DSLR for Videos? Old-time Dilema, Again.

[skyy38]

Does this mean that the DBLT is not far off?

Digital WHAT? Lens Translucent?

No, Digital Bacon, Lettuce and Tomato! (bad joke, I know)

 

[brunerww]

...I am again confused today between the both: Panasonic GH2 (DSLM) and Sony A57 (DSLR/T)! I thought yesterday that my mind is made up on the DSLR for now so that I take great stills too...

The GH2 is a great camera for still photography as well as for video. My T2i was a great still camera too, but I didn't give anything up when I sold it.

Here are the stills others are shooting with the GH2:Flickr: The Panasonic GH2 group Pool

A couple of my personal GH2 stills:

"P3 Orion static display at NASA Ames Research Center", Olympus 11-22 lens:https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-q...9/P1100039.JPG

"Grand Slam", Tamron 70-300 (Nikon mount) lens: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-K...9/P1080011.JPG

Sorry if we've confused you

Best,

Bill

 

[skyy38]

Skyy38, Thank you for the tips. I like this Creative Cow magazine. Amazing techniques for filming.
I wonder, are you in the field of filming? Do you use specific camera?

Sekhr, Thanks for your reply above about the stills. I will check images on Flickr. And thanks for your second message here on the depth of field. I certainly want my films to look like films I have to read and watch more on that, I confess.

A good start is here:

Looking for film look? Shoot like film! - Creative COW

The second thing to do is pick up a DVD of "Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid"-No tape copies in FullScreen. The late great Conrad Hall was a Jedi Master of Cinematography and this movie was his magnum opus. If you haven't seen it in awhile, go ahead and watch it for entertainment. THEN, the next time, watch it again with the volume OFF-This method is still used in film schools ( I hope ) so that students don't get distracted by sound, they're just concentrating on the visuals and how they're executed.

The third time you watch this, activate the commentary by the Director and Cinematographer of this movie. Some of which Mr. Hall says might seem strictly "filmic" but there is a LOT of good info that ANYONE can use, film or video. Almost forgot, do NOT miss the documentary because more cine knowledge is revealed there too.

Take your camera and your sticks out one nice Saturday and shoot anything and everything. Pretend like you're doing second unit for a big movie and shoot accordingly, keeping in mind what you saw in the movie. See if you can shoot some shots from the movie-replicating them as best you can in your own backyard. It is very good practice to do so, because it keeps your mind on the artistic side as well.

I'm in the field, I just don't get to pick as many ears of corn as I'd like to, if you take my meaning. I've shot a few things here and there (none of it scripted)
and, according to most people, I'm no "master" at this, but I do strive to get what I want, as best as I can.

Right now, I'm figuring out this cool little camera I got for Christmas-The Fuji Finepix HS 30-Man, for a so-called "bridge camera" it is *deep*. I tried looking up some footage for this, but the closest I came to what I liked is this, from the HS 20:



Yeah, it's no GH2, but I am impressed nonetheless that footage like the above (1920 x 1080p) came from a "bridger". It doesn't take all that much to make me happy, just as long as I'm adhering to the standards I've set for myself. I love photography a lot, because it allows me to indulge in my "cinematic ways" without having a crew around me, the point being is that I frame and shoot stills like I would for a movie (Link in next message)



Everyone else goes on and on about how they NEED the "Red" camera. Till then, I think they should look seriously into the GH2...

 

[skyy38]

Second link:

 

[MidEastGal]

Brunerww, Not at all. You don't have to apologize. Confusion is good. The entire field is. I guess I will learn better this way. I checked the images they are really good. Actually some too good. The point is that I think it is also th eperson who is shooting and the light and lenses. I seen bad and good ones for the SOny A57. Confusion is still there. You know what it seems that in my mind I feel too afraid to try a non-DSLR because I suffered with the canon I bought 2 years ago before knowing much about cameras and it was a total bust for over $400. It's like I want to try what is the considered the safest in the market in "common" sense. yet, I know that the GH2 is good for video. But what is the most important thing that a GH2 can do in video that a Sony cannot? I am trying to find this out. There is the limitless long recording in GH2 which I don't need at all in documentaries. There is AF in Sony. Some say clarity is better in GH2 but there is more film-quality in dslr (just read it not sure at all of this info). Downside to SOny A57 (again not sure) is the flash light attachment piece. Seems it is compatible only with Sony products(?) This is where also some microphones are attached up. So hard to choose and I want to start working on actual learning and filimng rather than shopping and comparing soon

...I am again confused today between the both: Panasonic GH2 (DSLM) and Sony A57 (DSLR/T)! I thought yesterday that my mind is made up on the DSLR for now so that I take great stills too...

The GH2 is a great camera for still photography as well as for video. My T2i was a great still camera too, but I didn't give anything up when I sold it.

Here are the stills others are shooting with the GH2:Flickr: The Panasonic GH2 group Pool

A couple of my personal GH2 stills:

"P3 Orion static display at NASA Ames Research Center", Olympus 11-22 lens:https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-q...9/P1100039.JPG

"Grand Slam", Tamron 70-300 (Nikon mount) lens: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-K...9/P1080011.JPG

Sorry if we've confused you

Best,

Bill

 

[MidEastGal]

Skyy38, Nice photos. Thanks for sharing. I am trying to get into having accounts online to display my photos too.
I see your point about aspiring to have the best cameras. I was just thinking I want to start hands-on rather than waste time comparing, but it is a step I had to go through. I hope I finish quick.

Skyy38, Thank you for the tips. I like this Creative Cow magazine. Amazing techniques for filming.
I wonder, are you in the field of filming? Do you use specific camera?

A good start is here:

Looking for film look? Shoot like film! - Creative COW

The second thing to do is pick up a DVD of "Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid"-No tape copies in FullScreen. The late great Conrad Hall was a Jedi Master of Cinematography and this movie was his magnum opus. If you haven't seen it in awhile, go ahead and watch it for entertainment. THEN, the next time, watch it again with the volume OFF-This method is still used in film schools ( I hope ) so that students don't get distracted by sound, they're just concentrating on the visuals and how they're executed.

The third time you watch this, activate the commentary by the Director and Cinematographer of this movie. Some of which Mr. Hall says might seem strictly "filmic" but there is a LOT of good info that ANYONE can use, film or video. Almost forgot, do NOT miss the documentary because more cine knowledge is revealed there too.

Take your camera and your sticks out one nice Saturday and shoot anything and everything. Pretend like you're doing second unit for a big movie and shoot accordingly, keeping in mind what you saw in the movie. See if you can shoot some shots from the movie-replicating them as best you can in your own backyard. It is very good practice to do so, because it keeps your mind on the artistic side as well.

I'm in the field, I just don't get to pick as many ears of corn as I'd like to, if you take my meaning. I've shot a few things here and there (none of it scripted)
and, according to most people, I'm no "master" at this, but I do strive to get what I want, as best as I can.

Right now, I'm figuring out this cool little camera I got for Christmas-The Fuji Finepix HS 30-Man, for a so-called "bridge camera" it is *deep*. I tried looking up some footage for this, but the closest I came to what I liked is this, from the HS 20:



Yeah, it's no GH2, but I am impressed nonetheless that footage like the above (1920 x 1080p) came from a "bridger". It doesn't take all that much to make me happy, just as long as I'm adhering to the standards I've set for myself. I love photography a lot, because it allows me to indulge in my "cinematic ways" without having a crew around me, the point being is that I frame and shoot stills like I would for a movie (Link in next message)



Everyone else goes on and on about how they NEED the "Red" camera. Till then, I think they should look seriously into the GH2...

 

[TehYoyo]

TehYoyo, Thank you. I understand what you meant; just was commenting. Thank you for the advice on the lens. I guess I will not need that one at all this trip or in near future. What I need is to start video taking and on the way will start collecting lenses as I need them for other effects. I have a question for you; other than the long length of the mirrorless, is there anything that can be done in mirrorless that a DSLR/T cannot do? Like these amazing videos shared below. I am seeing more and more professionals turning to the mirrorless.

As far as I know, there's nothing that can be done on mirrorless that a DSLT cannot do. Those amazing videos shared below could be done, and possible better, on any DSLR (with the same specs) just as easily. As to professionals turning to mirrorless, I don't know any professional turning to mirrorless for quality. Let me state this loud and clear mirrorless technology, at this point, has no advantage over any standard DSLR/SLT. Really the only argument is (slightly) lower cost and portability. If you want the best performance, you need to get a full-size DSLR.

MidEastGal - I'm swamped with work for finals. Maybe this Friday, when work is not an absolute necessity, I'll put together a compilation of videos that are at least equal to what you've seen of the GH2. The thing about performance at that high a level is that you have to look closely at color depth, smoothness of motion, etc. to see a big difference.

 

[brunerww]

...what is the most important thing that a GH2 can do in video that a Sony cannot? I am trying to find this out. There is the limitless long recording in GH2 which I don't need at all in documentaries. There is AF in Sony. Some say clarity is better in GH2 but there is more film-quality in dslr (just read it not sure at all of this info). Downside to Sony A57 (again not sure) is the flash light attachment piece. Seems it is compatible only with Sony products(?) This is where also some microphones are attached up. So hard to choose and I want to start working on actual learning and filimng rather than shopping and comparing soon

Outside of unlimited clip length, the two most important GH2 competitive advantages over the A57 (video only) are:

- the GH2 is far less susceptible to shot-ruining moire.

- Panasonic video optimized lenses have extremely quiet autofocus motors (especially the 14-42 and 14-140 kit lenses), unlike Sony Alpha lenses.

Please listen to this:

 

[brunerww]

...and compare it to this:

 

[MidEastGal]

TehYoyo, Thank you so much for teh assurance. Also, I wish you the best in your exams and looking forward to that compilation about the DSLR/SLT!

TehYoyo, Thank you. I understand what you meant; just was commenting. Thank you for the advice on the lens. I guess I will not need that one at all this trip or in near future. What I need is to start video taking and on the way will start collecting lenses as I need them for other effects. I have a question for you; other than the long length of the mirrorless, is there anything that can be done in mirrorless that a DSLR/T cannot do? Like these amazing videos shared below. I am seeing more and more professionals turning to the mirrorless.

As far as I know, there's nothing that can be done on mirrorless that a DSLT cannot do. Those amazing videos shared below could be done, and possible better, on any DSLR (with the same specs) just as easily. As to professionals turning to mirrorless, I don't know any professional turning to mirrorless for quality. Let me state this loud and clear mirrorless technology, at this point, has no advantage over any standard DSLR/SLT. Really the only argument is (slightly) lower cost and portability. If you want the best performance, you need to get a full-size DSLR.

MidEastGal - I'm swamped with work for finals. Maybe this Friday, when work is not an absolute necessity, I'll put together a compilation of videos that are at least equal to what you've seen of the GH2. The thing about performance at that high a level is that you have to look closely at color depth, smoothness of motion, etc. to see a big difference.

 

[MidEastGal]

Brunerww, Thank you. This is a very informative summary answering exactly what I asked. As a reflection over these differences, the length is not very important to me as an asopiring documentarian. Most clips are under 15 m. As to noise, this is annoying, but I will very rarely use camera mic. People will have wireless clip while interviwewing them and no zoom during interviews. I still have to look into this noise issue, though.

This being said, I admit the GH2 is nice to own but I think I will go with the more common choice for now for stills AND videos.

...what is the most important thing that a GH2 can do in video that a Sony cannot? I am trying to find this out. There is the limitless long recording in GH2 which I don't need at all in documentaries. There is AF in Sony. Some say clarity is better in GH2 but there is more film-quality in dslr (just read it not sure at all of this info). Downside to Sony A57 (again not sure) is the flash light attachment piece. Seems it is compatible only with Sony products(?) This is where also some microphones are attached up. So hard to choose and I want to start working on actual learning and filimng rather than shopping and comparing soon

Outside of unlimited clip length, the two most important GH2 competitive advantages over the A57 (video only) are:

- the GH2 is far less susceptible to shot-ruining moire.

- Panasonic video optimized lenses have extremely quiet autofocus motors (especially the 14-42 and 14-140 kit lenses), unlike Sony Alpha lenses.

Please listen to this:

 

[MidEastGal]

Guys, I decided if I don't start hands-on trying out, I'll never buy a camera. SO as I am flying on my trip tonight, I went last night and bought the Sony A57 from the local store for $649 plus taxes. I also bought a 16 GB 133X SDHC memory card, a lense protection UV filter, and a very neat backpack with compartments for wires and future lenses that I will collect on the way as need and sales arise. All was $878 (under $1000). Return policy allows me to return it in 15 days in same selling good condition. So i will give it a try.

Some points I am concerned about are (1) the zoom noise recorded, (2) the attachment hook up (lock shoe); it supports only Sony flash and gear but I heard there is a lock shoe adoptor. I'll look into this. Edited to add: I also read it supports wireless flash but still I will need at one point to hook things up that are not sony. Edited to add: (3) Here is another concern I read: "Sony's biggest problem, in my opinion is that someone who has thousands of dollars in glass for a another brand is not going to be quick to jump ship. From what I know, you can get adaptors, but, you lose the AF features when you do." (4) Cannot take stills while shooting video (which I almost never used). (5) Not sure, but it might not support other makes of lenses except using an adopter. This is fine with me as I still don't have lenses but the downside is I loose the beautiful continuous movie AF. Again, might not need in documentaries. If I did I could revert to sony lense.

I will appreciate if anyone has tips regarding the zoom noise or any of what I mentioned. I will probably not use zoom in documentary with original sound but just to know and discuss these issues. I am sure with any camera I will find certain problems. According to my budget this one is really good.


Today I am experimenting unpacking and with the camera. I feel comfortable so far. Discussion is still open, though, as I might exchange it within 15 days You never know.

 

[MidEastGal]

I am looking up at my previous post. The list of concerns got longer! I am trying the camera and if I could not live with these things I will go and exchange it. Your input will help me once and for all. Meanwhile I came across these 2 websites, the first comparing them:

Sony A57 or Panasonic GH2 ? : DSLR Video

and the other about professional making film with GH2:

LUMIX G Professional Movie | LUMIX | Digital Camera | Panasonic Global

I am going to the aurport now. Will be looking forward to check here once I have access to Internet again. See ya all!

 

[TehYoyo]

...what is the most important thing that a GH2 can do in video that a Sony cannot? I am trying to find this out. There is the limitless long recording in GH2 which I don't need at all in documentaries. There is AF in Sony. Some say clarity is better in GH2 but there is more film-quality in dslr (just read it not sure at all of this info). Downside to Sony A57 (again not sure) is the flash light attachment piece. Seems it is compatible only with Sony products(?) This is where also some microphones are attached up. So hard to choose and I want to start working on actual learning and filimng rather than shopping and comparing soon

Outside of unlimited clip length, the two most important GH2 competitive advantages over the A57 (video only) are:

- the GH2 is far less susceptible to shot-ruining moire.

- Panasonic video optimized lenses have extremely quiet autofocus motors (especially the 14-42 and 14-140 kit lenses), unlike Sony Alpha lenses.

I don't know where you're finding evidence of the moire problem. Could you please post where you found that particular conclusion?

Also, the autofocus noise doesn't come from the camera body - it comes from the lens. Maybe it's different on mirrorless cameras like the Panasonic, but with Sony, and every other DSLR brand I can think of, the autofocus motor (and its quality) comes from what lens you use. With Canon, silent autofocus is denoted by a USM in the name. With Nikon, SWM or AF-S. With Pentax, DC or SDM. With Sony, SSM.

If you buy a SSM lens for your Sony A57, you won't hear a sound. The video that you posted was obviously shot with a low-quality or cheap lens.

 

[rexbobcat]

I don't know where you're finding evidence of the moire problem. Could you please post where you found that particular conclusion?

Also, the autofocus noise doesn't come from the camera body - it comes from the lens. Maybe it's different on mirrorless cameras like the Panasonic, but with Sony, and every other DSLR brand I can think of, the autofocus motor (and its quality) comes from what lens you use. With Canon, silent autofocus is denoted by a USM in the name. With Nikon, SWM or AF-S. With Pentax, DC or SDM. With Sony, SSM.

If you buy a SSM lens for your Sony A57, you won't hear a sound. The video that you posted was obviously shot with a low-quality or cheap lens.

Just Google the moire performance of the GH2/3. It's some of the best moire "suppression" of its kind as well as many DSLRs.

Almost all DSLRs have moire problems because they don't truly downsample the video. They line skip causing detail to basically fade in and out of existence.

The exception is now the 5D3 and 1DX because they really do downsample the video.