Jump to content


Photo

Which Camera Should I Buy?


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Alex Yorchak

Alex Yorchak

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Student
  • Bozeman, MT/Denver, CO

Posted 11 November 2008 - 08:11 PM

I would like it to be able to shoot 24p and 60i, and would prefer if it could also shoot hi def, but im on a tight budget of $2,000 or a little above. Also, I want to be able to use a letus 35mm adapter, or sometype similar to really get that film look. Basically, I need a video camera that will give me a look similar to film once a 35mm adapter is attached. Any advice would be great!
Thanks everyone
  • 0

#2 Steve McBride

Steve McBride
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 239 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • New York, NY

Posted 11 November 2008 - 10:14 PM

Use the search feature, this has been discussed umpteen times here.

Your best bet is the Panasonic DVX-100.
  • 0

#3 Jase Ryan

Jase Ryan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 12 November 2008 - 11:00 AM

2000 bucks doesn't get you much. In that price range, you will need to buy a used DVX 100 or something similar. You won't be getting a camera and a mini 35mm adapter for that price even if they're both used.
  • 0

#4 Igor Ridanovic

Igor Ridanovic
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Colorist
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 November 2008 - 12:50 PM

I would like it to be able to shoot 24p and 60i, and would prefer if it could also shoot hi def, but im on a tight budget of $2,000 or a little above. Also, I want to be able to use a letus 35mm adapter, or sometype similar to really get that film look. Basically, I need a video camera that will give me a look similar to film once a 35mm adapter is attached. Any advice would be great!
Thanks everyone



www.red.com are making a big announcement on 11/13. There may be some things of interest to you.
  • 0

#5 Will Earl

Will Earl
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Other
  • Wellington, NZ

Posted 12 November 2008 - 01:05 PM

About the only thing I can think of is the Canon HV20/30.

Edited by Will Earl, 12 November 2008 - 01:05 PM.

  • 0

#6 alfredoparra

alfredoparra
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Producer

Posted 13 November 2008 - 10:08 AM

I have the sony hvr-v1u, its tricky to use, sensitive to lighting scenes! if you want to get as close to film as possible, you need to shoot uncompressed 24p, get Magic Bullet looks and adobe after effects, that lens adapter you want to get is a waste of money! you can do all of that in after effects, when you use the 35 lens adapter you lose light, every shot has the blerr back ground and its something you do not see in Hollywood movies, here is a day for night before and after sample clips of shot on my sony, you can also go on youtube and type the make and model of any camera and you will see the results! I would stay away from those lens adapters, theres to many issues with them! if you want that true film look shoot with film, you can pick up a Beaulieu 4008 zm super 8 on ebay for $200.00 for a Bolex ph 16 for $300, since you have a $2000 budget you can buy an arriflex 16 for about $1500.00 but keep in mind that processing and transferring is a bit expensive but worth it if your shooting a feature, make sure that if you go with a film camera that you understand what crystal sync.


before
http://s291.photobuc...t=cementary.flv

after
http://s291.photobuc...rrent=color.flv
  • 0

#7 Brian Rose

Brian Rose
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Student
  • Kansas City area

Posted 13 November 2008 - 11:03 PM

On first appraisal, I think your desire for HD 24p under 2000k is incompatible. Why do you want the film look? Is it going to add something vital to your film? You should ask yourself: What is the purpose of this camera?

Are you a beginner, wanting to practice the basics of filmmaking? If so, I would HIGHLY suggest a nice Super 8 camera. They're cheap, as well as the film, and it is an excellent tool for learning the discipline.

Are you wanting to gain experience as a cinematographer? Get a 35mm pentax and a nice light meter. The Pentax K1000 is dirt cheap and offers full control to the user. Not to mention it's built like a tank.

Are you wanting this for personal use, like trips, family events? A place like best buy offers a host of nice HD camcorders that range from the mid hundreds to the thousands, and offer a range of user controls. You don't need to shoot your whole 2K.

Or do you have an actual production in mind, which I suspect is the case? If so, I considering your budget, I would abandon this whole film look thing.

A year ago I was in pre production on my thesis film, a documentary. I had a budget of $10,000. I really wanted to go for image quality, and for a long time I was set on shooting film. Then, I considered shooting HD. Both could have been possible, but after the initial and hidden costs, either scenario would have left me with almost no money left. Instead, I opted for SD. I also set a goal for myself. I resolved to make the best looking, most polished and professional SD film I could make. I planned my lighting and recorded high quality audio with the best mikes I could borrow from my school. With the savings, I bought a glidecam, which immensely improved the quality and variety of my shots. It also allowed me to do much more traveling. At this point I've been all over the country, from both coasts, to the nation's capitol, from northern metropolis' to the cotton belt of the Deep South. None of this would have been possible had I gone for the flashier, shiny processes. I focused on what appears on screen, not how it is captured. When I show my rough footage in class, alongside others who are shooting HD, I still get comments on how beautiful my footage looks, and the variety of my footage.

You must be aware of the audience's knowledge base. They will tolerate lower image resolution. Most can't tell the difference between 35mm, 16mm, HD, or even SD, unless given a side by side comparison. If resolution were so important to them, why is 5 perf 65mm all but extinct? Most just don't care.

However, your audience will quickly lose interest and patience if the lighting is no good, or if the sound sucks. I recall seeing a student film recently that was set all at night. It looked awful. Huge grain, milky blacks, low contrast, no detail. I suspected it was video, but asked the director anyways to be sure. "It's film," he said proudly. What a waste!

Conversely, I've seen stuff shot on SD and analog video that looked beautiful. One student shot a documentary with a low end prosumer camera, and I swear it looked like 16mm telecined. It was amazing. But the student was also a smart filmmaker who knew what he was doing, and how to use the tools available to him.

My advice would be to first investigate borrowing a camera, or renting. Try a few out. Spend that money on a nice Lowell kit, a few microphones and a good sound recorder. Decide what story you want to tell, and how you want to tell it. Then go to town.

Good Luck.

Brian
  • 0


Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Technodolly

Abel Cine

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport