Advise on what camera to buy!

[Panos]

Hello,

I want to buy a camera for shooting videos and movies.
I have some characteristics in my mind that I want my camera to have.
Please give me any advise on what camera should I buy.

One big question is DSLR or camcorder? Which have more professional result?
(comparing DSLR and camcorder at the same price f.e. $1000).
Is it true that expensive camcorders are better than DSLRs in the same price?

I want my camera to definitely have/be:
Full HD or above
60 fps (not 50 or 48...)
good for night shot
jack for microphone
enough zoom (for DSLR as much as it can)
uncompressed video saving

I don't get bored to make research, I'm searching everyday and I include in my research your opinions!

Please tell me your opinion on what kind of camera should I buy.

UPDATE (27-8-2015):
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)

 

[film_autre]

you want a good lowlight camera, with 1080p or more to shoot straight to Prores with 60fps ... for under $1000 dollars?

well if you come back to this forum in 20 years im sure the shogun and A7S will cost less than $100.......

 

[Panos]

you want a good lowlight camera, with 1080p or more to shoot straight to Prores with 60fps ... for under $1000 dollars?

well if you come back to this forum in 20 years im sure the shogun and A7S will cost less than $100.......

Are you kidding?? Canon EOS Rebel T3i, Sony FDR-AX33/B

 

[FilmmakerJ]

you want a good lowlight camera, with 1080p or more to shoot straight to Prores with 60fps ... for under $1000 dollars?

well if you come back to this forum in 20 years im sure the shogun and A7S will cost less than $100.......

Yeah, what's wrong with you, ~film_autre?

Not only are quite a few cameras with most of ~Panos' needs about $1000 or less, but it should only take another 5 years or so before the $2500 and $3000 cameras with their specific capabilities are available to buy for only $1000.

You're a bit out of touch with tech it seems.

And yes, my T3i does allow for 60fps. Although night-shooting is it's worst issue. So you'd either have to get some pretty expensive wide-open fast lenses and a speed-booster. Or you'll need to go for something a little more robust that's near the $2000 range.

And when you say "Full HD," are you saying you want it 1080p rather than 720p? Cause I don't think any camera cheats its buyers by using 720p video these days, what with so many new cameras supporting 4k. But if you're saying "Full HD" as in "it has a really clear and solid HD resolution," then you'd be better getting something with 4K quality, because that can squeeze so much more detail down into an HD space. And it uses each pixel much more effectively. Regular native HD looks more and more fuzzy and blurry these days because the sensors are still a tad small. I imagine if HD only cameras used 4k quality sensors, then they'd look just as good. But then why not just let people have 4K? So maybe there's not point in them doing that. lol

 

[film_autre]

Are you kidding?? Canon EOS Rebel T3i, Sony FDR-AX33/B

since when did the T3i shoot uncompressed video ? it doesnt (it can shoot a few crappy raw frames and thats it) and its not good in low light, up to iso 800 is ok 1600 is somewhat muggy beyond that its unusuable.

 

[film_autre]

Yeah, what's wrong with you, ~film_autre?

Not only are quite a few cameras with most of ~Panos' needs about $1000 or less, but it should only take another 5 years or so before the $2500 and $3000 cameras with their specific capabilities are available to buy for only $1000.

You're a bit out of touch with tech it seems.

And yes, my T3i does allow for 60fps. Although night-shooting is it's worst issue. So you'd either have to get some pretty expensive wide-open fast lenses and a speed-booster. Or you'll need to go for something a little more robust that's near the $2000 range.

And when you say "Full HD," are you saying you want it 1080p rather than 720p? Cause I don't think any camera cheats its buyers by using 720p video these days, what with so many new cameras supporting 4k. But if you're saying "Full HD" as in "it has a really clear and solid HD resolution," then you'd be better getting something with 4K quality, because that can squeeze so much more detail down into an HD space. And it uses each pixel much more effectively. Regular native HD looks more and more fuzzy and blurry these days because the sensors are still a tad small. I imagine if HD only cameras used 4k quality sensors, then they'd look just as good. But then why not just let people have 4K? So maybe there's not point in them doing that. lol

out of touch because I exaggerated a figure and a number of years?

since when was a speedbooster made for apsc ef mount your giving out incorrect information.

full hd means 1080p no other way around it, hd ready is 720p (technicals)

c100 uses a 4k sensor wonder what the point in that was?

I know what im talking about...

 

[FilmmakerJ]

out of touch because I exaggerated a figure and a number of years?

since when was a speedbooster made for apsc ef mount your giving out incorrect information.

full hd means 1080p no other way around it, hd ready is 720p (technicals)

c100 uses a 4k sensor wonder what the point in that was?

I know what im talking about...

But when someone else doesn't know, then you shouldn't exaggerate something and then not say that it was a joke. You confuse the heck out of people, especially when they're asking legitimate questions. If you go and tell a joke like that, and then not follow it up with real facts, then you're not helping anybody, you're just wasting their time.

And okay. Didn't know the c100 used a 4k sensor. So that's good then. Good to know.

The speedbooster was just a ride-along suggestion with the fast lenses. Looks like DSLRs can't use them, though, because the mirror gets in the way. Makes sense. So they're mainly just for Micro-4/3rd bodies.

 

[FilmmakerJ]

since when did the T3i shoot uncompressed video ? it doesnt (it can shoot a few crappy raw frames and thats it) and its not good in low light, up to iso 800 is ok 1600 is somewhat muggy beyond that its unusuable.

It's still a decent camera for someone who wants something for $1000 or less. And I don't think the T5i has made many new or useful features available. Besides, you'd do better to say the negatives while also pointing out that it's still an okay choice. Unless you're just really adamant to suggest anything less than quality on all fronts.

Everybody has to make compromises somewhere.

 

[WalterB]

But when someone else doesn't know, then you shouldn't exaggerate something and then not say that it was a joke. You confuse the heck out of people, especially when they're asking legitimate questions.

And okay. Didn't know the c100 used a 4k sensor. So that's good then. Good to know.

The speedbooster was just a ride-along suggestion with the fast lenses. Looks like DSLRs can't use them, though, because the mirror gets in the way. Makes sense. So they're mainly just for Micro-4/3rd bodies.

Canon DSLRs can't use Metabones speedbooster because those are converters from E- or M4/3 to EF (or Nikon). The focaldistance would become messed up if you would put something between a EF-lens and EF body.
It has nothing to do with the mirror getting in the way. (Although the presence of the mirror is the reason the focal distance of EF lenses is larger than on E- and M4/3 bodies.)

Your T3i does 60fps at 720p not 1080p.
And the reason HD from (Canon) DSLRs looks fuzzy is because they lineskip the chip and only use about 800 lines that are stretched to 1080.
One of the reasons the C100 looks much charper. (And indeed the C-EOS cameras use at least 4K chips )

Anyway:

@OP
when it comes to shooting at night the A7s is the champion.

More important: what experience do you have with what cameras?

 

[FilmmakerJ]

Your T3i does 60fps at 720p not 1080p.
And the reason HD from (Canon) DSLRs looks fuzzy is because they lineskip the chip and only use about 800 lines that are stretched to 1080.

That's true too. Almost forgot about that.

The GH4 can go up the 96 in 1080 though, but not in 4K. Only until you get up to the RED Epic Dragon can you see 120fps at around 4k-5k, 150fps at 4k only, and 300fps at 2k. So as we keep pushing the limits, it seems there may always be a trade-off due to read-and-write speeds, and internal bandwidth.

 

[WhiteOpus]

it's gonna be difficult to get all of those specs in one camera body for ~$1,000. The G7 does 4k, 1080 at 60fps. Zoom isn't related to the camera but the lens you put on it. The G7 comes with a power zoom lens with a pretty good range (14-140mm). Has an 1/8" microphone jack. No prores, not great in low light. Everything is a compromise at your price point, if those specs absolutely need to be met.

If you're looking for one-size-fits-all, you're not going to find it, no matter how much money you have or research you do. Rent cameras, buy lenses!

 

[Panos]

Thank you for the answers guys, I'm understanding a bit more now so let me change a little the question:
DSLR or Camcorder for best results? What would you suggest for better results?

 

[FilmmakerJ]

Thank you for the answers guys, I'm understanding a bit more now so let me change a little the question:
DSLR or Camcorder for best results? What would you suggest for better results?

From what I understand and what I've used, a camcorder is more for casual capturing of events. They can record for very long periods of time without stopping, and they are looking better these days than they used to.

But if you want to start making indie films and professional looking video projects, then there's no contest, you need a DSLR, or a comparable camera model: as the Sony A7s and the Black-magic Pocket cameras are technically not DSLRs even though they are in the same price range, and they are of similar size and shape.

But generally, DSLR cameras have better color, better clarity, better dynamic range, smaller noise, and so on.

 

[Panos]

From what I understand and what I've used, a camcorder is more for casual capturing of events. They can record for very long periods of time without stopping, and they are looking better these days than they used to.

But if you want to start making indie films and professional looking video projects, then there's no contest, you need a DSLR, or a comparable camera model: as the Sony A7s and the Black-magic Pocket cameras are technically not DSLRs even though they are in the same price range, and they are of similar size and shape.

But generally, DSLR cameras have better color, better clarity, better dynamic range, smaller noise, and so on.

Thank you!

 

[WalterB]

Thank you for the answers guys, I'm understanding a bit more now so let me change a little the question:
DSLR or Camcorder for best results? What would you suggest for better results?

Define better results

And define camcorder.

The world of cameras is not devided in those 2 alone.
But that is a whole different story.

A talented cameraman with a camcorder will produce better results than a nitwit with a DSLR, and vice versa.
The camera is only one part of the chain the makes a result good or not.

The main question is: what do you want to shoot?
And what look do you want?
Do you want a very shallow depth of field (DOF): then you should look at larger sensor cameras: full-frame, S35, APS-C.
Micro 4/3rds is somewhere between large and small sensors.

Camcorders used to have 1/4", 1/3" or 1/2" and sometimes 2/3" sensors.
Nowadays there are also models with larger sensors.

If you want (motorized) zoom with a large range: look at camcorders.

Do you want NDs in your camera?
Stay away from DSLRs and likewise cameras, because they don't have them.

Do you want peaking and zebra in your camera without hacking it?
Stay away from Canon DSLRs.

And I'm asking again: what experience do you have with filming?
And what do you want to make?

From what I understand and what I've used, a camcorder is more for casual capturing of events. They can record for very long periods of time without stopping, and they are looking better these days than they used to.

Yeah, single CCD on Hi8 looked awefull... but hey: that was the time a SLR still used film
If you can hot-swap memory cards you can shoot as long as you have power and memory. I was shot a conference 6 hours not stop.

But if you want to start making indie films and professional looking video projects, then there's no contest, you need a DSLR, or a comparable camera mode..................

A DSLR is not a garantuee for professional looking videos.
I believe you can make professional looking videos with any decent camera.
(Actually, I know that )

 

[FilmmakerJ]

Define better results
A DSLR is not a garantuee for professional looking videos.
I believe you can make professional looking videos with any decent camera.
(Actually, I know that )

To mirror one of your own questions: define "decent?"
Because while I concede that you can make a professionally shot film with almost any camera, depending on the one you use, you could have far less options with lighting on set, and far less options in post to make your film look like a professional production: something with wide dynamic range and crisp blacks particularly.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Because while I concede that you can make a professionally shot film with almost any camera ...

Why would you concede something which is NOT true?

I want to buy a camera for shooting videos and movies. ... One big question is DSLR or camcorder? Which have more professional result?

The big question, which bizarrely has not been mentioned, is: What do you mean by "more professional"? Do you mean 1. What gives a better looking result or do you mean 2. What gives a professional result?

ALL the answers you have received in this thread so far address question #1, not question #2, regardless of which question they state they are answering! Without wishing to be at all disparaging, most members on this board are amateur filmmakers trying to get the best "look" possible for self-distribution and/or film festivals. Extremely few members here have any idea what a "professional result" actually is, or even that there is a significant difference between a professional looking result and an actual professional result!

If you are asking question #2, then the answer is not straight forward. You state that you want a camera "for shooting video and movies", the first question is not what are you shooting but what are you shooting for? IE. What is your target distribution? Is it essentially an amateur self-distribution platform like Youtube, BluRay/DVD and/or film festivals or is it commercial distribution such as HDTV broadcast? If it's the latter, then where are you hoping to be broadcast and what type of content. For example, ENG/Journalism or drama/fiction?

In Europe HDTV is standardised by the EBU (European Broadcast Union), who publish recommendations for all technical aspects of HDTV broadcast. Unless you adhere to these specifications/recommendations, many/most broadcasters in Europe will not consider your films/content to be HD standard and will NOT broadcast it. As far as HD cameras are concerned the EBU states: "To help maintain acceptable levels of quality in European HDTV programme making, the EBU has specified a series of measurements that will reveal a camera's ability to produce high definition television pictures.". In other words, regardless of what a camera manufacturer may state in their marketing, unless it meets EBU standards, it's effectively not a HD camera! AFAIK currently, according to the EBU, pretty much no DSLR is capable of HDTV quality!! Exactly how European broadcasters implement these standards can vary. In the UK for example, your dramatic HDTV production is allowed to contain no more than 25% sub-standard HD content. If for example you shoot your film (or even just 30% of your film) on a DSLR, none of the main HDTV broadcasters in the UK will broadcast it and obviously neither can any other HDTV broadcaster in Europe who has implemented the EBU recommendations. Before buying a camera, if you ever intend to make HDTV content, you will need to find out if it meets EBU standards or, when and how HDTV broadcasters in Greece implement EBU standards. Here is a link to the EBU page on Camera Tiering and Measurements. It would be wise NOT to ignore this aspect of camera choice, as the EBU states: "Knowing the performance of your HD cameras is one thing, but understanding how this performance relates to a camera's suitability for a given programme genre is quite another."

Full HD or above ... 60 fps (not 50 or 48...)

Why do you want 60fps? 1080p is almost always 23.976fps, 1080i at 50 fields per sec is currently the most common European HDTV broadcast format and, most cameras are not capable of 60fps anyway. Many cameras may state 60fps but in reality most are 59.94fps (fields or frames), which is an ATSC or NTSC (North American) TV frame or field rate, not a European one! So again the question is, where are you intending to distribute and why 60fps?

jack for microphone

You want to make professional or professional looking videos/movies which sound amateur?

G

 

[WalterB]

@APE:
if every element (good light, sound, cast, story) is in place you can shoot professionally with almost any decent camera. It is just something not everyone (or hardly anyone) can pull off.
Tangerine was shot on an iPhone and made it into Sundance:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/30/8523277/tangerine-trailer-movie-shot-on-iphone-5s

People want 60fps full HD mostly for slowmo possibilties without having to blowup 720p images.
Or because they think the higher number is better

(I've been responding more to FilmmakerJ than to question 2: there is not a straight anwser for that: that's the whole and complete philosophy of the craft of filmmaking )

 

[AudioPostExpert]

if every element (good light, sound, cast, story) is in place you can shoot professionally with almost any decent camera.

Depending on where/what you're distributing, no you can't, that's my whole point! Regarding Tangerine shot on an iPhone:

1. Sundance isn't professional/commercial distribution, it's a film festival (which can lead to commercial distribution).

2. If Tangerine had been made for a HDTV EBU broadcaster, the filmmakers would have to re-shoot 75% of it because according to the EBU Tangerine was NOT shot to professional HDTV standards! I'm not sure what, if any, camera/image acquisition restrictions there are for ATSC broadcasters in America.

People want 60fps full HD mostly for slowmo possibilties without having to blowup 720p images. Or because they think the higher number is better

Exactly why I asked the question! If it's for the former reason, fine but if it's for some other reason, most likely the OP will run into some serious issues.

G

 

[NoGravity]

Canon 60D