Car Photography

[RS7R8C63]

(I AM NEW TO CAMERAS IN DETAIL, SORRY IF I SAY SOMETHING WHICH IS INACCURATE) Hello, I am a car photographer that takes videos of cars revving and on the streets. Basically cars IN ACTION. Sometimes even if the car is in a great location with a spectacular background, I take advantage of that. I am currently using my Samsung Galaxy S6's 16mp camera to take photoes. You can see the photoes here instagram.com/M1L0UD (I AM NOT ADVERTIZING OR SPAMMING, JUST SHOWING) But everything has an end, so I am looking for an upgrade. A real camera. One that can do what I want it to do in situations of cars in action... cars at high speed... cars parked in a cinematic area... cars moving and the need of using video and zooming in with clear vision. A camera that can take great pictures, great videos, zooms in without sacrificing ALOT of pixels in video and photo and keeps a good focus on what I want it to focus on and has great audio recording during video. You know, photography like this .OBVIOUSLY A DSLR.

Budget: $1500

Thank you

 

[PaulWog]

Everything you are describing leads me to think you want a dedicated video camera, not a DSLR. Photography is for pictures. You said "photography like this", but you linked a video. Videography is for videos. It's important to clarify this point, as trivial as it might seem. Otherwise, it will be difficult to provide you with advice that matches your needs.

I will first address some bits of information for you:
- There are two forms of "zoom". There is digital, and there is optical. You do not lose pixels when you zoom in optically (although a lens may perform worse at a longer focal length). It is unlikely that you will want to utilize digital zoom for video. If you are digitally zooming for stills (photography), this is usually referred to as "cropping", and you can do this after you have taken the photograph on your computer.
- DSLR's are first and foremost built for photography, not videography. If you are doing 50/50 video and photography, then a DSLR may be the best bet. However, if you are purely doing video, then a dedicated video camera may be your best bet.

As far as achieving what you are looking for with a DSLR goes, you'll need to consider a number of things:
- External audio. Built in audio is not very good on any DSLR. External audio will cost you between $100 and $200 for something that fits your needs.
- Your lens. If I were doing these kinds of videos, I would consider an f2.8 zoom lens, an ultrawide lens, and/or prime lenses (they do not zoom). If you were getting paid, lens costs could get very expensive (as there are many really cool options in the $1000-$7000 range).
- If you want to shoot 4k, or just 1080p. And if you shoot at 24 frames, 60 frames, or faster for slow motion.
- Stabilization gear for the video camera or DSLR or whatever you choose.

Edit: I see your instagram now from the post. I would still say it would be best if you clarify your needs a little bit more. There is a lot to photography and videography that goes beyond just buying something good, and getting good results. Technique, knowledge of what you are using, and computer software for editing are all essential.

 

[unpopular]

Footage like that could be made using an iphone.

I'm really not so sure what you're getting at here.

 

[RS7R8C63]

Everything you are describing leads me to think you want a dedicated video camera, not a DSLR. Photography is for pictures. You said "photography like this", but you linked a video. Videography is for videos. It's important to clarify this point, as trivial as it might seem. Otherwise, it will be difficult to provide you with advice that matches your needs.

I will first address some bits of information for you:
- There are two forms of "zoom". There is digital, and there is optical. You do not lose pixels when you zoom in optically (although a lens may perform worse at a longer focal length). It is unlikely that you will want to utilize digital zoom for video. If you are digitally zooming for stills (photography), this is usually referred to as "cropping", and you can do this after you have taken the photograph on your computer.
- DSLR's are first and foremost built for photography, not videography. If you are doing 50/50 video and photography, then a DSLR may be the best bet. However, if you are purely doing video, then a dedicated video camera may be your best bet.

As far as achieving what you are looking for with a DSLR goes, you'll need to consider a number of things:
- External audio. Built in audio is not very good on any DSLR. External audio will cost you between $100 and $200 for something that fits your needs.
- Your lens. If I were doing these kinds of videos, I would consider an f2.8 zoom lens, an ultrawide lens, and/or prime lenses (they do not zoom). If you were getting paid, lens costs could get very expensive (as there are many really cool options in the $1000-$7000 range).
- If you want to shoot 4k, or just 1080p. And if you shoot at 24 frames, 60 frames, or faster for slow motion.
- Stabilization gear for the video camera or DSLR or whatever you choose.

Edit: I see your instagram now from the post. I would still say it would be best if you clarify your needs a little bit more. There is a lot to photography and videography that goes beyond just buying something good, and getting good results. Technique, knowledge of what you are using, and computer software for editing are all essential.

Oh right... I was confused myself there man... yes I believe I want a video camera that does wonders. A camera that records at 60FPS and has great audio recording during video. Everything a dedicated video camera does. But remember, it has to be able to do whats in the video and probably even better... I knew I wasnt making sense in my first paragraph. Sorry, though I think I made up my mind now. Yeah a video camera. A dedicated video camera. Budget: $1500

Thank you for the clarifications! And about those editing programs and stuff, I still havent got to those yet. I actaully currently use this program on my phone... though it doesnt edit 60FPS videos. Anyway like I said I still havent got to those parts yet.

 

[unpopular]

1) Why are you so obsessed with 60fps? Do you want to edit in 60fps, or do you want it for semi-slow motion (I say semi, because it's not THAT slow)?

If you're thinking you're using a 60fps workflow, through and through, there's no need. There are good reasons to shoot 60fps for post production and vfx, in particular camera tracking. But unless you're going to be making these cars blow up, there's no need.

If you want to shoot 60fps "just becauze that's what the proz do". Cool. Go for it. It'll cost more in terms of storage (a lot more) and if you wanted to do slow motion you'll need an even greater frame rate! And at the end of the day, you'll be dropping down to 24 or 29.9fps anyway, unless you're thinking your car videos will be projected in a movie theater or something. Youtube and television do not play back at 60fps afaik.

2) Most dedicated video cameras have still pretty crappy mics. The reason they don't invest in a good microphone is because the type of microphone you want to use in a given situation differs. There's no such thing as a "perfect" mic.

3) Almost any decent editor *can* edit in 60fps. This really isn't anything special. I'd imagine that if your PC can handle it (and it probably could), you could even set up your monitors (as in the window you view the edit) in 60fps, too.

I'm not really sure why you would, other than to say you and George Lucus had something in common.

 

[Braineack]

why are you equating 60fps with slow-mo?

even YT supports 60fps.

 

[tirediron]

Okay folks let's all take a deep breath and relax, shall we? OP, you've asked for advice and one of the things that the more experienced members have learned is that people who ask questions don't always know what they don't know, nor how to ask the best questions, and your first couple of posts seem to support that hypothesis. If people are questioning a specific part of your post, perhaps there's a reason and rather than becoming defensive and hostile, it might behoove you to actually discuss the point. Their questions might be valid, they might not.

 

[unpopular]

why are you equating 60fps with slow-mo?

even YT supports 60fps.

I didn't know that. I don't think it's necessary, though.

Im not so sure what the issue here is? Is it affecting you in a really bad way that I mentioned "60FPS"? Are allergic? What? "Take videos like the proz" Who says that? Youre a wierdo dude... Just because I want "60FPS" doesnt mean you can come out here and starting ranting and mention George Lucus (who ever that is, yeah I dont know him problem?). So it seems you will be of no use to me because youre not helping find a video camera. But if you do, it doesnt have to be in 60FPS. But give me all the good ones you know.

My point is that there is no reason to shoot and edit everything in 60fps. It's a requirement that you don't have to be considering, and without explanation, it's one thing of many that clearly illustrates that you don't know what you're doing. That's fine that you don't, but we can't really help you out because we don't have any idea what your parameters are.

Even if you got a $50,000 camera with a $20,000 lens your videos would end up looking amateurish. Even if you had a $10,000 second sound rig, they'd sound amateurish. Why, because you clearly do not know anything about what you're trying to do - other than that you want to film expensive cars with a mid-range DSLR at 60fps. No reason why 60fps. Heck. No particular reason why DSLR. That's just something you want to do.

But hey. If you want to eat up your memory cards, be my guest. More power to you. Go out and get a 6D, a 7D, or a Canon XF100. Heck. I've used the Canon XF100 and in this example you've provided it'll be more than sufficient. If this is the quality you're after, almost anything will be more than sufficient!

Oh wait. The XF100 is not a DSLR. Nevermind.

 

[Braineack]

communities work both ways.

 

[tirediron]

Enough! OP: if you want to try again, then by all means start a new thread; this one isn't worth trying to save, but read and consider my earlier post.