
    cex 1100d

    5thElefant
    Free Member

    Keep in mind with the canon in video you have slow autofocus in video (as in unusably) and the view finder doesn’t work so you’re stuck with using the rear screen. Not necessarily an issue, but a nasty surprise if you’re expecting otherwise.

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    stuarty – Member
    Video on a dslr,
    Got to be canon.

    Which is the opposite to the advice I got when I was looking. It was Sony all the way then 😉

    bomberman
    Free Member

    Save up and get a s/h 550D

    bomberman
    Free Member

    and a prime lens

    5thElefant
    Free Member

    Just one? 😯

    stuarty
    Free Member

    Ask hollywood
    Canon 5d mk2 started the revolution
    As for dslr for 200 quid with video
    New canon with hybrid autofocus and stw lens no contest fast and silent but way out of budget …
    If your shooting landscapes yeah sony is trying hardest with big megapixel count bodys but not in the same league focus wise
    You try and price a R.e.d for video

    5thElefant
    Free Member

    All of the above is [politely] dubious, but more importantly irrelevent. We’re talking £200 cameras.

    MrSmith
    Free Member

    Most DSLR’s with video are not meant to be used with AF as it usually just hunts as the normal AF system cannot be used while the sensor is giving a constant live view. It’s actually quite quick to focus manually using the rear screen.
    I’m having trouble reconciling great quality images/good quality video and £200 though?
    Maybe a s/h lumix with an image stabilized kit zoom?

    5thElefant
    Free Member

    Most DSLR’s with video are not meant to be used with AF as it usually just hunts as the normal AF system cannot be I used while the sensor is giving a constant live view.

    The Sony being the exception to this, but in reality af in video isn’t necessarily as useful as you might imagine.

    I’m having trouble reconciling great quality images/good quality video and £200 though?
    Maybe a s/h lumix with an image stabilized kit zoom?

    Yeah, I’d be inclined to look at the mirrorless options and the lumix is considered the better option for video.

    TijuanaTaxi
    Free Member

    Does the 200 quid also need to cover a lens?

    If so think you will have to revise your budget in an upwards direction

    Never taken any video, but also assuming you would need something to keep the camera steady, so more money required.

    Just out of interest would it need lighting and a microphone too?

    5thElefant
    Free Member

    Plenty of used options for £200, which would have been £500+ new 2-3 years ago.

    Conqueror
    Free Member

    If its mainly video you are interested in Panasonic GH1/GH2/GH3 has to be in with a shout.. Perhaps consider saving more to get one

    There a GH1 going on a well known site for 275 with kit lens…

    The GH1 is the oldest and GH3 newest model…

    As ever, take review sites with a pinch/slab of salt and don’t place everything in lab tests and DXO mark scores… yes some film lenses really do render much better than digital lenses and on some heretic systems they are stabilised too 😉 , but I digress you want a video job:

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gh3/20

    The GH3 offers the best video quality of any camera we’ve ever seen and does a pretty good job of making it available to a wide range of users

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicDMCGH2/21

    As far as video is concerned of course, for the time being the GH2 is in a class of its own.

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgh1/30

    Expensive compared to most comparable SLRs, the key to the GH1’s appeal is its class-leading HD movie capture. The fact that it has the best sensor of any Micro Four Thirds camera is just the icing on the cake. Somewhat niche? Sure, but it makes most other SLR movie modes look like toys.

    doug_basqueMTB.com
    Full Member

    How much do you want to do? I’ve shot all my videos with a GF1 with the little 20mm prime. Well within your price range.

    Edit: and apart from all the most recent photos, I.e. last couple of months, they were all gf1 and that lens too. The quality is great. I think the video doesn’t stand up against the latest and greatest but its good quality.

    MrSmith
    Free Member

    people are hacking the GH3 for a higher bit rate but it’s still 4:2:0 and nowhere near the dynamic range of raw. but i expect the quality you were after is lower than this (if it’s higher you need to do some reading up and not on a MTB forum and add a zero to your budget for all the kit you need)
    why not get a small handheld digital camera with a built in zoom? the form factor is easier to use than a dslr and they are cheap even if you buy new these days.

    doug_basqueMTB.com
    Full Member

    Is the gh3 hacked already? I thought it wasn’t. The gh2 has a well known hack to up the bit rate. I did some stuff with a professional filmmaker and he was taking a hacked gh2 instead of a 5d because it was as good or better and easier to carry than his red thing.

    CountZero
    Full Member

    You try and price a R.e.d for video

    I was talking to a bloke with a RED body and Canon lens filming starlings down near Glastonbury, body only, around £52k?

    doug_basqueMTB.com
    Full Member

    This one was 20k ish I think. There are a few models. You start it like a computer, it needs to boot up and all the fans come on 🙂 there is something just ace about that!

    DiscJockey
    Free Member

    Unless you’re only wanting to plonk the camera on a tree stump and do all that arty blurry stuff, just get a camcorder and at least you’ll then have a useful zoom range and possibly image stabilisation. What’s your priority here: video or still photos ? if you’re on a budget, choose one of these and don’t compromise.

    MrSmith
    Free Member

    not for a scarlet. RED gets a lot of web chatter but most people i know shoot on the alexa or c300/500 after having a nightmare being beta testers by accident on a product that was released too early.
    funny how there are no RED cameras used in all the oscar nominated films.
    Jim should have stuck to making overpriced sunglasses 🙄

    eddiebaby
    Free Member

    If you get a Canon check out MagicLantern

    MrSmith
    Free Member

    No point when the fast card to make use of the raw data availability nearly blows half the budget, though you could use it for focus peaking.
    You are looking at 5gb per minute of raw data if you go down that road, do you have any idea of the transcoding time to generate proxies if you computer isn’t the latest 4core/16gb+ram/ssd machine? Windoze movie maker isn’t going to edit, grade or render those files out that either.

    A quick google shows small hd video cameras go for about £100-£150. Would be a good place to start.

Viewing 24 posts - 1 through 24 (of 24 total)

The topic ‘DSLR Camera with Video Capabilities any advice?’ is closed to new replies.