Need to buy video camera, help.

Discussion in 'Digital Video' started by ProjectManager101, Aug 23, 2015.

  1. ProjectManager101 Suspended


    Jul 12, 2015
    In my office we want to make interviews to some artists. We have an office space/ small meeting room we could use to set up two cameras and basic lighting.
    I am attaching a screen shot of one of the videos we did. I want depth of field for the real wall and I believe I would need a camera with interchangeable lenses OR a camera that can give me that.

    In that scene the camera was about two meters from the lady and she was about a meter and a half from the wall.

    We need two cameras to get different views. After that we will take the videos and do the post production synchronizing both cameras and audio. My point is that I have no clue what is out there, I do not want to buy expensive cameras because I am sure there should be a model now days that can accomplish something like that.

    Any ideas? Thank you. Screen Shot 2015-08-23 at 5.54.08 PM.png
  2. joema2 macrumors 65816


    Sep 3, 2013
    By "I want depth of field for the real wall", do you mean you want some detail from the rear wall to show, vs a very shallow DOF where it is totally blurred out? The frame grab shows some blurring which indicates a somewhat larger sensor camera (not necessarily a DSLR), considering it was two meters from the subject and the frame was filled vertically. On a crop-sensor (APS-C) camera this would equate to very roughly 125 mm focal length.

    To obtain the approximate look shown in the frame grab, the cheapest solution might be an entry level DSLR like a Nikon D3300 (about $500), but the 18-55mm kit lens would not be long enough -- if you want to maintain two meters camera-to-subject distance and fill the frame vertically with the subject's face.

    Mirrorless cameras that produce similar video quality are generally more expensive than this. Lower-end camcorders usually have much smaller sensors, so it's hard to get the same look.

    Nikon has a 55-300mm lens for $400, but you can't get the D3300 with that; it would have to be purchased separately. I think Canon is the same -- I don't think they can be ordered without a "kit" lenses on the entry-level cameras.

    If you could get by with the 18-55mm kit lens that would probably be the least expensive route. That would require moving the camera closer to the subject.
  3. ProjectManager101 thread starter Suspended


    Jul 12, 2015
    Perfect! thank you.
  4. fathergll, Aug 24, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2015

    fathergll macrumors 65816

    Sep 3, 2014
    2 other points for consideration

    DSLRs can be a pain. 20 min recording time limits for a clip on many models. Just be aware.

    Are you ok with recording 24 FPS or 60 FPS? Probably won't matter if you are stationary.

    If you can figure out the distance you could go with a cheaper prime lens instead of dropping hundreds on a zoom.
  5. Mildredop macrumors 68020

    Oct 14, 2013
    I totally agree.
  6. koilvr macrumors 6502


    Jun 15, 2010
    Knoxville, TN
    wouldn't just a DSLR body only and the 80-200mm lens separately create this look for a lot cheaper then getting a body and kit lens?
  7. westonborg macrumors newbie

    Aug 24, 2015
    I have a sony a6000 just look it has everything you need
  8. ProjectManager101 thread starter Suspended


    Jul 12, 2015
    I took a look at the Nikon D3300. Which one would be the equivalent to that model in Sony and Canon? I saw the Canon Rebel T5 but the aspects looks inferior even is the same price range as the Nikon.

    Thank you guys for your answers.

Share This Page