AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › Best DSLR for 1080p Video?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best DSLR for 1080p Video?

post #1 of 75
5/10/11 at 3:22pm
Thread Starter 
I'm looking to get a DSLR. I already have a Sony HDR-CX110 camcorder, and it is good, but it's not exactly what I'm looking for. I've decided to take the DSLR route.

Now I really would like my DSLR to take 1080p video. I was looking at the T2i, and the 60D, and similar ones. Do any around the price of those do 1080p at 60fps? Not a big deal but would be nice to have.

Also, I wanted to know what would be the best lens to have for low light shooting(lets assume I get a Canon)? When I say low light, I'm talking about at night, whether it be like outside, or inside and with not much light, or whatever. I don't really know much about DSLRs but a lens has a big effect on low light performance right?

Anyways so what camcorder should I get after reading that? I guess I'm going to sell the camcorder on eBay. I could use it as another camera angle for whatever I'm doing, but I don't think I'll care for it that much. I could probably have it sell for quite a bit...it cost like $450, and I have a tripod and a 4 or 8 GB SD inside it(It already has 16GB internal). That should help pay a lot, and I have like $400 right now(but I'm just saving up, so don't worry about the fact that I only have that much right now).
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 75
5/10/11 at 4:28pm
I use a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens with my 60D and it seems to work very well.

I sold my Canon miniDV camcorder and my 40D to fund the 60D purchase. Those miniDV SD camcorders aren't easy to sell these days...
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 75
5/10/11 at 6:55pm
Thread Starter 
Lol I'm not spending $1200 on a lens. I barely have enough for the DSLR itself.

I'm reading a lot that says the Panasonic GH2 is a lot better for video. Should I maybe get that?
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 75
5/11/11 at 12:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by apwhitelaw View Post
Lol I'm not spending $1200 on a lens. I barely have enough for the DSLR itself.

I'm reading a lot that says the Panasonic GH2 is a lot better for video. Should I maybe get that?
Good Camera, shoots great Video, so so on still shots. I think the newer D5100 and Canon's 60D shoot just as well but much better on stills. Not a lot of head to head stuff yet, regardless I been happy with my D7000 and D5100 for video so far. It Ultimately comes down to the person behind the lens, so pick a device and master it. I had a GH2 and sold it because I had more into Lenses with Nikon, so it made it an easy transition.

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D5..._Lumix_DMC-GH2
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 75
5/11/11 at 6:54pm
I think you'll find video on a DSLR with any of the kit lenses to be less than stellar. The difficulty of getting steady, crisp video with a DSLR is orders of magnitude more difficult than with any of the current HD camcorders.

To get a similar focal length to the camcorders you'll need to spend between $2500 and $5000 just in lenses on a DSLR. Good glass is what makes DSLR's have value for video.

Once you go down that road, you'll find that there is virtually no image stabilization, very poor or no auto focus. Significantly larger file sizes and major image quality issues in certain situations (cmos wiggle, moire, aliasing, banding).

Now that I've shown you the downside. There is hope! Get a GH2 or T3i body only. Shop around at the pawn shops, classified and Ebay for vintage manual lenses. If you can find a cheap 20mm - 35mm prime with f2.8 or better you'll be good to go. Even a super cheap vintage 50mm f1.8 will be a monsterous improvement over the kit lens on the Canon's.

You'll need an adaptor to get any of these lenses to fit. You can find $20 ones that work incredibly well from www.fotodiox.com.

Then learn how to shoot with that lens in manual mode. When you get great stuff from it you'll know if you want to invest further. If not sell the body and vintage lens for almost what you paid for it and buy a modern top of the line camcorder.

Cheers,
Pete
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 75
5/11/11 at 9:08pm
I shoot on both, and most people that think DSLR are just a fad, well then you should try one. There are thousands of examples of DSLRs with inexpensive lenses that can shoot some pretty amazing video. Like I said before and I will say it again, master the tool and you can create some pretty cool stuff on both devices. And you do not need some expensive lenses to shoot some good video, with a DSLR. All depends what your doing. Hell the TV show House was shot with

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL2NRG58WVg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX3F1...feature=relmfu

http://philipbloom.net/2010/04/10/ho...-canon-5dmkii/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaOs...watch_response
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 75
5/12/11 at 12:08am
Original poster asked which DSLR was best for 1080p video. Some answers have invoked shortcomings of DSLRs for video, others have referenced snapsort.com -- a still camera comparison site (an optical viewfinder that goes dark in video mode is better than an electronic viewfinder (EVF) that doesn't? -- please).

In my view, only the GH2 seems to have been engineered from the ground up for video:

Bright EVF that works in video mode, full-time silent autofocus on the 14-140 kit lens (most still camera AF motors sound like chainsaws on your soundtrack), built-in stereo mic with an external stereo mic jack, fully rotatable flip-out LCD, 4-level audio input (instead of noisy AGC), an Extended Tele Converter mode that gives you 2.6x more zoom with little or no loss of image quality, real 1080 24p (not fake progressive in an interlaced wrapper), unlimited shot length (the Canons and Nikons are limited to shot lengths less than 20 minutes, a real problem for plays, concerts, speeches, church services, weddings and other events).

Other DSLRs (e.g., the Canon T3i, Nikon D5100) have *some* of these video-friendly features, neither of them has them all.

Best of all, the Panasonic has advanced video image processing, which virtually eliminates the video aliasing and moire that plague Canon and Nikon DSLRs.

I am not a Nikon or Canon hater. My last two cameras were the fabulous Nikon D50 and Canon T2i -- but the Panasonic GH2 is the best 1080p video-capable DSLR form-factor camera available today, period.

Downside? More expensive ($100 higher body-only price than the D5100 or T3i) -- and because it's so good, it's very hard to find -- but, if you're buying it for video, I think you do what you have to do to get your hands on this camera.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 75
5/12/11 at 12:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by c3hammer View Post

I think you'll find video on a DSLR with any of the kit lenses to be less than stellar. The difficulty of getting steady, crisp video with a DSLR is orders of magnitude more difficult than with any of the current HD camcorders.

To get a similar focal length to the camcorders you'll need to spend between $2500 and $5000 just in lenses on a DSLR. Good glass is what makes DSLR's have value for video.

Once you go down that road, you'll find that there is virtually no image stabilization, very poor or no auto focus. Significantly larger file sizes and major image quality issues in certain situations (cmos wiggle, moire, aliasing, banding).

Cheers,
Pete

Is it 4 years ago? The 14-140mm "kit" GH2 lens is fantastic. Auto zoom, continuous silent auto focus, optimized for video, OIS, etc.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 75
5/12/11 at 1:28pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shield View Post

Is it 4 years ago? The 14-140mm "kit" GH2 lens is fantastic. Auto zoom, continuous silent auto focus, optimized for video, OIS, etc.

Thanks, I was about to say, what the other guy said sounded ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brunerww View Post

Original poster asked which DSLR was best for 1080p video. Some answers have invoked shortcomings of DSLRs for video, others have referenced snapsort.com -- a still camera comparison site (an optical viewfinder that goes dark in video mode is better than an electronic viewfinder (EVF) that doesn't? -- please).

In my view, only the GH2 seems to have been engineered from the ground up for video:

Bright EVF that works in video mode, full-time silent autofocus on the 14-140 kit lens (most still camera AF motors sound like chainsaws on your soundtrack), built-in stereo mic with an external stereo mic jack, fully rotatable flip-out LCD, 4-level audio input (instead of noisy AGC), an Extended Tele Converter mode that gives you 2.6x more zoom with little or no loss of image quality, real 1080 24p (not fake progressive in an interlaced wrapper), unlimited shot length (the Canons and Nikons are limited to shot lengths less than 20 minutes, a real problem for plays, concerts, speeches, church services, weddings and other events).

Other DSLRs (e.g., the Canon T3i, Nikon D5100) have *some* of these video-friendly features, neither of them has them all.

Best of all, the Panasonic has advanced video image processing, which virtually eliminates the video aliasing and moire that plague Canon and Nikon DSLRs.

I am not a Nikon or Canon hater. My last two cameras were the fabulous Nikon D50 and Canon T2i -- but the Panasonic GH2 is the best 1080p video-capable DSLR form-factor camera available today, period.

Downside? More expensive ($100 higher body-only price than the D5100 or T3i) -- and because it's so good, it's very hard to find -- but, if you're buying it for video, I think you do what you have to do to get your hands on this camera.

Thanks, you actually answered my question and made me decide to go with the GH2. It'll be a while before I come up with the money for it, so hopefully I'll be able to find it when I have it all.

The only question I have is, everyone says the pictures are so-so with the GH2. So maybe they're not as good as the Canon or whatever else, but they still are nice right? I mean the quality is still good and everything?

I did hear about House being shot with the 5D Mark II, but I don't have $2,500+.

Thanks for all the replies. After everything I've read, I'll go with the Panasonic GH2. But I'll have to do a lot of saving up!

EDIT: After looking around, I don't think I want to spend $1500, even if I am able to find one. I'm not sure what to do.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 75
5/12/11 at 2:50pm
The pictures from the GH2 are fantastic. Not Canon T2i, but not point and shoot either. You can take some amazing stuff with the 20mm 1.7 lens.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 75
5/12/11 at 3:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shield View Post

The pictures from the GH2 are fantastic. Not Canon T2i, but not point and shoot either. You can take some amazing stuff with the 20mm 1.7 lens.

You are right the Panasonic GH2 is fantastic on video, but to be fair the Nikon D5100 and Canon 60D just got released and there isn't enough comparison testing yet. That being said if I were to shoot just video, I would go for the Panasonic or just go with a really decent camcorder. Now if it were doing double duty, photos and video, I would go for the Canon or Nikon in a heart beat.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 75
5/13/11 at 5:40am
If you're still saving, I would continue researching.

Below are a couple of links.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasoni...-gf-gh-series/

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1033

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgh2/

Alan
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 75
5/13/11 at 7:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahender View Post

If you're still saving, I would continue researching.

Below are a couple of links.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasoni...-gf-gh-series/

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1033

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgh2/

Alan

Alan,

I am a fan of the GH2 and will most likely buy another one just for video use, but from the links you posted, you might as well sell him your GH2! I like both Canon and Nikon for many different reasons, and I have had various Panasonic Camcorders and cameras over the years as well that I liked. But please at least give the guy some other competitive information. From his post he is looking for a DSLR to shoot mostly video, and the two that come to mind right off my head are the Panasonic GH2 and Canon 5D Mark II. There are now 3 newcomers to the market that are not bad either. Nikon D7000/D5100 and Canon 60D all good! Can you pick them apart, sure as a Nikon owner or a Canon owner can also pick the Panasonic apart. However if one is shooting a lot of sports fast moving action then 1080p/60p will be useful, lets also remember converting these files at this rate can be troublesome, highly dependent on computer and software. Now in Low light, Panasonic Camcorders and there DSLRs have been decent, but not there camcorders. I would have been all over the TM-900 camcorder if it would have shot like the GH2 in low light.

http://vimeo.com/19262527

http://snapsort.com/cameras/Panasoni...H2/competitors
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 75
5/13/11 at 12:10pm
I'm not promoting the GH2. Just seemed like the OP was leaning in that direction. That's why I provided the links. You can never have too much information.

Last year I bought a 7D over a used 1D Mark III because I thought I would use the video function a lot. Never use it. Never! Wish I would have purchased the used Mark III instead.

I use a TM700 for video.

For me personally, whatever I shoot I want to have the best results possible, at a reasonable price.

I do not think you can get ALL that with a DSLR -- fantastic stills and user-friendly fantastic video. There is always a tradeoff.

Same goes for using a camcorder to take stills. Overall, the quality is terrible compared to a dedicated still camera.

I had a friend for years who used his Panasonic camcorder to take still images. The resolutions was 1.5 megapixels. I warned him many times that he was making a mistake. Last year he asked me if I could make the images larger and more pretty. Sorry...

Certainly the Panasonics are better than most when it comes to a small video/still camera.

It's just not for me.

The only other links I can think of that cater to DSLR video are:

http://www.cinema5d.com/index.php
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/

Alan
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 75
5/13/11 at 12:45pm
http://nofilmschool.com/2011/05/shoo...%28NoFilmSchoo

not sure if this is over the top,i have used a T2i and although the GH2 is better not by that amount though.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 75
5/15/11 at 7:38pm
Thread Starter 
If I can find a GH2 in about a month for around $1000, I'll probably get that (The 14-42mm lens kit).

Or would I be better off buying the body and finding some other lens?
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 75
5/16/11 at 12:40am
if you film mostly outdoors the 14-140 is great,
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 75
5/16/11 at 1:03am
You should try calling up local authorized retailers. Sometimes the ratio of people wanting the GH2 to the actual unit is much less than places such as Amazon and B&H.

When I finally decided to get a GH1, I called up a local retailer expecting him to say I got to wait and instead the answer I got was their were 1 left. This was months before the GH1 became easily available. The same happened to the GH2. I got it in 2010 but it's now almost mid way 2011 and it's still extremely hard to find although the situation in Japan has made it a little worse and never mind the fact that the US dollar is so week which might explain why the GH1 and GH2 it far, far easier to get overseas.

Speaking of that dealer, well, I just went on the site and guess what? They have the one that comes with the 14-140x zoom lens.
http://www.huntsphotoandvideo.com/de...sonic&show=yes
They must have just received a shipment.

Some people try very hard getting them in big authorized dealers, that the smaller ones gets overlooked.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 75
5/16/11 at 6:58am
Do any of the current DSLR'd allow hi def recording scenes that are longer than the 12 minutes referred to in some reviews?
Is this just a function of the memory card or something else?
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 75
5/16/11 at 8:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by milesed View Post

Do any of the current DSLR'd allow hi def recording scenes that are longer than the 12 minutes referred to in some reviews?
Is this just a function of the memory card or something else?

Sensor in the Camera's tend to over heat as they are packed into a Camera that is mostly used for still shots. The size of the SD Card will pay a role in the amount you can record but so
does the sensor.

Most recording times will vary depending on the elements.

Most of the newest DSLRs will shoot about 20min clips now, again this can vary and I am sure will change with technology advancements.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 75
5/16/11 at 8:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garman View Post


Sensor in the Camera's tend to over heat as they are packed into a Camera that is mostly used for still shots. The size of the SD Card will pay a role in the amount you can record but so
does the sensor.

Most recording times will vary depending on the elements.

Most of the newest DSLRs will shoot about 20min clips now, again this can vary and I am sure will change with technology advancements.

I have shot with my hacked gh1 and left it recording for an hour solid with no problems.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 75
5/16/11 at 9:47am
The GH2 will record as long as you want
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 75
5/16/11 at 12:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by flintyplus View Post
The GH2 will record as long as you want
Thats good to know as I thought it had limitations on the amount of time you could record as well.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 75
5/16/11 at 4:59pm
No problems what so ever. I've had the GH1 for a very long time and have used it extensively like a camcorder and so far, theirs been absolutely no heating issues. Same goes for the GH2 that I also have.

That's especially useful when I'm shooting a multi-cam concert. I'll want every camera to record the whole duration non stop without annoying time limits or worry about the cameras overheating.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 75
5/16/11 at 7:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulo Teixeira View Post

No problems what so ever. I've had the GH1 for a very long time and have used it extensively like a camcorder and so far, theirs been absolutely no heating issues. Same goes for the GH2 that I also have.

That's especially useful when I'm shooting a multi-cam concert. I'll want every camera to record the whole duration non stop without annoying time limits or worry about the cameras overheating.

Paulo: I had one of the first Canon HF G10 in the US, but mine was defective so it went back. How is the GH2 in low light? So far I had great results with some Nikon Cameras and Canon Cameras in low light but was looking for some device Camera or Camcorder that shoots well in both bright light and low light and has decent OIS.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 75
5/18/11 at 2:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garman View Post

How is the GH2 in low light? So far I had great results with some Nikon Cameras and Canon Cameras in low light but was looking for some device Camera or Camcorder that shoots well in both bright light and low light and has decent OIS.

Garman,

A lot of it depends on the ISO and the lens you use. With the super fast (and expensive) Voigtlander Nokton 25mm f0.95 ($819 at B&H, not yet in stock) you can get results like this or this.

With the somewhat less expensive, but hard to find Panasonic 20mm f1.7 ($379 at Unique Photo, backordered) you can get results like this.

You can even get pretty good results indoors with the 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens ($197 at Amazon). This lens has OIS, the others do not. A couple of examples here and here.

Hope this is helpful.

Cheers,

Bill
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 75
3/10/12 at 8:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by c3hammer View Post

I think you'll find video on a DSLR with any of the kit lenses to be less than stellar. The difficulty of getting steady, crisp video with a DSLR is orders of magnitude more difficult than with any of the current HD camcorders.

To get a similar focal length to the camcorders you'll need to spend between $2500 and $5000 just in lenses on a DSLR. Good glass is what makes DSLR's have value for video.

Once you go down that road, you'll find that there is virtually no image stabilization, very poor or no auto focus. Significantly larger file sizes and major image quality issues in certain situations (cmos wiggle, moire, aliasing, banding).

Now that I've shown you the downside. There is hope! Get a GH2 or T3i body only. Shop around at the pawn shops, classified and Ebay for vintage manual lenses. If you can find a cheap 20mm - 35mm prime with f2.8 or better you'll be good to go. Even a super cheap vintage 50mm f1.8 will be a monsterous improvement over the kit lens on the Canon's.

You'll need an adaptor to get any of these lenses to fit. You can find $20 ones that work incredibly well from www.fotodiox.com.

Then learn how to shoot with that lens in manual mode. When you get great stuff from it you'll know if you want to invest further. If not sell the body and vintage lens for almost what you paid for it and buy a modern top of the line camcorder.

Cheers,
Pete

Yet House and Hawaii Five-O are shot on a Canon 5D with a lens and pull focus rig and Vinten tripod that costs roughly less than 7k.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 75
3/15/12 at 7:54pm
Talk about resurrecting an ancient post

Was refering to the lenses that would be required to cover a camcorders range of 24mm - 690mm like a TM700.

On a DSLR that range of lenses would be expensive no matter what vintage you buy

Cheers,
Pete
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 75
3/28/12 at 5:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by apwhitelaw View Post

I'm looking to get a DSLR. I already have a Sony HDR-CX110 camcorder, and it is good, but it's not exactly what I'm looking for. I've decided to take the DSLR route.

Now I really would like my DSLR to take 1080p video. I was looking at the T2i, and the 60D, and similar ones. Do any around the price of those do 1080p at 60fps? Not a big deal but would be nice to have.

Also, I wanted to know what would be the best lens to have for low light shooting(lets assume I get a Canon)? When I say low light, I'm talking about at night, whether it be like outside, or inside and with not much light, or whatever. I don't really know much about DSLRs but a lens has a big effect on low light performance right?

Anyways so what camcorder should I get after reading that? I guess I'm going to sell the camcorder on eBay. I could use it as another camera angle for whatever I'm doing, but I don't think I'll care for it that much. I could probably have it sell for quite a bit...it cost like $450, and I have a tripod and a 4 or 8 GB SD inside it(It already has 16GB internal). That should help pay a lot, and I have like $400 right now(but I'm just saving up, so don't worry about the fact that I only have that much right now).

For the money the T3i is pretty hard to bet. I have the T2i which is great but my neighbor has a T3i and the flip screen is really needed for video shooting.

David
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 75
3/29/12 at 11:33pm
The major release film "Like Crazy", won Sundance, and was shot on a Canon 7D for a budget less than $250000.

Ref WIKI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Like_Crazy

and is now available on Bluray: http://www.amazon.com/Like-Crazy-Blu...3089288&sr=8-3

So, can CANON DSLRs make feature moves ?
Answer = yes they can, and they do.

I am loving my CANON 60D (= 7D PQ, but has better handling), and I may also buy the CANON 5DIII following Phil Blooms enthusiastic review here: http://vimeo.com/39292404

BTW, Phillip Bloom and many others say even the hacked GH2 has poor dynamic range and poor low light / high ISO performance.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Camcorders

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › Best DSLR for 1080p Video?