I have never owned a DSLR but now that they shoot HD video, I have started to think about it.
Just one impression stands out over everything else. Am I correct? Is this a huge TRAP? I see the ad from B&H for the Nikon D600 Full-Frame SLR Camera. The body is $2,099.95 and with a lens it is $2,699.95. OK. I get it. The camera costs $2,699.95. I can almost afford that.
Or can I ?????
If I have one lens, my guess is that it will not be the "right" lens, so I have to go spend $1,000.00 on the "right". Oh no! The next shoot comes along and I need a different lens. This one costs $2,000.00.
This keeps going on and on and then I have 10 lenses worth $20,0000 and everything is fine until I buy the next camera body. You say that the lenses fit? Sure they do. But they are not good enough because they are designed for HD and the new body shoots Ultra HD. Didn't this happen going from SD to HD?
Or am I wrong?
This seems like a horrible trap for a hobbyist to get into. Is it?
That depends on the system you get and your shooting needs. There are cheaper (and better) camera bodies out there.
However, you're right about the lens situation. It'd be nice if every type of mount had a 14-280 parfocal zoom with constant T2.0, Optical Image Stabilization, auto and manual focus, servo and manual zoom and a smooth, non-stepping iris ring on the lens for under $1000, sort of a One-Lens-To-Shoot-Them-All scenario like we get with real video cameras. But sadly, DSLR lens makers are still focusing primarily on the photographer and don't make the kind of lenses we videographers really need (at any price). So, we have to have multiple lenses, all of which require some degree of compromise, and many of which cost a pretty penny.
But, the advantage may be that if the body goes, you only need a new body. When my video camera died, I needed a whole new camera.
I am a hobbyist, and I bought one of the very first Sony HDR-FX1 HDV video cameras just for the fun of being one of the first, and because I felt like I deserved a 3CCD camera. I had been using a Canon ZR-1. A nice little DV camera with one chip. Sure, I had made some money writing books and producing tutorials that more than paid for the camera and the PC I needed to get the most out of it. When I bought the camera, Premiere Pro hadn't even a chance at editing HDV. It was a couple of months before Cineform came to the rescue.
I just looked up the order to B&H in NYC. I paid $3,499 for the camera, $150 for the extended warranty (which paid off when my 1394 port blew out) another $150 for the bag to carry it in, $150 for 72mm filters, another $150 for the charger and larger battery. Back then, the recommended HDV tapes were $13.99 each! I bought ten.
The bill came to $4,304 including tax. Keep in mind that this was the cheapest place to buy it that was reliable.
All I can say when I look back on this is: Wow! What was I thinking? But you know, I have had a lot of fun with it. I mean really. What is the point of a hobby if you don't have any fun?
I am just afraid that starting down the road to DSLR will get me to the point where I want something like this: Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM Lens
I know my wife loves me. She really does. So I am certain that she would make sure that the insane asylum she committed me to was clean, and nice, with lots of light and maybe a decent view.
I want something like this:
That's nothing. I want this:
OK. so I was right. The lenses are the real cost of a DSLR.
Maybe I would have more fun with this at just twice the cost of Jim's dream lens.
The SA6 ought to do the job. I just wish I could go to 64G of RAM in order to get more recording time.
Back on topic a little...
I just downloaded Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 sample video and brought it into Premiere Pro. I was not exactly blown away. A little research tells me that DSLR cameras use a highly compressed video format. So I am better off just sticking with my Sony HDR-FX1 ?????
Really? I made the incorrect assumption that a high quality still would equate to a high quality video. Apparently that assumption is invalid?
Apparently that assumption is invalid?
Kind of. Stills from a DSLR are often higher quality than the video because they typically use the full image sensor, whereas most video output has been scaled and processed from the original capture to the HD frame size (and not always well). Add to that many DSLR makers consider video a second-class citizen for their cameras.
The Panasonic GH3 will likely be announced on Monday. Check that out before you buy. If nothing else, you will start to see a lot of GH2 models on sale. And that little baby can take a far cleaner image than your HDV model. I recently applied one of the newest firmware hacks and shot some footage of my kids swimming. I did some pixel peeping on the footage and a close up one one child splashing around feverishly produced not one single artifact, not one smidge of macroblocking, despite gobs of often difficult-to-encode water droplets flying about. Every frame was pristine and very filmlike.
I think I was more concerned about the extreme compression I have read about than the sensor. However, it seems like 1080 60P at 72Mb/s should be sufficient to carry enough information to get a good shot.
In any case, I don't really need a new camera. I am satisfied with the HDV for now. I have even taken some nice footage with my Samsung Galaxy SII. Much to my surprise. The auto focus isn't all that good, but every now and then, in good light, it is possible to shoot some decent material. (Please God, let me convince myself that I do not need a new camera - these things ares EXPENSIVE when you start adding all the different lenses! Maybe if I say it often enough I will believe it?)
I was just thinking that since I can't afford a truly great full HD camera, maybe a DSLR would be fun. But if the quality suffers, there isn't a point. Yet the video I just watched seems like this new camera might be the real deal.
I was just thinking that since I can't afford a truly great full HD camera, maybe a DSLR would be fun.
That's how I ended up with the GH2. My old camera bit the dust, and I just couldn't scrape up the funds for even a used HMC150 before my next gig.
That timing issue on the money turned out to be a blessing in disguise. The hacked GH2 produces a superior image to any video camera costing several times the price. I mean, the Panny 250 would turn out equally nice footage, but with it's 1/3 chip, I'd not get some of the beautiful bokeh I can with the GH2's 4/3 sensor. And I can put on faster lenses for better low light performance as well. So overall, that GH2 serves me very well.
I hope to add the GH3 soon as a second camera in the arsenal. The image sure does look nice in the right hands.
That link is broken.
I have to ask, and please be honest even if it is embarrassing.
How many lenses do you have for your GH2? So many you hate to admit it? Or not enough to get the job done? What?
Once again, it isn't the camera, it is the lenses that scare me.
Interseting. It just worked for me too.
Oh well. Temporary problem, I guess.
Edit: Oh. Cool. That was the video they were making in the ad that was released and removed.
I saw the different lenses. Once again. Which lenses do I need, which do I not need but really do, sort of, and which are out of the question because "need" just doesn't apply?
I have been experiencing some wonky Internet behavior, since Friday, and not just with the Adobe Forums.
Links work one minute, but not the next. Timeouts on pages suddenly, when things were going along well just minutes before. On Friday, when I began observing these little "glitches," I posted this to the Forum Comments Forum: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1066373?tstart=0
Then, I was ONLY on the Adobe Forums, but now I am seeing it across the Internet. Maybe the whole world is watching that danged movie trailer?
Today, I have have ~ 10 timeouts, when attempting to post to the Adobe Forums, but things usually work the next time, or the next after that.
PS - link worked for me first time.
How many lenses do you have for your GH2?
My thinking was that I could get all the range I needed for my projects with just two lenses, a 14-140 f4.0 and a faster 12-35 f2.8. But I guess there will be a whole slew of new options with the release of the GH3, so I'll wait and see what's on the table before I buy.
I'm not a fan of primes. They might work well for production work (which I'm starting to get more of) where you have the time to set things up and can do it over if you goof, but primes are too limited for the event work I do, where you often have 2, maybe 3 seconds to frame, focus, expose and start rolling or you lose the shot forever.
Yes, I can understand your point well. Not having done many quick moving events, I can see where a kit of good zooms would be a blessing. Being able to quickly frame up the bride falling into the fountain would be helpful.
I know a guy who lines up the bride and groom with their backs to fountain...starts rolling''..and then secretly has his assistant throw a snake at them, yelling " SNAKE ! "... He always gets great shots of them flying into the fountain and the look of abject FEAR looks a lot like XTREME HAPPINESS ....
I won't be redundant or repetitious. I will say that for those moving from a DX format to full-framed, this is the camera. I received my D600 late yesterday. I took it outside at around 7:45pm. It was dusk and nearly dark. I took 2 photos without flash and immediately noticed that the images looked as if I had taken them at 5pm. The larger sensor and brighter viewfinder contribute to the camera's excellent light-capturing feature. It's a great step up from the D7000. http://www.squidoo.com/2012-top-10-digital-slr-cameras