Future pro: Should I buy an hd video camcorder and DSLR, or just a DSLR with video?

[foundingfilms]

Should I buy an hd video camcorder and DSLR, or just a DSLR with hd video?

My friend is looking into getting into wedding photography/videography sports/events photography/videogrpahy and this will be their present.

Can any of the DSLR cameras shoot both stills and video at the same time? Or if one chooses to shoot stills, must one stop shooting hd video?

With hd video camcorders available for around $500, I might just buy both an hd video camcorder and a DSLR.

Any insights on this?

Isn't the hdvideo camcorder easier to use for video/have better audio controls?

Thanks for your feedback!

[n8]

I think right now the video built into the dslr's is more of a bonus rather then a staple feature. I have it on my d90, which is nice, but rather limited. If he's trying to go pro, get both.

[draymorton]

If you want to get an slr with video, you might want to wait until the video has AF.

As it stands now, though, the video quality of the Canons and latest Nikons (D3s, etc.) is just fantastic.

The pluses of the built-hd in the slrs are the high ISO capabilities, the lens selection (if the dedicated hd camera even has an interchangeable lens system), and the fact that you won't have to buy two sets of lenses.

[Franglais]

>> Should I buy an hd video camcorder and DSLR, or just a DSLR with hd video?

FR> I would get both. If you can find an assistant then you can shoot stills and video at the same time. On almost all DSLR's when you shoot video the autofocus is turned off. And the sound is usually mono too.

>> Can any of the DSLR cameras shoot both stills and video at the same time?

FR> No. You could extract stills from the video but it wouldn't be high quality

>> Or if one chooses to shoot stills, must one stop shooting hd video?

FR> Yes

>> Isn't the hdvideo camcorder easier to use for video/have better audio controls?

FR> Much better

[Speed]

Buy a DSLR and a seperate camcorder. Some DSLR's will take video, but it will not compete with a dedicated video camcorder.

[Sebastian]

Get something like the 5D II. There is no $500 HD camcorder on the market that can compete with the image quality.

Camcorder has a tiny sensor, so you end up with noisy dark video and no depth of field to speak of. 5D has a huge sensor, so you get butter smooth DOF and great low-light footage.

[Photo-John]

Here's a list of current DSLRs that can capture video, along with links to their respective user review pages:

Canon EOS Rebel T1i / 500D
Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Canon EOS 7D
Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Nikon D5000
Nikon D90
Nikon D300s
Nikon D3S

Panasonic Lumix GH1

Pentax K-x
Pentax K7

Did I forget any? Some of these are so new that it's questionable whether they're actually available yet. And there are also the Olympus E-P1 and E-P2 as well as the Panasonic GF1. Those aren't really digital SLRs, thought. Neither is the Panasonic GH1, for that matter. Technically, it's not a digital SLR. But as far as actual features and performance go, it's very close. And the GH1 arguably offers the best video functionality of all the cameras I listed - it's the only camera on that list that actually has auto focus available while filming.

I have the Canon EOS 7D and the video quality is beautiful. However, you have to be very careful planning and setting up shots since you can't focus while filming. I found the Olympus E-P1 and Panasonic GH1 easier to casually film with. Even point-and-shoot cameras are easier. However, the quality of the video from the 7D is wonderful and for me - the two-for-the-price-of-one value was key. I got both a new sports camera and an HD video camera at the same time. The still camera functionality is most important to me. If video were more important, I might have gone with the Panasonic or bought a separate, dedicated camcorder.

[foundingfilms]

thanks for all that!

what's your guys' take on this:



here's an interesting thread on the dual stills/video camera system form those who oft photograph models:

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?th...=531686&page=1

some pros:

"I will have to try this I'm curious of the actual turnout. the perspective of the video might be useful."

"Wow I know I'm about to really get flamed but...

I think it's a great ideal!!

(Hear me out before anyone douses me with gas)

My main function is as a photographer. That means my MAIN concern is still images. However, I'm looking for every single value-added step that I can take to gain extra profit with low/no extra effort. If I can add a rig like this to my shoots , I can run video as a secondary option. The video camera isn't important at that point as the stills are what my client's ORIGINALLY came to me for.

After the shoot, I'll keep my normal workflow for the images. I 'll slice up the video into individual clips, eliminating the 90% of it that shows my feet as I talk to the model, is shaky, etc. I'll take the best of those clips, use something automated like ANIMOTO to make it look "shiny and purty", and offer that up as an extra service to the client. Every client loves it when I show it big-screen because it makes them look like a "SupaStar" when they put it on FB, MySpace, etc.

It cost me nothing but the annual subscription (which I can easily recoup in two or three shoots) and after that, I can even use it to promote the studio and my services as much as I like, for free.

We, as photographers, have to see the extra value that we can provide the clients these days. Anyone can take a good picture with today's technology. You have to separate yourself from the crowd by what you can offer...

Okay. I'm getting in my Speedos now, preparing for my gasoline bath...

EDIT: It's not a good system if you want a linear video of any good length but it's excellent for grabbing clips that can be used elsewhere..."


"The more I look at this idea the more I like it. And the dual camera rig is very interesting, also.

But how does the union feel about this? You are putting a cameraman out of work.

Have you considered wearing one of the cameras on your head like a hat? How might that work?"

"I'm going to write a blog message about this convergence. I see a lot of resistance to the idea on this thread and I admit I have been too. But I just shot my first few videos myself and I have to say, it is absolutely compelling. Mixing video/audio/stills together is a bad ass media package for just about any event, depending on the intent of the end product.

I see the convergence in technology forcing a convergence in the practitioners of both fields, video and stills. And I think we will see that convergence and I am formally here and now coining the phrase, the emergence of the "event artist".

The event artist captures the event, artistically. Neither a pure artist nor a pure photojournalist, but a mix of both, capturing the event artistically, but with a more compelling spin using the available technological media they have at their disposal. Some day it will be immersive, or 3D or some other as yet undeveloped form. And we will be forced to adapt, or be relegated to the remnant heap of increasingly marginalized old-school players.

Its reality, its technology, its progress, and it cannot be avoided."
--http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=531686&page=2

[Franglais]

I like her ear rings.

Afterthought: the gadet is completely daft. Can you really imagine shooting a video with the soundtrack regularly regularly punctuated with the Clack-bang-whirr of the 5D going off?