DSLR or Camcorder for bodybuilding shots.

[jakgogo]

Hi all,this is my first post on this fourm. I'm new to photography.
So let's get straight to my question. Should I get a DSLR or Camcorder.
I need to get good photos of bodies with HD quality(talking about my body too, because I'm also a bodybuilder), and also I need it to have great video quality too, to upload videos in youtube , do reviews,flexing and stuff.
Can you guys tell me what's better for that sort of stuff, also some good brands ?





Thank YOU !

 

[TCampbell]

DSLR's have an advantage in that you have a large selection of lenses and the lens can change the feel of the image. For example, some lenses allow you to create a fairly narrow region where things are in sharp focus (we call this "depth of field") and deliberately blur the background -- you see this in cinematography all the time where the camera focuses on the person speaking and the rest of the shot is deliberately blurry. Of course this presumes you're going to buy more lenses and that can be fairly expensive.

Camcorders tend to come with one fixed lens (you can't change it) and it's usually a fairly forgiving lens.

DSLRs are usually NOT intended for one long continuous take... usually you're taking a few minutes of video at a time whereas on a camcorder you could tell it to record for an hour and as long as the battery does die it'll just keep shooting.

But camcorders have several ease-of-use features designed specifically for video... continuous auto-focus, excellent subject tracking, and they don't build up as much heat as a DSLR and part of that is because they are low-resolution cameras. Even 1080p hi-def video is only 1920x1080 and that works out to about 2 megapixels. A DSLR will give you 16, 18, 20 or more megapixels which video can't use. So the DSLR is using a sensor intended for high resolution imaging but reducing the resolution when it saves the output. It turns out the sensor can get hot and since it's primary purpose is for "still" imagery, it doesn't have heat sinks to dump the heat (which is why they're best for fairly short duration clips... e.g. 5 minutes is no problem but typically not more than 10 minutes in a clip and then you let the camera rest.)

MANY DSLR cameras cannot do "continuous" autofocus when shooting video. Some newer models can but it's not safe to presume a camera can do it. Pro video people don't really care about it since they tend to not use auto-focus.

Canon's new 70D has a new feature which allows continuous phase-detect auto-focus to work on the sensor (this is something previously not possible in a DSLR). Phase-detect auto-focus is faster, more accurate, and doesn't require "focus hunt" (when you see the camera overcompensate focus and then have to move back to get things in focus). Their new "STM" (stepper motor) lenses are virtually silent to the internal microphone (although external mics such as a Rode VideoMic will typically have much higher audio quality.) The 70D has several features that tilt it in favor of shooting video. It's not perfect and it does have it warts... but overall it's one of the best.

A camcorder is going to be easier to use -- the whole thing is optimized for video.

A DSLR is going to create the potential of a higher quality look to the video -- a bit more of a cinematic feel. But as it's not really optimized for video it takes a bit of learning the nuances. It also presumes you'll shoot lots of short clips and then put them together in software (ever notice how often the scene changes in a movie or TV show... it's typically hard to count more than 10 seconds before the scene changes to a new angle... rather than the one-big-long-continuous-take look of amateur video.)

One last thing to keep in mind is that you can do fantastic still photography with the DSLR and the right lighting. Good "light" requires good "shadows". If the light is located near the camera lens then the body contours wont really create shadow and that makes the body appear "flat". But if the light is off to the side it will put highlights on one side and shadow on the other which really creates some dimensionality to body contours. The key is it needs to be diffuse light (which means it appears to originate from a fairly broad area rather than a pinpoint origin). This causes a nice transition from light to shadow rather than a harshly defined line between light and shadow.

 

[Gavjenks]

The main advantage of a camcorder is much better continuous video autofocus.

So basically, if you are moving around a lot with respect to your distance from the camera--especially if you want to do that in conjunction with artsy narrow range of focus (blurred backgrounds)--you're probably gonna want a camcorder for the video. Throwing stills into the equation makes it a bit of a toss up / judgment call as to which media type is more important to your audience and which is safer to skimp on..

If you are standing mostly in one place per shot, as I imagine you would be when demonstrating lifts, then a DSLR will take just as good video. And obviously much better still photos. Thus being the clear choice overall for that purpose.



AsTCampbell mentioned, the new Canon 70D in particular is probably as good or almost as good as a camcorder with continuous autofocus, and would thus be an awesome choice no matter what. It is however quite expensive for somebody new to the game.

 

[DiskoJoe]

Well a DLSR could do video and pictures where a camcorder only does video. So if you dont want to buy two pieces of equipment I would say get the DSLR. OF course what would be best for you to do is to just find a professional in your area that specializes in body building photography. Fitness photography needs a trained eye to be done right and a lot of lighting equipment. A lot of the time people that shoot this type of subject are avid fitness buffs themselves so they could help with the creative process and poses and such.