Advise on what camera to buy!

At the end of the day your going to have to make a compromise what your looking for doesn't exist in that price range, if it was me personally I would go with the bmpcc or t3i both are crap in lowlight, the t3i has magic lantern and flexible screen but records to h.264 at a crap bitrate but don't be fooled it's your style and design that really counts, the bmpcc has better image quality, has much more lens options, is more discreet and records to a prores (I think dnxhd also) you can shoot flat and get really nice images from it, having had the t3i and played with the bmcc (not the pocket) I like the flexibility of the black magic but you won't get slow motion, I only ever used slow motion on the t3i twice.. You could also be more risky and get a GH2 and hack it..

the canon and GH2 are cheaper set ups.

The bmpcc is a lot of image quality for a small camera.

Not sure of headphone jacks as I never record straight to camera..

@ AudioPostExpert
What do you mean when you say that pretty much no DSLR is capable of HDTV quality?
________________
Please guys let's don't go further like "the story is most important and not the camera". It is true that you can shoot a movie with an 80 years old camera and make it a masterpiece and shoot a movie with Hollywood equipment and make it rubbish.. ( the second is not so weird..).

I want to start videos on yourtube (not TV) and maybe start creating some short films I have in my mind with great stories (in my opinion).

What I want is the best image, for day and night, I can have for about $1000. Also I want the 60fps for the youtube videos. The psychology of youtube viewers WANTS 60fps these days. It's very simple. And why not, 60fps for the movies (adding motion blur of course).

I have great content and ideas and now that I managed to gather some money I want a great image too (for about $1000).

Generally what I've seen is that the video of DSLRs is not even compared with the video of camcorders. Especially at night. But again I don't know. Someone would say that for youtube videos you have to buy a camcorder but again when I bump into an amateur prank on youtube but filmed with DSLR It's so great and professionally looking.

What about the nikon d5300?

Panos said:

What do you mean when you say that pretty much no DSLR is capable of HDTV quality?

Click to expand...

I mean that AFAIK, no DSLRs are capable of outputting footage to European (EBU) HDTV standards. To understand what this means in practice you should study/read the info freely available from the EBU (the link I posted previously). However, if you are going to distribute on Youtube and have no intention of HDTV broadcast then obviously EBU HDTV broadcast standards are not relevant to you and you can use whatever camera you want.

Panos said:

I have great content and ideas and now that I managed to gather some money I want a great image too (for about $1000).

Click to expand...

"Great content" means great images AND great sound. You seem to be looking for cameras capable of exceeding some of the standard Full HD specs while at the same time looking at a sound solution which doesn't even achieve standard definition specifications?

G

AudioPostExpert said:

You seem to be looking for cameras capable of exceeding some of the standard Full HD specs while at the same time looking at a sound solution which doesn't even achieve standard definition specifications?

Click to expand...

No.

For some reason you seem like you don't understand what I'm saying. But thanks for your advises.

FilmmakerJ said:

Because while I concede that you can make a professionally shot film with almost any camera, depending on the one you use...

Click to expand...

AudioPostExpert said:

Why would you concede something which is NOT true?

Click to expand...

Because apparently when I said "Professionally," you believed I was referring to the very pinnacle of the term, where I'm speaking of "professional" distribution, the highest "professional" tech specs, trying to brand and sell to the masses, and so on.

In this case, I was not. I was merely trying to express that if you know "how" to direct something well, as any "professional" director should: then you can likely make something "look" engaging and well-shot with almost any camera you use.

Although after being on this forum the past few months, it seems pretty clear to me now that even if you want to shoot something on your I-phone, you can't often get away with doing that without having really solid sound equipment, because your sound must be as good if not far better than your video in order to make an effective film. And a few people, I believe including yourself, have explained that one should put more money into sound equipment and a little less into a fairly decent camera in order to aim towards the best results with one's current budget.

I'll see if I can find a more proper term for what I mean in the future.

I think any of the prosumer DSLR's in the Nikon or Canon brand near your price range will make you pretty content.

Thank you again guys for all the answers.
Let me make the question even more specific after the knowledge you transferred to me.

I would like please to tell me if you know, a DSLR + lenses for about $1000 - $1500 that has/is:
Full HD 1920 x 1080
60 fps (at 1920 x 1080)
very good for night shot
a lot of zoom
jack for microphone (so I plug external microphone)

yes, rent out an A7S and rent a telephoto lens and rent a mic, problem solved thread closed.

film_autre said:

yes, rent out an A7S and rent a telephoto lens and rent a mic, problem solved thread closed.

Click to expand...

Your last phrase "thread closed" indicates an irony which I'll take into consideration to inform you that you are not in a position to judge whether the thread is closed. Have a nice day.

Panos said:

No. For some reason you seem like you don't understand what I'm saying.

Click to expand...

1080p @ 60fps is a higher technical spec than BluRay and a far higher spec than commercial HDTV but plugging an external mic into a camera is most likely to result in lower than SD sound quality, is this not what you are saying/suggesting?

FilmmakerJ said:

Because apparently when I said "Professionally," you believed I was referring to the very pinnacle of the term, where I'm speaking of "professional" distribution, the highest "professional" tech specs, trying to brand and sell to the masses, and so on.

Click to expand...

I was talking about professional in terms of making a living creating narrative film products for commercial platforms. Currently that means mainly TV broadcast but of course also theatrical distribution and increasingly some of the bigger established VOD companies. It's important to differentiate between these exclusively commercial/professional distribution types and distribution types which are open to anyone to create anything of any quality (or lack thereof). Youtube, Vimeo, etc., has no quality control, neither is there any quality control on what you burn to a DVD or BluRay and very little or none for most other forms of self-distribution. All commercial TV, theatrical distribution and increasingly the bigger commercial VOD companies do have QC though!

FilmmakerJ said:

I was merely trying to express that if you know "how" to direct something well, as any "professional" director should: then you can likely make something "look" engaging and well-shot with almost any camera you use.

Click to expand...

I agree entirely but as far as a commercial product is concerned this statement misses out on a vital role, the Producer. It's the producer's job to know the commercial specifications, QC and other requirements and make sure the director meets them. For self-distribution platforms there are just a few simple specs and no QC or other requirements whatsoever, so this most crucial aspect of the professional producer's role doesn't really exist for the amateur indie producer. The result, regardless of how close to professional the film looks, is a film which can only be self-distributed and then it's a hard slog just to get the investment back, let alone earn a professional wage for the time they've put into it. To stand a chance of actually breaking this vicious circle and get into the professional/commercial world requires the producer to take a professional/commercial approach ...

FilmmakerJ said:

Although after being on this forum the past few months, it seems pretty clear to me now that even if you want to shoot something on your I-phone, you can't often get away with doing that without having really solid sound equipment, because your sound must be as good if not far better than your video in order to make an effective film. And a few people, I believe including yourself, have explained that one should put more money into sound equipment and a little less into a fairly decent camera in order to aim towards the best results with one's current budget.

Click to expand...

It's often the case that amateur filmmakers concentrate their budgets, planning and efforts on the visuals, often achieving a near professional "look" but not usually completing the sound even in a professional audio format, let alone to anywhere near a professional sound quality. Well into four figures worth of camera, lenses and peripheral equipment and hundreds of hours of practice, study and planning and then a few hundred dollars worth of mic/recorder which is typically put in the hands of a near beginner to operate and with little or no planning! This imbalance seriously affects the overall quality of the film, counteracting however good a "look" has been achieved and this is why my advice is often; put more budget, time and effort into the sound. However, this advice is aimed at the relative newbie with an obvious focus on visuals. My advice to the amateur really serious about commercial content production is to aim to produce commercial content in the first place! Identify the specs, QC and other requirements of target commercial broadcasters/distributors, identify the resources required to meet those requirements, then budget wisely and spend efficiently to achieve those requirements. This is potentially the exact opposite advice given to the newbie because there are situations, content types or target commercial broadcasters/distributors where considerably more may need to be spent on image acquisition equipment than on sound acquisition equipment (or vice versa). In other words, decisions about where to cut corners, where not to and where to focus resources/efforts are driven solely by the objective requirements of the product rather than by the subjective requirements of the filmmaker, such as; which aspects of filmmaking they are most interested in, enjoy the most and/or find easiest. This is the difference between a professional filmmaking approach and a hobbyist approach!

G

Panos said:

Thank you again guys for all the answers.
Let me make the question even more specific after the knowledge you transferred to me.

I would like please to tell me if you know, a DSLR + lenses for about $1000 - $1500 that has/is:
Full HD 1920 x 1080
60 fps (at 1920 x 1080)
very good for night shot
a lot of zoom
jack for microphone (so I plug external microphone)

Click to expand...

HD: a7s
60 fps: a7s
Very good at night: a7s (pretty damn awesome and better than its competitors at this price point).
Zoom is nothing to do with the camera. So go buy a used Sony E55 - 210mm f4. It's only about $150 USD.
Jack for mic: a7s
Price: $1500 USD if you buy it used or maybe from Hong Kong.

I have absolutely no idea why you'd want this combination of kit so will ask the question: What are you using this for?

gorillaonabike said:

HD: a7s
60 fps: a7s
Very good at night: a7s (pretty damn awesome and better than its competitors at this price point).
Zoom is nothing to do with the camera. So go buy a used Sony E55 - 210mm f4. It's only about $150 USD.
Jack for mic: a7s
Price: $1500 USD if you buy it used or maybe from Hong Kong.

I have absolutely no idea why you'd want this combination of kit so will ask the question: What are you using this for?

Click to expand...

Thank you for the accurate answer! I want perfect, for this price, quality. I have some videos for youtube in my mind and I want to start making some short films. I believe that a great image is very important for the psychology of the viewer even for very simple videos.

Also thank all of the gentlemen who are helping me here!

(I'm sorry for my English)

Panos said:

I believe that a great image is very important for the psychology of the viewer even for very simple videos.

Click to expand...

This is obviously and provably untrue!

1. A good film is defined by the quality of the storytelling, not the quality of the image. To this end, there are many circumstances and even entire films where a great image quality would actually destroy the storytelling and therefore be the worst thing you could do for the "psychology of the viewer".

2. Even in those circumstances where a great image quality is warranted by the storytelling, it's only important for the psychology of the viewer if what is actually in the image is also good, if the sound is also good and if therefore the storytelling overall is good. The psychology of the average viewer is that a poor film with a great image quality is still a poor film and that the person who made it is just a poor filmmaker with a great camera!

Of course, it's up to you what you wish to believe and how you want to make your films. The psychology of viewers is not up to you though, all you can do as a filmmaker is use ALL the filmmaking tools available to try and influence that psychology. You however seem entirely focused on just one aspect of just one of those filmmaking tools and at the expense of at least one of the other vital filmmaking tools. All the indications are that if you are completely successful in your aims, you will make great looking poor films/shorts! Again though, if that's what you want to make, that's entirely up to you, Youtube does not reject films/shorts on the basis that they are poor.

g

AudioPostExpert said:

This is obviously and provably untrue!

1. A good film is defined by the quality of the storytelling, not the quality of the image. To this end, there are many circumstances and even entire films where a great image quality would actually destroy the storytelling and therefore be the worst thing you could do for the "psychology of the viewer".

2. Even in those circumstances where a great image quality is warranted by the storytelling, it's only important for the psychology of the viewer if what is actually in the image is also good, if the sound is also good and if therefore the storytelling overall is good. The psychology of the average viewer is that a poor film with a great image quality is still a poor film and that the person who made it is just a poor filmmaker with a great camera!

Of course, it's up to you what you wish to believe and how you want to make your films. The psychology of viewers is not up to you though, all you can do as a filmmaker is use ALL the filmmaking tools available to try and influence that psychology. You however seem entirely focused on just one aspect of just one of those filmmaking tools and at the expense of at least one of the other vital filmmaking tools. All the indications are that if you are completely successful in your aims, you will make great looking poor films/shorts! Again though, if that's what you want to make, that's entirely up to you, Youtube does not reject films/shorts on the basis that they are poor.

g

Click to expand...

1. I agree 100% that the only thing that matters is the story. It seems you didn't read something I wrote above: "Please guys let's don't go further like "the story is most important and not the camera". It is true that you can shoot a movie with an 80 years old camera and make it a masterpiece and shoot a movie with Hollywood equipment and make it rubbish.. ( the second is not so weird..). "
Nevertheless, it's not very difficult to understand that a great image will make the viewer a bit more happy and comfortable. (This has nothing to do with movies, I'm talking about videos like the view of your city, or a garden, or a prank video...)

2. You are making a mistake about the psychology of the viewers. It's not in your hand until the moment your movie starts. By the moment that your movie starts and as the first minutes are passing it's up to your story representing abilities (if there are any) to transform the psychology of the viewer and so, from then it is in your hands. I don't think it is a disagreement you maybe just didn't have this very clear.

3. At your last paragraph you seem upset and and a bit ironic. You have an opinion about me which is created in your mind by believing false facts for what I want, like that I don't care about the sound, (an issue that I never mentioned in my questions and never said that I won't search for quality sound solutions), and even worse taking as facts for me things for which you are completely unaware, like that my aims are to not give to much attention to the story but only to an expensive camera (which, by the way, for me was always 100% the opposite).

I can't do anything to prove you how much attention I give to the story and of course I don't care too much..(even though my fingers are tickling to write my name and tell you to remember it...) But you can do something to improve your guesses, don't guess. Just tell your gentle opinions on my gentle queries, IF you want.

The only thing I wanted to know from this thread was a camera with these characteristics. And the fact that the only thing I wanted to know from this thread was a camera with these characteristics does not indicate, as you said, my aims or the aspects of filmmaking tools which I 'm focused on.

Thank again all the guys who helped!

Panos said:

You are making a mistake about the psychology of the viewers. It's not in your hand until the moment your movie starts. By the moment that your movie starts and as the first minutes are passing it's up to your story representing abilities (if there are any) to transform the psychology of the viewer ...

Click to expand...

This is a contradiction. If, as you say, it's up to your story representing (telling) abilities to transform the psychology of the audience then it's "in your hands" the moment you start planning your film and out of your hands the moment the audience start watching it.

Panos said:

You have an opinion about me which is created in your mind by believing false facts for what I want, like that I don't care about the sound, (an issue that I never mentioned in my questions ...)

Click to expand...

You mentioned it at least twice, including in your OP. If I am believing "false facts", it is NOT because I'm guessing, it's because you have provided false facts! You stated that you wanted the camera to have a "jack for microphone (so I plug external microphone)". As cameras in your price range have the poorest quality audio recording capabilities of just about any consumer device on the market, then by your own words you are looking for consumer/low amateur quality sound and at the same time higher than professional image specifications. An EXTREME imbalance of quality between different filmmaking/storytelling tools!

Panos said:

the fact that the only thing I wanted to know from this thread was a camera with these characteristics does not indicate, as you said, my aims or the aspects of filmmaking tools which I 'm focused on.

Click to expand...

The extreme imbalance mentioned above, which you yourself have specified, very strongly indicates a focus on image acquisition rather than on storytelling! As I effectively stated previously though, Youtube does allow films/shorts with both higher than professional image specs AND amateur/hobbyist quality sound. Therefore, as Youtube is your target distribution, you're completely free to make films/shorts that way if you wish.

G

AudioPostExpert said:

This is a contradiction. If, as you say, it's up to your story representing (telling) abilities to transform the psychology of the audience then it's "in your hands" the moment you start planning your film and out of your hands the moment the audience start watching it.

Click to expand...

And this is contradiction^2. Because If, as you say, it's "in your hands" the moment you start planning your film, then "it's in your hands" the moment you decide to go to a very good script writing school (...) and "out of your hands" the moment you start planning it because then you already have the abilities you have and can't get more. Or it is in your parents hands (contradiction^3) what kind of character will "give" you so you can write great or bad stories and so handle or not the psychology of the audience (great or bad storytelling depends on your character). But we can go for ever like this. Just stay at the fact that the psychology of the viewers is like a plasticine in your hands. It's up to you (the script writer) how the viewers will feel. And for little youtube videos like pranks the 60fps these days help a lot the psychology.

AudioPostExpert said:

You mentioned it at least twice, including in your OP. If I am believing "false facts", it is NOT because I'm guessing, it's because you have provided false facts! You stated that you wanted the camera to have a "jack for microphone (so I plug external microphone)". As cameras in your price range have the poorest quality audio recording capabilities of just about any consumer device on the market, then by your own words you are looking for consumer/low amateur quality sound and at the same time higher than professional image specifications. An EXTREME imbalance of quality between different filmmaking/storytelling tools!

Click to expand...

I never said whether I'm going to buy a good sound recorder or not. This is the "camera and lenses topic". I just wanted the camera to have a jack so instead or zero sound I have a very basic sound just to quickly record talking.... You keep guessing. I'm advising you again to try to stop it.

AudioPostExpert said:

The extreme imbalance mentioned above, which you yourself have specified, very strongly indicates a focus on image acquisition rather than on storytelling! As I effectively stated previously though, Youtube does allow films/shorts with both higher than professional image specs AND amateur/hobbyist quality sound. Therefore, as Youtube is your target distribution, you're completely free to make films/shorts that way if you wish.

Click to expand...

The extreme imbalance was only a product of your wrong guess. I'm focused on image because this is what I want to know from this post. Also, what I said about youtube was these: "I have some videos for youtube in my mind and I want to start making some short films" and "Also I want the 60fps for the youtube videos.... And why not, 60fps for the movies" I never said that the short films will go to youtube, but again you made a wrong guess...

All these wrong guesses in my opinion indicate a desire to arguing.

Panos said:

Thank you for the accurate answer! I want perfect, for this price, quality. I have some videos for youtube in my mind and I want to start making some short films. I believe that a great image is very important for the psychology of the viewer even for very simple videos.

Also thank all of the gentlemen who are helping me here!

(I'm sorry for my English)

Click to expand...

No problem for the English. Out of curiosity, do you want 'perfect quality' or do you want the criteria you stated? Reason I ask is these are different.

For example, this thread is all about 8-bit pro-res. If 'perfect quality,' for the price was my criteria, I would go for a used 10-bit native RAW camera with a prime. Again, assuming you are budgeting for all the other elements you need.

So this would be something like a used BMCC with a prime.

https://vimeo.com/paulrwalker/review/84971935/ccf932163f - 10-bit RAW

Here's my director's reel. If it is super-high quality, it is 10-bit RAW. If it is not, it is 8-bit: https://vimeo.com/paulrwalker/review/59957168/1df6f187a7

Sure, you can put a Ninja onto an a7s and turn it into a 10-bit RAW piece of kit but that's an extra couple of grand.

gorillaonabike said:

No problem for the English. Out of curiosity, do you want 'perfect quality' or do you want the criteria you stated? Reason I ask is these are different.

For example, this thread is all about 8-bit pro-res. If 'perfect quality,' for the price was my criteria, I would go for a used 10-bit native RAW camera with a prime. Again, assuming you are budgeting for all the other elements you need.

So this would be something like a used BMCC with a prime.

https://vimeo.com/paulrwalker/review/84971935/ccf932163f - 10-bit RAW

Here's my director's reel. If it is super-high quality, it is 10-bit RAW. If it is not, it is 8-bit: https://vimeo.com/paulrwalker/review/59957168/1df6f187a7

Sure, you can put a Ninja onto an a7s and turn it into a 10-bit RAW piece of kit but that's an extra couple of grand.

Click to expand...

I would like to be perfect for the criteria I mentioned. Thank you for the information!

Panos said:

And this is contradiction^2. ... Or it is in your parents hands (contradiction^3) ... It's up to you (the script writer) how the viewers will feel.

Click to expand...

That's a bizarre response! 1. It's not up to the script writer how the "viewers will feel" but the director. Audiences respond to the storytelling, not the story. 2. The decisions on cinematography/lighting, sound design, picture editing, music, grading and the other filmmaking tools used manipulate how the viewers will feel are taken during the planning and making of a film, not when the audience start watching the film and not when the filmmaker is an embryo. I've never heard of an ultrasound of a foetus holding a shot list, although I don't know for sure that one doesn't exist, I'm just guessing!

Panos said:

I never said whether I'm going to buy a good sound recorder or not. ... I just wanted the camera to have a jack so instead or zero sound I have a very basic sound just to quickly record talking.... You keep guessing.

Click to expand...

I'm not guessing, I actually have a pretty good idea of how sound and audio equipment works. If you want to avoid an imbalance between sound quality and image quality you're going to need a good audio recorder, a good mic/s and of course some "good" people to operate them. If you're looking to record some audio where the imbalance doesn't matter, because you're not going to use that audio in the finished video, then just use the camera's built-in mic. From the info you have provided, there is no scenario where a camera with a "jack for microphone (so I plug external microphone)" makes any sense.

Panos said:

Also, what I said about youtube was these: "I have some videos for youtube in my mind and I want to start making some short films" and "Also I want the 60fps for the youtube videos.... And why not, 60fps for the movies" I never said that the short films will go to youtube, but again you made a wrong guess...

Click to expand...

If you think I'm making "a wrong guess", then answer this question: If you're not going to distribute your 1080p 60fps movies/short films on Youtube, what movie/short film platform do you intend for them?

Panos said:

All these wrong guesses in my opinion indicate a desire to arguing.

Click to expand...

No, they indicate a desire to dissuade you from wasting your very limited budget on superfluous specifications and instead using it wisely, where it will most benefit your filmmaking. As I've said (twice) before though, you are entitled to your opinion and to make films how you want (if they're for Youtube).

G

AudioPostExpert said:

That's a bizarre response! 1. It's not up to the script writer how the "viewers will feel" but the director. Audiences respond to the storytelling, not the story... I've never heard of an ultrasound of a foetus holding a shot list

Click to expand...

Wow! Give to the greatest director the "fast and furious" script and tell him to control viewers (I mean good viewers) emotions WITHOUT adding any elements to the scenario. Better stick to your sound and audio profession
An ultrasound of a foetus holding a shot list?? The bizarre here is that exact response...! Please read 2 and 3 times what I'm writing instead of being so graphic!

AudioPostExpert said:

I'm not guessing, I actually have a pretty good idea of how sound and audio equipment works. If you want to avoid an imbalance between sound quality and image quality you're going to need a good audio recorder, a good mic/s and of course some "good" people to operate them. If you're looking to record some audio where the imbalance doesn't matter, because you're not going to use that audio in the finished video, then just use the camera's built-in mic. From the info you have provided, there is no scenario where a camera with a "jack for microphone (so I plug external microphone)" makes any sense.

Click to expand...

Here is a scenario using the info I have provided (because I realized that you are not so good with scenarios..) : I managed to gather some dollars. I want a great camera and a great audio with these money. This will be the only camera I have. So whenever I want to make a video without needing to be professional, for example videos for youtube, pranks, interacting with people..., (here is the tricky part, watch out) because the only camera I will have will be this great (for it's price) camera regardless of my neediness for a cheaper camera, I will use the only one I will have, the expensive one. But, instead of caring with me any expensive sound recording equipment, I'll just have a cheap wireless microphone plunged in to the jack that exists in DSLRs.
Despite your luck of imagination, the very fact that expensive DSLRs have a jack for microphone should trigger you to realize that there must be some scenarios about this.

AudioPostExpert said:

If you think I'm making "a wrong guess", then answer this question: If you're not going to distribute your 1080p 60fps movies/short films on Youtube, what movie/short film platform do you intend for them?

Click to expand...

So you admit that you made guess. And the fact that I don't know yet where to upload or send it... doesn't mean that I had in my mind the youtube option for my short films. So indeed you guessed wrong.

AudioPostExpert said:

No, they indicate a desire to dissuade you from wasting your very limited budget on superfluous specifications and instead using it wisely, where it will most benefit your filmmaking. As I've said (twice) before though, you are entitled to your opinion and to make films how you want (if they're for Youtube).

Click to expand...

Your general attitude doesn't help the theory of the "good person who want's to help". You said to much in this thread but at the end of the day you said almost nothing. The only thing that someone understands from your responses is that you crave to prove that you know many things and you are professional. But you have the right to believe whatever you want about your intentions.
The good thing is that you stopped guessing. Well done