Need a solid video DSLR without grainy video

[CG Kid]

I've done research, it's really a challenge figuring this stuff out.

I have a Nikon D5100, after research I bought a Tamron 17-50mm lens. Due to a freak accident, the day I got the Tamron in the mail I dropped the camera, the lens was destroyed .

The video I got from it before dropping it wasn't better then the Kit lens. I can't tell a difference. It was shot in the day.

A problem I have, is no matter what aperture/ISO setting my video's grainy. I'm realizing that it's just the gear I have really isn't up to par with what I want to do (music videos).

I hate asking such a open ended question, but what's a good body/lens if my budget is around $1,000 and I'm willing to buy used? I'm looking into the D5200 or the Panasonic GH3. Are there any other suggestions? I'm strictly using it for video. Also, interested in getting a GH4 and a micro 4/3 mount for mounting Canon FD lenses, I can stay within budget this way and upgrade to newer lenses later on. Thank you!

 

[dennybeall]

I have a D5300 and as long as there is enough light it shoots excellent video even up to 1920X1080 and a frame rate of 60 with Mode set to Auto..

 

[unpopular]

If you are using a camera to shoot video, you should get a video camera, such as a Black Magic Pocket Cinema, or a pre-owned Cinema. You will have access to better file formats and greater dynamic range than on a typical DSLR, as well as a wider range of lens options.

 

[scoop2622]

If you are using a camera to shoot video, you should get a video camera, such as a Black Magic Pocket Cinema, or a pre-owned Cinema. You will have access to better file formats and greater dynamic range than on a typical DSLR, as well as a wider range of lens options.

I cant disagree more! I shoot on a DSLR and have no problem getting great quality video. as for the lens options just look at canons line of EF lenses and all the adaptors to port different lenses to different cameras and it you are using a Canon dlsr magic lantern has an array of downloads that expand your cameras dynamic range and file formats including raw. Now im not saying I would choose a t3I over a C100 but DSLR are more than capable! look at anything Garz81 has posted on this forum. He shoots on a D5100 and he gets beautiful shots.

 

[unpopular]

The reason why cinema cameras are better is because the sensor they use have much larger pixels. This in particular is true of HD cinema cameras in this price point, which typically are equipped with 2mp sensors. Cinema and video cameras are also designed for this task. DSLRs are still cameras that have some video functions plopped into them.

As for Magic Lantern, I don't really trust it for production use. It's interesting, but nonetheless, most tests find that Black Magic cameras perform better than Magic Lantern, in particular in the shadows. But raw data will only be as good as the signal the DAC provides off the sensor.

As for lens options, yes. These cameras typically have a Super-16 format sensor on them with a small flange distance. This means you can use all the 16mm lenses and some 8mm and TV lenses as well as any lens that will work on a larger format.

Yes. You can get "beautiful" video from a DSLR, and many independent films are shot using them. However, given the advantages to cinema-specific cameras, I don't see any real reason to use a DSLR for production, unless you shoot both film and video simultaneously.

 

[scoop2622]

You do realize that the Canon APS-C format is almost identical to the motion-picture industry standard Super35 format that most feature films are shot with. I would agree with you if this was 10 years ago but its not!

 

[KmH]

? ? ?
Super 35 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Super 35 (originally known as Superscope 235) is a motion picture film format that uses exactly the same film stock as standard 35 mm film, but puts a larger image frame on that stock by using the negative space normally reserved for the optical analog sound track.

Super 35 is a production format. Theaters do not receive or project Super 35 prints. Rather, films are shot in a Super 35 format but are then — either through optical blowdown/matting or digital intermediate — converted into one of the standard formats to make release prints.

 

[scoop2622]

? ? ?
Super 35 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Super 35 (originally known as Superscope 235) is a motion picture film format that uses exactly the same film stock as standard 35 mm film, but puts a larger image frame on that stock by using the negative space normally reserved for the optical analog sound track.

Super 35 is a production format. Theaters do not receive or project Super 35 prints. Rather, films are shot in a Super 35 format but are then — either through optical blowdown/matting or digital intermediate — converted into one of the standard formats to make release prints.

If you read what I said is that it's what most films are shot on not released in!! And since the discussion turned into video vs dslr cameras what I said is relevant. But thank you for further proving my point!

 

[KmH]

If you read what I posted, and highlighted, the Super 35 the original is shot on is not "almost identical" to the much smaller APS-C format film and APS-C size digital camera image sensors.

 

[unpopular]

You do realize that the Canon APS-C format is almost identical to the motion-picture industry standard Super35 format that most feature films are shot with. I would agree with you if this was 10 years ago but its not!

And most major Color TV productions were shot in Super16 until the 1990s... So I am not really sure what your point is.

DSLRs produce crap files that look good.

And I know what you're thinking "what does it matter so long that it looks good". But it does. For real-world production where you're thinking about post production, grading and compositing, it does.

 

[unpopular]

And yes. Super35 is a completely different format from APS-C.

 

[scoop2622]

And yes. Super35 is a completely different format from APS-C.

yes I know its different I said its almost identical not it was the same.
>>>And I know what you're thinking "what does it matter so long that it looks good". But it does. For real-world production where you're thinking about post production, grading and compositing, it does.<<<
and as for that, I am a commercial producer and I use a Canon DSLR for "real world production" that airs on broadcast television!

 

[unpopular]

I can't really argue I suppose. Glad I'm not your colorist.

 

[runnah]

DSLR have the advantage of having a slew of fantastic glass and relatively inexpensive compared to a purpose built cine camera but there are drawbacks. Things like built in ND filters, xlr ports, a dedicated on board audio system, clean HDMI out and longer battery life are a few things I miss. When I put together my full DSLR rig with the external audio recorder, external video recorder, follow focus and matte box I might as well be using a dedicated video camera.

That said you can get some amazing and usable results from an off the shelf DSLR setup. I wouldn't want to shoot anything more intensive than a short commercial or music video.

Also magic lantern is great. Things like focus peaking, real audio controls and AF micro adjustments make a DSLR a decent tool.

Lastly it's all about how you shoot. You can get raw footage out of some DSLRs that responds well to color grading but it's not as good as a purpose built cine camera.

 

[CG Kid]

Thanks for all of the help! What are some good cinema cameras in the price range of $1,000 before lens? Like I stated earlier, I can buy used. I looked into the Black Magic and the body seems really small. I have a stabilizer and slider and it just seems with a body that small it'd be hard to get stable footage. As far as DSLR, if I go that route I've decided on the GH4. They're $1000 for the body only new on eBay, I'd get a adapter to fit Canon FD lenses and buy a bunch of different lenses.