DSLRs for video

Started by RegularKarate, April 13, 2010, 01:16:17 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

matt35mm

Well I just shot and cut together something with the hacked GH2 and 42mb/s. (You can view the video here but it's been graded and has film grain added, so it's not the purest look at the video quality, and it was mostly shot in 720p 60fps for the slow motion.)

It all seemed to work fine, until after shooting for a little while, the camera started to tell me that the write speed on the SD card was too slow. The card has a 20 MB/s speed on it. I guess it just means that I have to get a faster card if I want it to be reliable. But after a few tries, I got it to work for long enough to get the shots I needed.

I THINK I see an improved picture quality, or at least more latitude for me to grade with. I'm not sure how much of that is psychological, but either way, I am pleased with the final picture quality.

I'd like to see some stuff you've shot, wilderesque.

polkablues

Okay, this board has a wealth of great photographers and videographers, so I come to you for some guidance on my next lens purchase.  I have a Canon 60D, and the only lenses I have are the kit zoom lens (which is crap), and the 50mm f/1.4, which I love, but I didn't really realize how much image you lose with the 50mm lens on a crop sensor camera.  So I'm looking at 28mm primes to become my go-to all-purpose lens, and I'm trying to decide between the f/2.8 and the f/1.8.  I can get the 2.8 for around $200, while the 1.8 seems to run around $500.  My question is, would I ultimately regret going with the cheaper option?  Or is the difference in the lenses not great enough to justify the more expensive purchase?  For that matter, am I on the wrong track entirely, and is there some other lens that you would recommend instead?
My house, my rules, my coffee

pete

60D is not amazing with low-light, so the extra full stop does do a lot. My favorite all around lens is the 35mm @ 1.8, which roughly translates to a 50 on a 5D or any full frame camera.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

matt35mm

Yeah, you're going to want the 1.8, I think. It'll make a difference in the type of shots you can get, I think, if you want to take pictures of people indoors and not have it be blurry and/or grainy.

polkablues

Quote from: pete on February 10, 2012, 04:53:51 PM
My favorite all around lens is the 35mm @ 1.8, which roughly translates to a 50 on a 5D or any full frame camera.

I'm assuming you mean the 35mm f/2.0?  I'm not finding a Canon 35mm lens that's f/1.8.

Anyway, I think I've ruled out the 28mm f/2.8, which now leaves me with the choice between the 28mm 1.8 and the 35mm 2.0.  I'm leaning a little bit towards the 28, since it still gives me a pretty much neutral focal length, but there's more of a difference from the 50mm lens I already have than the 35 would be.  But then again, the 35 is about 100 bucks cheaper.
My house, my rules, my coffee

pete

yeah, sorry.
35mm 2.0 is one of my favorite lenses.
at some point you'd wanna save up for an EF zoom, either a 16-35 (for all your wide angle needs), or the 24-70.
lenses, that's the investment.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

pete

"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

polkablues

I ended up buying the 28mm f/1.8 used on ebay.  Ultimately, the build quality and the USM motor were the factors that swayed me to this one over the 35mm.  I originally bid $350, and would have been ecstatic to get it around that price, but I ultimately had to go up to $450, which is still around 50 bucks cheaper than new, plus I'm not paying sales tax on it and the guy was offering free shipping.  Now comes the agonizing part of waiting for it to arrive so I can start playing with it.

I've already got my masking tape and my red paint ready!
My house, my rules, my coffee

Brando

http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/blackmagiccinemacamera/

This camera was recently announced and some are saying it could be the start of the death of the DSLR. The price is right especially since the recently announced DSLRs have been very expensive. Technically the DSLRs in the hundreds to a few thousand dollar price range are still technically a stills camera that shoots video. Here is a camera at $3000 made for video shooters. The canon cinema line is interesting but right not very expensive.
If you think this is going to have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.

Pubrick

Wow, how are you supposed to hold that thing.

Also I guess that shootout will become immediately irrelevant once again.
under the paving stones.

Brando

Quote from: Pubrick on April 17, 2012, 02:30:08 PM
Wow, how are you supposed to hold that thing.

Also I guess that shootout will become immediately irrelevant once again.

If you go to the second page you'll see a set up for handheld. Here is some test footage. http://vimeopro.com/johnbrawleytests/blackmagic-cinema-camera  the sensor size is somewhere near 16mm. So the footage is much softer. I'm not good at tech so maybe someone else can explain it better.
If you think this is going to have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.

RegularKarate

No XLR though.  Seems if you're making the jump, why not include XLR in?  Especially since it brags about its audio capabilities.

It does look pretty and seems affordable.


diggler

I've got a Canon 60D and am looking to get some more lenses. I'm doing a lot of on the fly shooting lately and I need some zooms because I don't have time to keep switching between primes.

My question is this: I've heard good things about Sigma lenses, and in lieu of the insanely priced Canon 24-70mm 2.8, would the Sigma 17-70 2.8 be a suitable substitute? The difference in price is almost 2,000 dollars, so I'm considering it.
I'm not racist, I'm just slutty

matt35mm

What are you using it for?