SD Camera For Under $1,000?
- Thread starter Mrvn
- Start date
I've never used it but it seems like it's a pretty solid popular camera. I always thought it was SD though.
Is there a particular reason why you want SD and not HD? Is it for some special project?
Is there a particular reason why you want SD and not HD? Is it for some special project?
Not really anything specific, there are many factors, but it's mainly due to me having a (slight) hate towards HD (long story) and for some reason SD in my (so humble) opinion is the closest thing to capturing the film look. (ok, let the bashing begin.)
Last edited:
Pretty much any of the last generation SD cameras can be had for $1000 used. Gl1, XL1, XL2, DVX100, etc... Most people view them as little better than doorstops at this point, and are dumping them like crazy for either HD prosumer or DSLR.
Personally I wouldn't buy an SD camera at this point (unless price was the major factor). HD just captures more info. Even if the finished product is SD, you started with more image information.
Personally I wouldn't buy an SD camera at this point (unless price was the major factor). HD just captures more info. Even if the finished product is SD, you started with more image information.
Last edited:
Do you know of any sites where I could go to to get the full list of Last Gen SD cameras? That would be really helpful.
Interesting... I've heard a few times that downscaling HD to SD is frowned upon if your original intent was to have it in SD... I take it this is not the case?
Last edited:
A combination of the right frame rate, shutter speed, lenses, exposure, lighting, etc... make HD look very "film like". It doesn't look much different than SD, just "better". It's a little crisper SD (but no too crisp), little more detail in the shadows, etc...
That being said, for $1000 an SD camera is probably the best option. I'd get the DVX100B. Not falling out of trees at that price, but can be found, and it was the camera everybody I knew recommended when SD prosumer was at it's height. To get HD for $1000 you're looking at a Canon like the HV-40 or a DSLR like the T2i.
That being said, for $1000 an SD camera is probably the best option. I'd get the DVX100B. Not falling out of trees at that price, but can be found, and it was the camera everybody I knew recommended when SD prosumer was at it's height. To get HD for $1000 you're looking at a Canon like the HV-40 or a DSLR like the T2i.
Last edited:
Not really anything specific, there are many factors, but it's mainly due to me having a (slight) hate towards HD (long story) and for some reason SD in my (so humble) opinion is the closest thing to capturing the film look. (ok, let the bashing begin.)
I'm not gonna bash, but I definitely disagree. There are many things that go into capturing the film look, and I don't think SD is one of them. I'm not anti-SD, and I think you can make some beautiful films with SD, but if you want film look, I think higher resolution is your friend.
I agree. I'd rather have a SD camera with a large chip and manual controls than a entry-level consumer HD camera (like the Flip), but more resolution is definitely not going to make it look less like film.
I don't understand how SD in and of itself could be more film like. It's just resolution. Now a format might lean more towards it like if you wanted to say mini-dv was closer or something haha, but even then most SD formats are interlaced which lens more away from film.
Resolution-wise, 16mm is about 2K resolution (or 1080p, pretty close) and 35mm closer to 4k.
Resolution-wise, 16mm is about 2K resolution (or 1080p, pretty close) and 35mm closer to 4k.