Looking at upgrading from a Canon 500D to maybe a Canon 60D or Sony equivalent.
What I'm after:
- Better than the 500D for functionality and quality
- 60 FPS Full HD Video
- External Mic Input
I read that some Sony cameras overheat, now I'm scared.
Anyone been playing around with the new range of DSLRs? I'm still researching, thought I'd get some goss while I'm at it.
Side note: I've never understood why some lenses are a lot cheaper than others with the same zoom capabilities. Is the quality of glass a factor or something?
Side note: I've never understood why some lenses are a lot cheaper than others with the same zoom capabilities. Is the quality of glass a factor or something?
Umm, this is pretty important stuff hey.. Aperature (F numbers) is a significant part of photography :) My opinion.. Read more..
Once upon a time, Nikon bodies were better than Canon bodies, but Canon lenses were always superior.
I own a 300D, 450D, 40D and 7D. I probably don't use the 7D anywhere near as much as for how much I spent on it and the rest of the kit, but I would highly recommend one.
Side note: I've never understood why some lenses are a lot cheaper than others with the same zoom capabilities. Is the quality of glass a factor or something?
I have an old sigma lens that I had on my 350D, I reckon it gives a sharper picture than my brand new canon lens, different zooms but pretty much yeah, the quality of the glass, better low light capabilities and the type of elements they use and their ability to correct chromatic aberrations, etc.
I have a 60D and as far as video on it goes, wouldn't touch it with a pole. I reckon my canon video camera shits on it for quality (mind you video camera cost more than the DSLR did). Maybe it's just the settings I've tried but there's just something about the picture quality I don't like and it's hard to know exactly what it is. Kind of like when you hate a particular person for no reason, they're not a dick, easy to get along with but for some reason you just don't like them.
That's not to say the 60D isn't awesome at videos, it's just my personal opinion on the picture. Some people like metal, some like jazz.
E: Oh and the onboard mic is SHIIIIIIIIIIIT, and mono. If you're going for audio you'll need an external recorder, or at least a plug in mic. It does have manual audio level which is nice.
Lack of full time auto focus is balls too, one hand on the body and one on the lens at all times, you can press the AF button while recording but it causes the focus to go all over the place while it tries to focus. AF during live view/video is bloody slow and pretty much useless IMHO, dunno why they even bothered including it.
Once upon a time, Nikon bodies were better than Canon bodies, but Canon lenses were always superior.
What? I always thought Nikon lenses were meant to be far superior to even the canon L lenses, trouble was they were way too expensive for "hobbyists" so only pro's used them.
Nikon D800 is supposed to be pretty amazing, it's arguably got the best sensor available at the moment. I think I'll upgrade to one whenever I manage to get the money to.
I came from film, and was late into digital, I also shot canon and loved my canons to bits (and still use them from time to time, because digital takes the sport out of it sometimes)
there was two factors that lead me to go with nikon digital, one, I was given a d40x, but I also had the option of going a canon (same price of free)
I could not use the canon, the placement of button, knobs, and selectors didn't translate from the film layout, the nikon did
also, for the semi-pro, or pro-sumer the nikon has been the better offering, the d7000, easy to use, can do live view, great colour (fancy back end metering that means the colours are metered better than the metering in a canon) two SD cards (SD, not compact flash crap) which you can raid, and fire off shots fast as, and sustained shooting (put a quick lens on there and you could shoot a HD movie just with the shear amount of photos taken and saved)
Here is one about the 60D too shot with Canon DSLRs
I personally have a 5DmkII and bought it purely for landscape shooting. If I was after portrait or sports shots then I would have saved a bit and got the 7D.
Lenses: work out what you want to shoot and then look at a lot of samples to see what you like and for your budget. Quite often people spruik L-glass but have nfi why they would pick that lense over another. The speed of a lens isn't even a concern for most people.
Just bought a Canon EOS 600D from JB for $650. This is the first camera of this quality i've bought so i'm not that 'savvy' with the features although no complaints so far.
I've left the Canon 60D in there for anyone that wants to see how it compares to others. Seems like an amazing camera, especially if you shop around - can get them extremely cheaply! (Under a grand for the body and a twin lens kit).
Here is one about the 60D too shot with Canon DSLRs
I personally have a 5DmkII and bought it purely for landscape shooting. If I was after portrait or sports shots then I would have saved a bit and got the 7D.
Lenses: work out what you want to shoot and then look at a lot of samples to see what you like and for your budget. Quite often people spruik L-glass but have nfi why they would pick that lense over another. The speed of a lens isn't even a concern for most people.last edited by Herron at 22:02:58 27/Jul/12
L lenses are meant to be weather sealed, I've actually got some dust INSIDE my newest (non L) canon lens and I've barely even used it so I can see why you'd want to spend the extra and get a fully sealed lens. I've no idea how dust got into where it is either, it's inside on the end element. It would have to get in the back and travel all the way up to the front.
I've had a play with the settings a bit but like I said, it's more my personal preference and not so much that the quality is just bad. I don't even know why I hate it, I just do. It just seems "off" somehow.
edit: Ok I've been dicking about looking at videos I've taken with both cameras and to me the 60D video seems to have a noticeably larger amount of compression artefacts when compared to the raw video off my video camera. 60D uses quicktime, video camera uses AVCHD. To me it just looks like the difference between a DVD and a blu-ray, 60D is the DVD, video camera is the blu-ray (fitting since the video camera outputs blu-ray compatible videos I think). Probably wouldn't notice it if you weren't looking for it but now that I know it's there, I'm constantly looking for it. Like that damn fedex arrow.
Get a 5d or a 7d and a million lenses. You can never be more cool than changing a lens while standing in the centre of the city taking a picture of a broken paver in the sidewalk.
Great points, but unless it has 60 fps in 720p (minimum) all arguments are redundant.
After careful review and comparison, it looks like the 60D does what I need and is the best bang for the buck.
you know it still seems odd to me that you would want a DSLR to use as a video camera, this might seem silly, but it would be easier to buy a cheap recorder that can do full HD (which is 1080) at a good frame rate
you know it still seems odd to me that you would want a DSLR to use as a video camera, this might seem silly, but it would be easier to buy a cheap recorder that can do full HD (which is 1080) at a good frame rate
Need an all purpose and quick change between stills and vids, part of work. Don't want to lug around two cameras!
If you want to shoot video go the Nikon D3200 for a good price and great frames and good for night photography. Or the Canon 60D or D7000 if you have the budget.
Also the Canon 600D is great entry level camera just don't expect to take great recordings with a lot of movement (Video/Movie mode).
Don't go crazy if you are just getting into photography.
Even with the best gear you can still take shit shots.
My mate is a Nikon freak and I like Canon, but taking photos of the same subjects can be very comparable.
I do agree with a lot of people when they say Nikon's have a better layout. Just a lot easier to change settings on the fly and this is a really big factor for getting the right shot at the right time.
If your doing landscapes or portraits this doesn't matter as much but its just my 2 cents.
I have a 60D and while the video is ok, it's not meant for much in the way of colour grading or sharpness.
I'm getting into music video production and as a photographer, the video really sucks compared to a raw file from the same camera, which is why I preordered the Blackmagic Cinema Camera. Image looks far, far better in video.
As for lenses, the aperture (requiring more glass), optical quality and amount of elements used in the lens as well as the construction greatly affect price. Add onto that image stabilisation, chromatic aberration coatings, and distortion corrections, and you quickly spend anywhere from 1-3K. Thousands more for cinema lenses which have even lower tolerances and more specialised construction.
Be aware that most, if not all, current generation Canon and Nikon DSLRs employ line-skipping in video mode that results in moire and horrible aliasing, even in top-of-the-line cameras such as the 5DmkIII and D800. If you shoot in 720p the line-skipping is even worse! I did a shoot recently with a Canon 7D at 720p60 and those nasty artefacts were everywhere! The reason is that the processor chipsets have been optimised primarily for stills. In order to avoid overheating they use line-skipping to scale the image of the whole sensor frame down instead of, say, bicubic scaling (I think).
Check out this review out for an example (skip to 5:00 min mark)
I personally went out and bought a GH2 myself for the video capabilities. The pros were: sharper video; excellent 1080p24; can adapt any lens; mic in (though 2.5mm); lighter and smaller body; good auto-focus in video; and much less aliasing or moire. In terms of stills the Canons are better, but not massively.
Just bought this, which is a good combination for stills:
Without reading the whole thread, don't buy an SLR for video, it's heavy and hard to hold without shaking if you're not using a tripod. Buy a dedicated HD video camera.
Without reading the whole thread, don't buy an SLR for video, it's heavy and hard to hold without shaking if you're not using a tripod. Buy a dedicated HD video camera.
All i heard was "i'm too weak and clumsy to film for hours using a DSLR".
I have before, and for amateur shit, it's fine.
Here's an example. It's green, i didn't edit it or listen to it i'm not actually a fan of the music style or band, but the guys were cool and i thought it would be fun just to play with a camera for a day and have some beers with a band. I was right. It was fun.
edit: again, this is purely an amateur opinion for how to cheaply make amateur videos using equipment you might already own. I don't own any of the camera's but my mate who runs the thing owns a mark1 5d and a mark 2 5d and a 7d of some kind. hence he wanted a hand as he wanted to film lots at once.
and speaking of battery grips, making sure you don't leave your camera on when you put it in your bag, that way you'll not have a flat battery when you need it (make that mistake today, camera was last used 2 weeks ago)
Without reading the whole thread, don't buy an SLR for video, it's heavy and hard to hold without shaking if you're not using a tripod. Buy a dedicated HD video camera.
Cinematographer Shane Hurlbut used Canon EOS 5D Mark II cameras with Zeiss ZE and Panavision Primo lenses. The cameras followed the SEALs' planned out missions in the film.[4] Hurlbut used an 18mm Zeiss ZE mounted on the SEALs' helmets to capture their point of view. The 25mm Zeiss ZE was used to capture natural light coming through windows. The 21mm Zeiss ZE was used as a stake cam so a truck could drive over it.[11] The Navy held final cut privileges[4] in order to remove any frames to address security concerns and kept raw footage to use for real-life training and other purposes.[8]
Need an all purpose and quick change between stills and vids, part of work. Don't want to lug around two cameras!
^^ He doesn't want to carry 2 cameras for stills & video, it's unlikely he's going to want to also carry around multiple lenses and different kinds of steadycam's.
I've been thinking about getting the CANON EF 50mm f1.2L USM LENS but I think I'd rather have a zoom lens. I'm actually impressed with my old sigma 18 - 200 F3.5-6.3.
What the hell is that storage room? Do all photographers just leave their gear in there? Or are they all owned by someone (canon?) who just rents them out to photographers?
Hemerage: yeah I gave up on the idea of the 50mm anyway, like I said I'd rather have zoom ability.
Should start a qgl photography facebook page & set ourselves challenges & stuff. Who remembers the macro thread on here? Someone would post a really close up photo of something and we'd have to guess what it was.
Now, with the money I saved, I'm going to look at a decent lens and external microphone. Any suggestions? What's this about the sigma 50mm?
I don't record video on mine but I watch a fair few youtube videos on how to get better audio and the consensus was to use an external recorder, a clapper board (or just clap your hands) and sync the audio later. Some people were using a zoom h1, others were using sophisticated wireless mics, others used a boom mic but they all had one thing in common. Not using the camera's built in recorder.
Also don't forget the 60D has a max record time of 12 minutes thanks to the limitations of the fat32 file system. Have fun with that.
actually I just remembered, this popped up in my youtube feed the other day.
Also don't forget the 60D has a max record time of 12 minutes
Most Videos/Recordings/Clips etc don't go for 12 minutes (straight) Without cutting away, cropping, panning, zooming etc.... So its not really a limitation. Shoot in snippets, Put together.
I'll be doing short clips as unclebob said, so that won't be an issue, Whoop.
Interesting idea of getting an external sound recorder ... I'm a bit of a one man band so I don't know how many things I want to carry around. I'll look into it for sure though. Thanks!
Most Videos/Recordings/Clips etc don't go for 12 minutes (straight) Without cutting away, cropping, panning, zooming etc.... So its not really a limitation. Shoot in snippets, Put together.
Maybe not but he said it's for work and for all I know "work" could be recording media events or car races that go for hours on end. My video camera gets around the file size limit by automatically splitting the files when they reach a certain size, I don't know why the hell DSLR's can't do the same given both my cameras are made by canon you'd think they'd use the same method for handling large videos.
Just because a single scene doesn't "last" for 12 minutes doesn't mean you won't have 12 minutes worth of filming in order to trim it down later. Personally for a professional or work solution I wouldn't be at all happy with a recording time of any sort. I would see it the same as those old crippleware programs that only let you record audio or video for 5 minutes unless you pay for the software. Well you've already paid a shitload of money for a DSLR and you still have restrictions? pfft, fuck that.
Let's say your friend gets married & sees you're pretty good at videos & asks you to video his wedding, well you can't because oh hey guess what, a wedding goes for more than 12 minutes.
PM
WWW
