own a camera AND a camcorder

[Garbz]

in the 21st century many products can do several jobs well enough.

So what are you asking? Do you want to do the job well enough, or do you want to do the job properly? I too have hammered a nail into a piece of wood using a spanner, it worked well enough. I definitely wouldn't let my future career as a carpenter depend on the spanner though. (haha I wouldn't let it depend on my carpentry skill even if I had a hammer )

He makes a valid point. There is a tool for the job. DSLRs as video cameras for even an amateur videographer miss some hugely important features. So much so that some guys wrote custom firmware for the Canon 5DMkII to add some of these features for people who bought it as a video camera.

Sure you can patch together addons and hacks with your DSLR that has custom fudged together firmware but at the end of the day if you want to be a videographer buy a video camera.

Btw I find skiuer's comments most disturbing. How do you think people are going to become professional cameramen if they don't play around with a video camera. Did you learn how to take pictures using a video camera? Most amateurs and some professionals do not have the skill to shoot people's weddings, should they now not buy a camera? Also I wouldn't call filming a child's first steps amateur filming, just like I don't call my sister taking photos of herself by holding the camera at arms length amateur photography.

Comparing apples to apples, yeah if you're just happy caming your child's first steps then a DSLR will do. Heck a decent point and shoot will do too these days.

If you're doing actual amateur or professional video recording such as at a wedding that is being professionally filmed or to make a short movie... well try telling the bride the sound is distorted because you don't have level meters on your DSLR.

Playing with video can be just as much of a fulfilling hobby as photography. But you've come to a biased forum with a loaded question. Biased in the sense that some think video is a plague on the DSLR menu screen, and other's who think that their cameras are gods gift and are looking forward to one day when they can make their breakfast toast.

So UUilliam is right. If you're serious about video, then an SLR won't cut it. Despite what the very tiny handful of the internet says. That shooter of "Dublin people" that icassell linked to can come back and convince me otherwise when he is working for a movie studio.

 

[PhotoXopher]

I think both sides can be right, it just depends on what angle you're looking at it from.

If you want to do professional photography and professional video, then perhaps the answer is no - you can't perform your best with one piece of equipment. That said, there ARE lots of videos on the Internet of people who know what they are doing who have shot some amazing footage with todays DSLR/Video recorder combos. And really, the technology that is in these devices are way ahead of what people were capturing video with years ago - and that seemed good enough.

If you're a parent capturing moments of your childs life, family events, etc... then by all means I believe you can not only get by with one piece of equipment but it's also more likely you'll capture the moments when they happen. With a flick of a switch I can go from taking photos to capturing video and then back again, it's GREAT!

 

[JamesMason]

I think both sides can be right, it just depends on what angle you're looking at it from.

If you want to do professional photography and professional video, then perhaps the answer is no - you can't perform your best with one piece of equipment. That said, there ARE lots of videos on the Internet of people who know what they are doing who have shot some amazing footage with todays DSLR/Video recorder combos. And really, the technology that is in these devices are way ahead of what people were capturing video with years ago - and that seemed good enough.

If you're a parent capturing moments of your childs life, family events, etc... then by all means I believe you can not only get by with one piece of equipment but it's also more likely you'll capture the moments when they happen. With a flick of a switch I can go from taking photos to capturing video and then back again, it's GREAT!

Think thats about hit the nail on the head, TBH i wouldn't use any pro video gear if my partner was not a tv producer. I have slrs that shoot vid pretty well and thats really all i need. She wouldn't use the slr for her work tho, just wouldn't cut the mustard for pro vid work.

 

[DeadEye]

I have read only the first few post and skipped the rest.

Looks away from the train wreak ahead ~

There are two Major draw backs of dslr for video~1. Audio and 2.The Iris

For good video you need stero sound by external mikes and the camera man rolls the Iris for more gass not CLUNK the apature in 1/3 stops.

Cheers Dan

 

[PhotoXopher]

Perfect example of what I was talking about when you know what you're doing:
YouTube - Vincent Munier - Summer Variations - Nikon D3s

 

[Buckster]

A working videographer/cinematographer I've made the online acquaintance of is pretty excited about the capabilities of DSLR based video. According to him, "If you don't know video cameras, you might not understand quite how revolutionary this ability is, but it's staggering. Love the camera. As far as I am concerned, it can do anything..."

Here's a recent vid he made:

Nuit Blanche by Matthew K Nayman

You can see some of his other stuff (made with non-DSLR gear) in the menu on the right at that link.

 

[skieur]

Btw I find skiuer's comments most disturbing. How do you think people are going to become professional cameramen if they don't play around with a video camera. Did you learn how to take pictures using a video camera? Most amateurs and some professionals do not have the skill to shoot people's weddings, should they now not buy a camera? Also I wouldn't call filming a child's first steps amateur filming, just like I don't call my sister taking photos of herself by holding the camera at arms length amateur photography. .

I don't think anyone is going to become a professional camera operator by playing around with a video camera, anymore than in the past, anyone became a professional movie maker, by shooting Super 8 film.

FYI, I learned to take pictures before video cameras existed, but I learned video in television studios and on-location productions. I supplemented that by learning movie/film production in studios and on location as well.

Sure, shooting a child's first steps is amateur filming unless you are being paid for it. And of course, if you have lots of money to burn, then sure buy a video camera, to only drag out on rare occasions when you remember it is in the drawer and the batteries have some charge in them.

On the other hand many relatives and friends have the same reaction to watching video as their parents did to watching Super 8. As in,...ZZZZ time to fall asleep! :lmao:

skieur

 

[Actor]

I don't think anyone is going to become a professional camera operator by playing around with a video camera, anymore than in the past, anyone became a professional movie maker, by shooting Super 8 film.

skieur

Steven Spielberg's and Ron Howard's first movies were made with 8mm cameras. Robert Rodriguez made about 40 short films on VHS before making a (commercially successful) feature on 16mm. J.R. Bookwalter made a commercially successful film entirely on super8. These people got started on the path to "professional movie maker" with 8mm film.

If you can't afford film school or, like Spielberg, can't get accepted, then "playing around with a video camera" is an excellent start. Even if you can get into film school playing around with a video or 8mm camera is great experience.

 

[LokiZ]

As a user of a DCR-VX2100 I would have to say ease of use and balance.

It's much easier to pan smoothly with something that is built with some weight and balence vs. something that was designed for still shots.

Just my 2 cents.

NOTE: I did not say impossible just easier.

 

[LokiZ]

Skieur is forgetting one major difference between the days of the first movie cameras/ early camcorders and the camcorders of today. Ability to edit.

Why did family ZZZzz when watching those horrible home movies? No editing. There was not really any editing techniques readily available for the average joe. That is not the case today. Computers are a dime a dozen as is video editing software. That is part of the movie making process for today's home video entrepreneurs. If they choose to ignore this step, then sure we are right back in the 70's/80's and ZZZzzz land. but those who have it together can easily today keep the family from nodding off.

 

[Garbz]

I don't think anyone is going to become a professional camera operator by playing around with a video camera, anymore than in the past, anyone became a professional movie maker, by shooting Super 8 film.

FYI, I learned to take pictures before video cameras existed, but I learned video in television studios and on-location productions. I supplemented that by learning movie/film production in studios and on location as well.

Great. A friend of mine learnt wedding photography by being a second shooter for next to no pay with a professional wedding photographer. I learnt by playing around with my camera.

You're still providing a very one sided view, and that is my point. Just because you don't know any prosumer videographers doesn't mean they don't exist. A classmate from highschool has a video camera now worth more than my SLR, and it's his hobby.

The choices in the industry aren't:
Crap video cam -> DSLR -> Hollywood grade professional video camera.

You're missing a large range in between the DSLR and the beasts studios use.

 

[Actor]

Skieur is forgetting one major difference between the days of the first movie cameras/ early camcorders and the camcorders of today. Ability to edit.

Why did family ZZZzz when watching those horrible home movies? No editing. There was not really any editing techniques readily available for the average joe. That is not the case today. Computers are a dime a dozen as is video editing software. That is part of the movie making process for today's home video entrepreneurs. If they choose to ignore this step, then sure we are right back in the 70's/80's and ZZZzzz land. but those who have it together can easily today keep the family from nodding off.

Editing has been around since cinematography day one. You don't think Chaplin filmed The Kid in sequence do you? (and in one take?) 8mm editors have been available from the day Kodak introduced the format and a lot of 8mm Joes have them (I do). But even editing will not stop the family from snoozing when you drag out the projector. You need a well thought out presentation and some talent.

 

[LokiZ]

I don't think anyone is going to become a professional camera operator by playing around with a video camera, anymore than in the past, anyone became a professional movie maker, by shooting Super 8 film.

FYI, I learned to take pictures before video cameras existed, but I learned video in television studios and on-location productions. I supplemented that by learning movie/film production in studios and on location as well.

Great. A friend of mine learnt wedding photography by being a second shooter for next to no pay with a professional wedding photographer. I learnt by playing around with my camera.

You're still providing a very one sided view, and that is my point. Just because you don't know any prosumer videographers doesn't mean they don't exist. A classmate from highschool has a video camera now worth more than my SLR, and it's his hobby.

The choices in the industry aren't:
Crap video cam -> DSLR -> Hollywood grade professional video camera.

You're missing a large range in between the DSLR and the beasts studios use.

Garbz is correct...

And for a very long time running a prosumer digital camcorder was "THE" camera of choice for wedding videography. Look it up. In fact in some circles it still is putting even the HD under it on the list.

 

[LokiZ]

Editing has been around since cinematography day one. You don't think Chaplin filmed The Kid in sequence do you? (and in one take?) 8mm editors have been available from the day Kodak introduced the format and a lot of 8mm Joes have them (I do). But even editing will not stop the family from snoozing when you drag out the projector. You need a well thought out presentation and some talent.

Was not talking about those who had been in the buisness for years. (For Charlie it had been about 7 years since first publish by the time "The Kid" was released I do believe)

But that does not matter... Regardless of there being editing hardware available for those shooting 8mm, double8mm, or super8mm. The fact remains that with a majority of those using those cameras for home video many did the equivalent of what we call snap shots in the world of still photography. Meaning just capturing with without prior thoughts to scene setup and preparation. Those bringing me 8mm film to convert over to digital very rarely bring me anything with more then the only edit being double 8mm spliced after splitting.

The point was not that the editing was not around but that it was not supplied freely and therefore LESS readily available then today.

Hobbyists could purchase books, purchase hardware, purchase splicing supplies. Today you already have internet, research it freely... Today you probably have bundled movie editing software that came on the PC you bought for other reasons... Today you may already have a digital video recorder... So what do you need to purchase? hmm, if your PC does not have a fire wire card what? 15$ and a fire wire cable? 3 - 5$? Oh ouch. And that is only if your DCR does not support USB2.0 transfer.

And as for the editing; learn the basics, follow tips and rules others have found useful. The only thing talent will gain for you is that you will be more versed to creatively use or break a few rules and still come out shining like a star in the end. That pretty much goes for any of the arts.

 

[skieur]

I don't think anyone is going to become a professional camera operator by playing around with a video camera, anymore than in the past, anyone became a professional movie maker, by shooting Super 8 film.

skieur

Steven Spielberg's and Ron Howard's first movies were made with 8mm cameras. Robert Rodriguez made about 40 short films on VHS before making a (commercially successful) feature on 16mm. J.R. Bookwalter made a commercially successful film entirely on super8. These people got started on the path to "professional movie maker" with 8mm film.

If you can't afford film school or, like Spielberg, can't get accepted, then "playing around with a video camera" is an excellent start. Even if you can get into film school playing around with a video or 8mm camera is great experience.

Haven't seen any specifics about Ron Howard's 8mm movies, but Steven Spielberg indicated quite logically that there was no similarity between 8mm experience and movie making. In movie making he said, the sensitivity of the film is much higher, there is less need for lighting, a steinbeck editor is on a completely different level, using microphones, mixing music, audio editing, waiting for rushes, colour correction, etc. etc.

With a still camera, you can start off playing with it, join a camera club, subscribe to a photo magazine, join a forum, have your work critiqued etc.
Even if your work is only so,so quality, you are still likely to use your camera, and have shots of your family and some typical tourist shots of the family standing in front of some building or scene. If it is good, then you can take a course or progress to some pro work.

With the average video camera however, you are already restricted by poor or mediocre audio, small viewfinder, no tripod with wheels, and hydraulics, no live mixing or editing,etc. When finished, most would not have a super fast 64bit workstation with a large cache and considerable on-line memory for non-linear digital editing. I think that Spielberg would tend to say that there is no similarity between this and professional videography either.

So, my view is that if the average photographer wants to do a little video segment of a wedding or other family event, then a still camera is perfect for the job. Anyone who is really serious about video should take a course, learn what it is all about, and particularly the quality and cost of equipment necessary to do it at a professional level.

skieur