10.25
Cinematographers are all a twitter about the promise of digital SLR cameras that are bursting on the market from reliable companies like Canon, Nikon, and Panasonic. While the image quality from these sub-$5,000 cameras can rival cameras costing 10x as much, there are still many limitations to what many are calling the best value in film making. Here are the main contenders:
Canon 5D Mk II, Canon 7D, Canon 1d Mk IV, Nikon D90, Nikon D3s, Panasonic GH1
Benefits:
-Image: The image quality from a Canon 5D Mk II is outstanding in a lot of ways. We are seeing a lot of videos pop up online that were filmed with the 5D Mk II that appear cinema like in their depth of feild and image clarity.
-Lenses: While most video cameras are built with a fixed lens, the VDSLRs have the advantage of utilizing the decades of solid engineering that has gone into Canon and Nikon lenses.
-Depth of Field: The DoF on most standard video cameras is non-existent. To achieve that beautiful film look, you have to strap on a 35mm DoF adapter like Brevis, Letus, or Redrock. There is a lot of room for error with these adapters, which are heavy, and cost at least $1,000 each. A purchase that is completely superfluous with a video DSLR.
-Stills: Stills with any video camera are terrible quality. There is no professional use for the still photos from my HVX200. With a VDSLR you not only get a quality video camera, but an amazing stills camera.
Downside:
-Image: The image quality looks stellar… on the web. When you throw that footage on a 58 inch plasma TV the flaws in the image are going to be far more noticeable, whereas I can plug my HVX200 into my LCD TV, and it looks just as good on the TV as it does on the web.
-Codec: h.264, Motion JPEG, and AVCHD are not good recording formats. They are delivery formats. These formats need to be transcoded into a format that standard NLE systems like FCP, Premiere, or Vegas can handle. This results in loss of quality.
-FPS: While some of the newer DSLRs are capable of shooting the film standard of 24fps, there are still many that are limited to 30fps and require converting to 24fps to replicate the film look.
-Audio: There are no XLR or even mini-XLR inputs on any of these VDSLRs. You must now buy a dedicated audio recorder, which adds an additional expense, and often times a new person to the team to handle a new piece of equipment.
-Ergonomics: Digital video cameras have been around for decades, which has allowed designers to perfect the ergonomics of holding a video camera for long periods of time. Holding a VDSLR for long periods of time can put strain on the shooter’s wrists, since without additional support structure there is only one way to hold a camera.
-Auto focus: We all know that as professionals auto focus is highly frowned upon, but there are some situations where it is a necessity. No VDSLR on the market today has auto focus capabilities.
In the end, the choice comes down to what works best for your situation. Do you need audio? Is your distribution destination the internet?
Let’s hear your opinion!
Alex, this is a great summary and really nails down the pros and cons! I am really intrigued by these cameras and think that this is the future, with some kinks to be worked out. I’m interested in what you said about the image quality – maybe you could post some full size images? For me, audio is a big issue, so that’s something worth watching. I love the low light performance, although unless you’re a nighttime shooter of some kind, it shouldn’t weigh that heavily. You’d need to think about the final output as you said, and the kind of shooting you really need to do, not just the cool factor. (Although Philip Bloom loves them and that’s coolness right there).
If I had $4000 to spend on a camera right now, I’m really not sure what I’d do. The 7D and some nice lenses would be really interesting… but I love my HVX and can’t argue with the beautiful images it creates with just its standard lens…and adding the lens adapter is a nice option for about $1000.
Curious to see what others think.
A lot of the issues with image quality comes with image adjustments in post. I’ve heard that if you want to change the brightness, drop the reds, or say your camera OP forgot to white balance… All these things hurt the image quality so much more than if you shoot with RAW, where you can change the white balance, F-stop, ISO, anything without leaving a dent in the image quality.
RED RAW comes with a pretty big price tag, though. I would like to know as much about all the technologies as I can so I can work with these cameras or the HVX or EX-3, etc., which have limitations, too, especially in low light.