I work at a Media college and am in charge of purchasing equipment, amongst other things. When it comes to buying cameras to film on, i have always stuck with what i'd call 'proper' camcorders, cameras that were designed for filming primarily. Cameras like JVC HM150, Canon XF100. Mainly because they have the features that we need as part of the courses we do, such as onboard XLR inputs, and the ability to shoot in a Quicktime format that will work in Final Cut instantly without any conversion or rendering needed. A necessity when we churn out projects as quickly as we do.
Now these cameras cost us £2000/$3000, but recently some students have been bringing in their own Canon EOS cameras and saying that these cameras give a much better picture for a fraction of the price. Even a 550d shoots something that looks a hell of a lot better than our cameras.
I have to say i can't argue with this. Especially if they've got different lenses, the footage that comes out of these cameras appears to look a hell of a lot better than the footage coming out of JVC HM150s.
My question is, should i be investing in DSLRs that shoot video too? I love the quality of footage that comes out of them, but i cannot help but notice they shoot in heavily compressed H.264, which would take an ice-age to convert if they've done a long shoot, they have no decent audio input facilities, they are awkward to handle unless you buy a rig for them. Plus they have other issues like rolling shutter. Yes these can all be fixed in post, but our other cameras don't have this problem.
There's also the other issue that an EOS with a decent lens can work very well for beauty footage or for a feature film, but i've seen students do documentaries or news reports on EOS' and they use the stock 18-55mm lens, and it just doesn't look 'right'. The stock lens on most prosumer camcorders gives a nice picture but isn't distracting in itself, i.e. it isn't especially wide, it isn't especially telephoto, it's just, for want of a better word 'flat'. So the picture is never distracting, which is good when you're trying to focus on a person when interviewing them. But some students use the stock lens on an EOS, and have it as wide as possible when interviewing the person, and i just find the shot distracting because it's too wide, you end up looking at what's going on in the background instead of the person they're talking to.
Part of me just wants to tell them they can get just as good a quality shot out of a HM150 if they actually bothered to set it up properly and not leave it on auto, but these are students we're talking about, if an EOS can get what looks like a better quality shot on auto, they'll go with that every time.
I'm interested in other peoples opinions on the matter
Now these cameras cost us £2000/$3000, but recently some students have been bringing in their own Canon EOS cameras and saying that these cameras give a much better picture for a fraction of the price. Even a 550d shoots something that looks a hell of a lot better than our cameras.
I have to say i can't argue with this. Especially if they've got different lenses, the footage that comes out of these cameras appears to look a hell of a lot better than the footage coming out of JVC HM150s.
My question is, should i be investing in DSLRs that shoot video too? I love the quality of footage that comes out of them, but i cannot help but notice they shoot in heavily compressed H.264, which would take an ice-age to convert if they've done a long shoot, they have no decent audio input facilities, they are awkward to handle unless you buy a rig for them. Plus they have other issues like rolling shutter. Yes these can all be fixed in post, but our other cameras don't have this problem.
There's also the other issue that an EOS with a decent lens can work very well for beauty footage or for a feature film, but i've seen students do documentaries or news reports on EOS' and they use the stock 18-55mm lens, and it just doesn't look 'right'. The stock lens on most prosumer camcorders gives a nice picture but isn't distracting in itself, i.e. it isn't especially wide, it isn't especially telephoto, it's just, for want of a better word 'flat'. So the picture is never distracting, which is good when you're trying to focus on a person when interviewing them. But some students use the stock lens on an EOS, and have it as wide as possible when interviewing the person, and i just find the shot distracting because it's too wide, you end up looking at what's going on in the background instead of the person they're talking to.
Part of me just wants to tell them they can get just as good a quality shot out of a HM150 if they actually bothered to set it up properly and not leave it on auto, but these are students we're talking about, if an EOS can get what looks like a better quality shot on auto, they'll go with that every time.
I'm interested in other peoples opinions on the matter