Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Canon recommends that a video camcorder is better. HDDSLR video can be amazing, but the basic camera does not come video ready as a camcorder does, rather, its just a small piece of a system needed to produce movies for the big screen or television programs and commercials.
I'm quite the noob when it comes to this, so all help will be appreciated
EDIT: I also want to keep in mind the quality in "low light" environments.
I'd figure spending at least 3-5X times the cost of the body to add all the other needed equipment that will make the video live up to its potential. You will get better video with a good camcorder for less money at the low end.
One other reason for HDDSLR video is when you have only one camera and want to take a quick video on the spur of the moment. It might not be pro quality, but having the capability to capture something is nice.
Not exactly sure what you're trying to imply, but I have my mind set on a 60D. I'm going to use it to make short films (like the one in my above post) for YouTube. At this point I just need to figure out my lenses (also mentioned in my above post).
I never thought I'd consider switching brands, as I've been a Canon user for nearly 40 years.I think part of what kept Canon competitive in lens pricing was the fact that many of their primes were older. Sure, they made them right and they are good, but, until the 24mm and 28mm, there wasn't a non-L prime that was made in the 2000's. It's easy to keep prices low when you aren't updating lenses for 20 years.
But, if I ever switch it will not be because of bodies, but because of lens prices. I chose Canon many years ago because their prices were lower for comparable lenses. I am afraid they are losing that edge. Bodies will come and go, but lenses are the long-term and larger investment. If Canon cannot remain competitive in its lens pricing I may have to rethink my investment.
I think you have good reason to be worried for the future. The pancake 40mm is the only lens Canon has put out <$1000 that seems to match its price. Also, if Canon's non-L strategy is to go f/2.8 and IS, instead of f/1.8. Because Nikon and Canon's recent 28mm offerings are similarly priced, but Nikon does f/1.8, and Canon does f/2.8IS
For reasons you won't yet comprhend, for video you will need:
A zoom with a fast constant max aperture. That means an f2.8 zoom.
You will need a zoom with a filter thread that doesn't rotate.
You will need a zoom with a nice tactile long throw focus ring.
Such a lens will be really good for your photography, but will really really help your video.
You won't be using AF if you are doing video seriously. People may take issue with this, but they are wrong. AF cannot pinpoint what you want in focus (that is the subjects eye) and cannot track fast enough.
So really forget AF.
You have $500 and a short telephoto.
I would therefore suggest a sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro or the same but with OS (not the f2.8-4 version or anything else that sounds similar) can be found used with lots of change, you may be lucky and find a non-OS verison new, and certainly this is the best bang per buck.
18-50 is also a good walkaround lens, decent wide angle, and ok tele. Would be a good interview and GV lens (thinking video) Also has good close focus, it isn't a true macro, but for practical purposes, unless you work in a lab, you wouldn't need a seperate macro lens with this.
I have one and so can recommend it.
You are going to want some other accessories as well for video, the cost of the camera is about 10% of the total beginning expense. hopefully, the school will have some of the lighting, microphones, audio recorders, tripods, video heads, etc, but wait and see. Odds are that a beginner level video tripod and head will eat up $500.
I agree with Smithy. You've been using the ID for how many years and you say it's better than a camera that you've used for how long? Oh, that's right "playing with it for a while" and you decided to share your wisdom. My apologies for my sarcasm.
I am not judging the camera, just the grip. The camera is by far the best on the market, for now, but the ergonomics are part of the daily use. If you shot 1000 photos a day, like I do, you would understand. Amateurs won't see it anyway...
My apologies for my sarcasm...
today pentax launched a new evil camera http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=4774
Another player in the market.
As for this type of camera being too expensive maybe a straight point & shoot, which I can't envisage being launched, but the evil type cameras are at least as pricey as the 600D if not more so, and they're selling well despite that.
the 18 - 55 II lens is much better than the version IQuotethe 55 - 250 II lens (just introduced) is better than the version I in image quality
as far as I know the new and the old versions of both lenses are pretty much the same, there are only some cosmetic changes, so it really puzzles me why you claim that the version II of the 18-55 is "much better"
I've read elsewhere on this forum in another thread, people really complaining about the eye-control, couldn't get used to it, didn't want to spend a while training it, hated it, etc blah blah.
I've never used it (although i think my sis had it on her eos 50), but the one thing i do know is _if you don't like it, turn it off_.
the only arguement i can see against it is the 'i don't want to pay for something i'm not going to use'. yeah well, get used to it. how many people regularly change between all their different focus modes? us af microadjustment on every lens? use white-balance and ev bracketing? high iso and long exposure noise reduction, lighting optimiser, illumination correction in every shot? (probably not the people who shoot raw-only). record cards-full of HD movie at 3x zoom?
half your camera is stuff you're never going to use all the time. you want a simple camera? buy a film or a leica M9.
I say bring it back, i'd be interested in trying it out on my next body. at the least i'd certainly use it for zone-selection on my 7d...
24-70 2.8 not IS but rumor has it that it's coming, but I really don't see the point given that it's2.8 and with current ISO technology being so good
Given that f/2.8 speed comes at the expense of depth of field, I'd like the flexibility of being able to stop action with a combination of f/2.8 and high ISO, or get an increased DoF for a static subject with IS and a slow shutter speed.
AFAIK, Canon EOS3 has this feature
I used to have the same question a few weeks ago. Consequently, I went to a local electronics store and tried both, and left the store with the 60D because of better handling (much nicher Grip and more dials).
Best advice: go to a store and try both side by side. Try which body is compatible with your hand.
I don't reccomend the 50mm f1.8 for the extremely cheap build quality (Toy quality). Photographer friends of mine have it, but don't use it much thereof. My 50 1.4 is, except for a 70-200 2.8 L IS the only lens on my camera for about a year now. I didn't buy the kit lens.