DSLRs for video

[wilderesque]

This is an interesting article about the hefty storage cost considerations involved with 4K workflow and backup.

[Champion Souza]

According To Coppola, A $700 Video Camera Beats A $65,000 One

[ddiggler]

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.

[matt35mm]

What are you using it for?

[pete]

just read this, might it apply to your question?
I'm not familiar with sigma lenses.

http://digital-photography-school.com/why-your-kit-lens-is-better-than-you-think

[ddiggler]

I picked up some wedding gigs for extra cash and needed a more versatile lens. Things happen too quickly/without notice for me to fumble around with prime lenses. I've got my 28 mm 1.8, which is great for low light, but I was looking for something that I could frame shots with handheld and on the fly. I enjoy the Canon 24-70mm but it's just a little out of my price range at the moment. I had a photographer friend swear by the Sigma 70-200 so I was just looking for a second opinion.

[pete]

I think 70-200 is way too tele for your wedding run and gun needs. 24-70 is a great lens that covers the three shot sizes. I don't own one but I've seen it save many a days. if you're a wedding photographer then I'm assuming this lens can pay itself off after half a dozen gigs?

[matt35mm]

I've heard nothing but good things about Sigma lenses and I don't see why whatever difference there is between the Canon and the Sigma (except for $2000) would be significant for wedding videos shot on DSLR.

I agree that lenses are worth the money, but only when there is some specific quality to a lens that you want and can take advantage of. I wonder if the difference in quality between the Sigma and Canon would be as noticeable in video, after the loss in resolution and the compression, compared to still images...

For now I'd say do more research and maybe even tests before you buy, if possible. Use it in similar conditions and with a similar style that you'd use for the wedding photography, and do that in video mode. It might even come down to how it handles and feels. I know of lenses that have given me good images but feel plasticky and light and I can't manually focus in the way that I want to, and that's been a bother.

But there are very detailed reviews online, which may suffice, that also cover how the lens feels and handles.

[pete]

my concern wasn't in regards to the make of the lens though; it was that you're comparing a 70-200 to a 24-70, which serve two very different purposes; especially if, like you said, you planned on grabbing shots handheld. you won't get very usable images on the 70-200 handheld on a 60d.

[InTylerWeTrust]

Glad I found this thread. Guys, Im in a little bit of a dilemma here. I've been meaning to shoot my short film for a while now, but after shooting a couple "rehearsals" to see what it would look like. I just didn't like the look. I came to the conclusion that it is because of my crappy lenses (I have a 60d but doesn't look that sharp with the 18-55mm lens it came with, I also have a cheap 50mm lens that looks better but still not up to my standards).

So basically, I've been saving up to buy some nice lenses (most of which, actually cost more than the camera), someone recommended me the Canon L lenses, I was thinking of buying the 24-105mm one. But then I saw another short that was shot with a Sankor anamorphic lens and it looked fucking amazing! (the depth of field looks gorgeous on those things) (Here's how it looks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0RHstupguU).

So now I don't know if I should buy the Anamorphic lens or the L one. I only have money for one (both are super expensive). So, I guess the question is...

Which one would you go for?


P.s:  Most of my short takes place at the beach, I don't know if that influences my decision or not.

[pete]

get this
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12119-USA/Canon_2507A002_Wide_Angle_EF_35mm.html

or the 50mm 1.4 prime

both in the mid price range, both are lenses you can shoot a majority of a project with.

[InTylerWeTrust]

Thanks, Pete. I'll definitely check them out. I think maybe I'll buy a 50mm and an 18mm, to have a nice range.

BTW Do you know of any good water-proof cases? A friend of mine lend me a cheap one and it almost fucked up my camera  . I really want one cuz I wanna do some shots inside the water, Like entering the ocean or some crazy shit like that (kinda like in Boogie nights when the camera enters the pool  ) . 

[ddiggler]

my concern wasn't in regards to the make of the lens though; it was that you're comparing a 70-200 to a 24-70, which serve two very different purposes; especially if, like you said, you planned on grabbing shots handheld. you won't get very usable images on the 70-200 handheld on a 60d.

Sorry, to clarify, I wasn't looking into buying the 70-200, I was looking at the 17-70. I just heard about Sigma from a friend who had the 70-200 and liked it.

[Brando]

Thanks, Pete. I'll definitely check them out. I think maybe I'll buy a 50mm and an 18mm, to have a nice range.

BTW Do you know of any good water-proof cases? A friend of mine lend me a cheap one and it almost fucked up my camera  . I really want one cuz I wanna do some shots inside the water, Like entering the ocean or some crazy shit like that (kinda like in Boogie nights when the camera enters the pool  ) .

I would consider a GoPro. I don't think a DSLR waterproof case cost much more than a GoPro. I also wouldn't want to risk my DSLR and Lens to a "waterproof" case. Since you're already shooting digital I think that makes the most since. Is it ideal? no but that's why a lot of films/tv are using DSLRs because they rather risk a DSLR for a risky shot over a more expensive camera.

[InTylerWeTrust]

But wouldn't a Go Pro show a distracting (and annoying) drop quality-wise?  I don't know if I'd like that...  Are there any more options available?