Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Many have said that dslr cameras suck at recording...

Why would they suck? They have great optics and a great sensor. They may need help with sound, but that would depend on the model.
 
I think they suck not for the quality of recording but the form factor.
 
So, have you decided yet, what you want to buy?

Anyway, if you are used to proper film/video cameras and (semi)-professional camcorders, handling a DSLR for video recording is quite different, thus the big accessories market that is out there, to make it a bit easier.

While the image quality is okay for its size and price, there is definitely better out there, and I am not talking about the Red One/Epic/Scarlet here, just some other expensive dedicated cameras, that store the captured images in a much better format.
CC on MPEG-4 recorded video is a bitch compared to properly recorded film/video, where much, much more colour information is stored within the file/print.

But for the price of current DSLRs, they make a good image, one just has to adjust to another flow (holding a DSLR is different than holding a 3 KG camcorder.
 
For the price they don't suck. For the price they are unbeatable if you want the shallow depth of field look.

Often I find that people that say that they suck haven't really tried to make them work and it's more a case of the person behind the camera is the one that "sucks".

"Like Crazy" a film that won last year at sundance and has been released in cinemas this year was shot on a 7d and doesn't have many of the problems that people complain about because they have managed to shoot in a style that avoids them.

It's also about research and using your budget wisely. For under £1000 I have a kit that I am very confident using and can create images that rival the higher priced cameras all with a bit less of a resolution. It has also taught be everything about cameras that I can then progress on to the more expensive cameras when I use them.

getattachment1aspxb.jpg
 
a lot of shows have used or starting to use dslrs for filming. the picture quality is insanely good, but you cant record for too long in a single session though, and form factor can be a pain to deal with.
 
acearchie said:
For under £1000 I have a kit that I am very confident using and can create images that rival the higher priced cameras all with a bit less of a resolution.Image
Click to expand...

I wish I had the creativity and patience to do serious filming. I applaud you and your kit. Do you have a picture of someone using that kit in action?
 
acearchie said:
For the price they don't suck. For the price they are unbeatable if you want the shallow depth of field look.

Often I find that people that say that they suck haven't really tried to make them work and it's more a case of the person behind the camera is the one that "sucks".
Click to expand...
That is way to bulky a rig to do video.
 
The travel channel went to tape my karate studio for one of their shows. They arrived not with a lot of a high end video taping equipment but just a lone guy with a canon DSLR.
 
I will agree that DSLRs offer the best value for money. But if you want the best results, look elsewhere. So TV shows are shot with DSLRs now? Pffft. It'll be iPhones next.

However, you should always make up your own mind and not necessarily side with the old-school (that's me!) or, on the other end of the spectrum, the fadsters (the idiots who think that shallow DOF is the be-all and end-all of the 'cinematic look', whatever the ******* that is). But how do you make your choice? One example - have a look at this three-part test which compares 35mm, DSLRs and digital movie cameras:

http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera-shootout-2011/episode-one

Keep in mind that this test was done months before the newest generation of DSLRs.
 
IMO they are great. The images these cameras can produce for the price is crazy, but are not for the work I do currently. I can't image shooting sports on a DSLR :eek:
 
SoIsays said:
I wish I had the creativity and patience to do serious filming. I applaud you and your kit. Do you have a picture of someone using that kit in action?
Click to expand...

Not at the moment. I tend to shoot often on my own so I haven't had anyone snap me in action yet. What are you keen to seE?

MacNut said:
That is way to bulky a rig to do video.
Click to expand...

How so? Maybe it's because my camera is so small that it looks so big but it takes up no extra room than an ENG style camera bar the handles.

Pikemann Urge said:
I will agree that DSLRs offer the best value for money. But if you want the best results, look elsewhere. So TV shows are shot with DSLRs now? Pffft. It'll be iPhones next.

However, you should always make up your own mind and not necessarily side with the old-school (that's me!) or, on the other end of the spectrum, the fadsters (the idiots who think that shallow DOF is the be-all and end-all of the 'cinematic look', whatever the ******* that is). But how do you make your choice? One example - have a look at this three-part test which compares 35mm, DSLRs and digital movie cameras:

http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera-shootout-2011/episode-one

Keep in mind that this test was done months before the newest generation of DSLRs.
Click to expand...

Whilst you've said that DSLRs are value for money you sort of contradict yourself by linking to that zacuto shootout. A lot of people can purchase or save for a DSLR but only a few will be able to actually own an Alexa or RED meaning that those results aren't entirely useful as some of those cameras are so far out of reach for a lot of people.

I think the problem that people have with DSLRs are the rolling shutter, dodgy audio, recording limit and a difficult form factor to work with. But if you compare it to the image created with a camcorder of a similar price I think a lot of people would say they prefer to use the DSLRs for their "look" which is similar to the shallow DOF of films rather than the deep DOF of reality TV and home videos.
 
acearchie said:
Not at the moment. I tend to shoot often on my own so I haven't had anyone snap me in action yet. What are you keen to seE?
Click to expand...

I'm curious to see how it looks on someone and whether it is cumbersome on the move.
 
acearchie said:
A lot of people can purchase or save for a DSLR but only a few will be able to actually own an Alexa or RED meaning that those results aren't entirely useful as some of those cameras are so far out of reach for a lot of people.
Click to expand...
A lot of people rent equipment (as you no doubt know) - especially lenses. SLR lenses can be fabulous, but proper cinema lenses are advised if you can afford them. And as far as I know, cameras are not the most expensive part of a production. It depends, of course.

Some people prefer the shallower DOF made possible with DSLRs. Some prefer the clean colours and sharp image of 3-chip or 4K cameras. I'm with the latter but YMMV. In fact I prefer film but I am not anti-digital - I'm against malignant fads (if it is right to be against anything, which you could argue it is not).
 
Pikemann Urge said:
Some people prefer the shallower DOF made possible with DSLRs. Some prefer the clean colours and sharp image of 3-chip or 4K cameras. I'm with the latter but YMMV. In fact I prefer film but I am not anti-digital - I'm against malignant fads (if it is right to be against anything, which you could argue it is not).
Click to expand...

I am totally with your point. A few years ago I loved the DSLR look but now it is that the "DSLR look" sometimes I watch films online and as soon as I see the rolling shutter, harsh clipping of the highlights or the general lack of resolution I know it's a DSLR.

I love videos that look like they are shot on REDs, C300, Alexa and infact are shot on DSLRs and those are the videos I aspire to be like.

I would love to have 422 colour spacing let alone 444! For sharpness personally I am fine with the 1080p if it is fully resolving similar to the C300 which is much crisper and sharper than the 800 or so lines resolved on the DSLRs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back