DSLR Video: Good Lens or Good Light? What’s more important?

R

Real_Rudi

Hi guys,
I’ve been thinking what’s more important for YouTube Video good (uber-expensive) lens or good light and other gear (stabilizer, field monitor and etc)? Sure, having fast photo-lenses is always better, but can you tell a difference if you just shot video and post it on YouTube? Comparison between BlackMagic and Mark III with good lenses exposed virtually no difference when uploaded. I was thinking if it is not lenses and sensor size, what is it?..Light, camera, movements some slick dolly moves!

So, I have made a test. I dumped all my savings not into expensive glass but into gear which makes DSLR more like actual cine-camera.
I shoot video using crappy lenses: Canon EF-S 18-135mm IS and Canon 50mm II f1.8.

And I used the following gear: Omni-Light 500 Watt Focus, Lowel ID-Light 100W Focus Flood Light, NEEWER® 160 LED CN-160 Dimmable Light, Lilliput 5dii-ho 1080p 7" TFT LED Field Monitor, Polaroid Video Chest Stabilizer, PROAIM KIT-10 Shoulder Mount Rig with Follow focus, Flashpoint LCD Foldaway Viewfinder 3X magnification, Cobra-Crane dolly, Canon 60D

What do you think? Can you tell I used crappy lens?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFlrVTKELLE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFlrVTKELLE

Slick or Cheesy?
 
Last edited:
Sort by date Sort by votes
Cinematography is really about the lensing and lighting you use.

Good lenses and good lighting is what's going to make your image look, well good.

Good support equipment is great to have and often times necessary, but it won't make the actual image look any better - a field monitor is just a field monitor. It lets you see what you're shooting, but it doesn't inherently make the image better the way a good lens or good lighting does.

Just as having a steadicam shot or long dolly shot doesn't make a movie that's lit badly look any better lit.

I'd also argue that there is a big difference between the 5Dmkiii and the Blackmagic Camera. Case in point:
http://www.fcp.co/dslr/canon/930-co...a-camera-the-canon-5d-mk-iii-by-marco-solorio

That said, a good image is more about good lensing and lighting rather than shooting on an Alexa or Red. With the right lighting/lens combination you can get images to rival a Red out of a DSLR, and with the wrong lighting/lens combination, you're not going to get much better images out of a Red than a DSLR.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Point taken. But if you only can chose one light or lens, what would it be?
I am still not sure, if Zeiss $3,000 lens will make a large difference (I have no way to try it out).

So, even with smaller sensor BMC is overperforming Mark III? Hmmm...I was always thinking that full sensor size is superior
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Without good lighting, you won't notice too much quality increase in your expensive lens.

Get lighting and grip equipment first, learn how to use it, and then some high quality inexpensive glass like Rokinon/Bower/Samyang. Those lenses are worlds ahead of a kit lens and start at $279.

Large sensors are often more desirable than a small sensor, but it's just one piece of the puzzle. You can't only look at one feature to decide a superior product, but all of the features combined.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm not sure which Mark III and Blackmagic comparison you watched, but I only know of one out there and the difference between the two cameras was drastic.

Mark III and just about anything under C300 can't compete in the IQ range. If Larger Sensors are your preference for whatever reason then that's a different story.

As far as light versus good glass: it's specific. If someone tells me they only have a kit lens then I'm going to say not to use that. If someone's got Nikons then maybe more light.

Of course, goes without saying, I'd rather not choose and I don't choose between better glass or more light: it's always both.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kholi said:
I'm not sure which Mark III and Blackmagic comparison you watched, but I only know of one out there and the difference between the two cameras was drastic.
Click to expand...

this is what I watched
http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/09/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-vs-blackmagic-design-cinema-camera/

I never downladed the orginal file, just watched what was uploaded. Maybe it is just me (or my crappy monitor), but I did not notice huge differences. Also, they did not show indoor shots with controlled lighting.

I am not advocating for full size sensors, I am just trying to understand what works better if only upload your videos on YouTube
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Real_Rudi said:
this is what I watched
I never downladed the orginal file, just watched what was uploaded. Maybe it is just me (or my crappy monitor), but I did not notice huge differences. Also, they did not show indoor shots with controlled lighting.
Click to expand...
To my eye, the difference was not miniscule.

Real_Rudi said:
Point taken. But if you only can chose one light or lens, what would it be?
I am still not sure, if Zeiss $3,000 lens will make a large difference (I have no way to try it out).
Click to expand...
As Kholi says, it's specific, and in the end it's both.

If you're shooting broad daylight exteriors, you're probably looking for better lenses and some reflectors/bounce/flags/duve/silks etc.
If you're shooting night exteriors and have no access to any power and no money for a generator to actually be able to strike up lights, you're probably want to get better lenses.
If you're shooting on a soundstage or warehouse with a lot of power available but an entire set to light, you're maybe looking at more lights.

But yeah, I wouldn't choose - it's always both.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top