TM700 Depth of Field?

It's quite funny reading things like these.

For example Robert Rodriguez (DP of Desperado, From Dusk Till Dawn, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Sin City, Grindhouse and Planet Terror) had no problem shooting a music video with a Canon 7D.

What known problems are you referring to?

 

The video from the 550D is basically the same.

It's not capturing one line at a time. It'll be a staggered start. And seen as the TM700 uses a CMOS imager it could have a noticeable roll too.

I've not looked into exactly what you get with the TM700, but I don't see where there'd be room for more than the 7D.

Not trying to fight you on your decision to go with a dedicated camcorder, BTW, just correcting some inaccuracies.


It's difficult to give a quantified answer to your original question, but basically you're only going to be able to pull noticeable focus racks when very zoomed in. And even then it's not going to be like a DSLR. Same for any other 1/4 or 1/3" camcorder.

 

There are lots of issues with DSLRs. Rolling shutter, moire, aliasing, terrible on board audio, etc. There's also the support gear needed to make it function more like a video camera. And of course the expense of the lenses.


As for the original poster's question, it will be very difficult to achieve shallow depth of field with the TM700. It has a small sensor. It is also CMOS, so if you're really worried about rolling shutter, the TM700 will exhibit the same problems (although probably not as much as the DSLRs).

 

Spike Lee and Steven Soderbergh shot entire movies in SD on MiniDV cameras but that doesn't mean the format is w/o any inherent flaws.

The current crop of DSLRs can produce some stunning looking images but you have to know, and avoid, their limitations otherwise you are just going to end up w/crap.


Lethal

 

Keep in mind that he probably had to get a good amount of distance between the camera and the subject and zoom all the way in to get that shallow DOF. That's why all of the shots in that video are locked down or have minimal camera movement.

That could be a problem if you want to do any camera moves in your video.

 

Have no idea about the GH2 or NEX9. The GH2 isn't even released. It's all speculative at this point. What is the NEX9? Is that Sony?

Adapters will be around for a while. If anything, you'll always be able to get a used one somewhere. Camcorder vs. DSLR really comes down to what you plan on shooting. DSLRs take some amazing video, but there's a steep learning curve and more often than not it's not as simple as just buying a DSLR kit and going out to shoot. Added costs like lenses and support gear come in to play, and for the most part that stuff isn't cheap.

Panasonic is developing a video camera that will use a big sensor and SLR lenses. I believe Sony and Canon are too. And yes, that will mean the ability to get shallow depth of field. But they aren't going to be cheap. It's been suggested that the Panasonic model will start at $6,000.

The whole DOF craze is starting to get out of hand. Too many people are starting to equate shallow DOF with film, quality, etc. It's being overused. While it's true the use of shallow DOF gives you certain similarities to film, it should only be used for a purpose and not just because you can.

 

Or equate film with quality...

It's not the interchangeable lenses, it's the sensor size. The Panasonic HPX300 will have similar DoF characteristics to the TM700, but the AF100 Panasonic announced at NAB will be more like a DSLR. Both are many times the price of the TM700.

Less and less DoF adaptors will be made but you'll probably be able to get a good deal on a second hand one!

It's truly not worth speculating on. If you have things to shoot, take your pick of what's actually available.

 

So you need 2 cameras? I'm confused. Does your company need a video camera or a still camera? If they need to do video, and aren't very good with cameras as you say, definitely go with a camcorder.

SLRs are no worse than any other consumer camcorder when it comes to greenscreen. They all kind of suck at it.

 

Not a bad final decision

jwheeler,

I've just read this thread with the amusement that comes with familiarity. We've all been there. Lots of different views on a subject are provided, but none gives the answer you'd like, the warm feeling of a definitive answer.

One theme that runs through almost all technology is "If you need it today, buy it" and "It'll be cheaper or there'll be something better for the same price next week, month, or year."

To throw in my two cents, I think your decision is valid. Most people would acknowledge that it's possible to get great images from a point and shoot camera and great video from a consumer videocamera. Of course as you go up in price you get more features, probably better lenses and technology (CPUs, sensors, etc.), and much more control of your shooting. OTOH, more control usually means more time composing a shoot.

With your solution, you get easy and reasonable results. As you use these tools you'll figure out what they are missing and wish they had. Meanwhile, more advanced products will be released.

Best of luck.

P.S. If you get into video in a big way, you'll need a quality tripod with a head made for video panning (AKA a "fluid head"). These can cost well more than your entire camera budget, but for professional quality video they're almost a necessity. I won't even get started on the additional costs for lighting and audio and ... well, you get the picture. One step at a time!

 

Just a few tips for creating a more shallow DoF with any camera. Get a couple ND filters and attach them to your lens. Open up the iris all the way and use the extreme range of the focal length. Won't be exactly what you're looking for since you wont be shooting on anything with the proper focal length to chip size ratio and youlll have to control your lighting a bit more but it's better than nothing.