Best camera for an aspiring filmmaker

  • Thread starter Thread starter natattack
  • Start date Start date
surjones, i have been strongly considering a HVX and im getting a new laptop b4 i start film school. do u recommend a Macbook pro with FCP for editing...or a sony Vaio with Avid? which setup is better for the editing with the hvx?
 
Newbitor said:
surjones, i have been strongly considering a HVX and im getting a new laptop b4 i start film school. do u recommend a Macbook pro with FCP for editing...or a sony Vaio with Avid? which setup is better for the editing with the hvx?
Click to expand...


I REALLY suggest the Apple Laptop's. I would also wait a couple weeks if you can till NAB so you can see what new lappys come out.
 
At the beginning-ish of the thread, someone mentioned the PV-GS400. The 500 has pretty much the same components, although manual control is harder to use (still possible). It is also about $400 cheaper. True, it doesn't shoot 24fps. . . but: I had the opportunity to show a work I did in a decently sized venue: a concert of sorts. On the GS500 with everything on AUTO. It was merely an event video. The professional videographer for the concert saw the screening. After, he asked me why I shot in film when digital was so much cheaper! He mistook the GS500 for a film camera. WHY? It was HOW I shot. Smooth camera motions (eg. www.steadycam.org) immediately make it feel filmic. Imagine, right? Furthermore, I watched a film a friend of mine made w/ the DVX100, with its famed 24fps. The film looked awful.

Moral: if you have decent equipment, using it right, then you have something that looks great, even filmic. If you have great equipment and use it wrong, you get nothing.

Personally, I like my GS500 a lot, it was in my price range (sub $1000), gives me TRUE widescreen (yes, it really does!). Low light is a bit of a problem, and even at 1x zoom it looks a bit too close in, and the wide angle converter lens provided blurs the edges, so you can't use it for major project, BUT, it works. Very well. The 400 is preferable, but more expensive. I wouldn't mind a DVX100, but money. . .
 
I agree with most of what you said. Although, the gs500 (and 400) does NOT shoot true widescreen. I can assure you. True widescreen would mean that it would have to have native 16:9 CCD's, which it doesn't. It has 3, 4:3 CCD's. The next step down, is like with the XL-2, where it isn't true either, but uses a bigger part of the 4:3 CCD to simulate widescreen more accurately. You're camera probobly uses some kind of sqeeze option to get widescreen. Which is better than just throwing the black bars on like so many cameras, but definetely not true...
 
I recommend a Canon XH A1 and intel iMac with FCS

I recommend a Canon XH A1 and intel iMac with FCS

I recommend a Canon XH A1 and intel iMac with FCS.

I started out with a Canon GL1. Broadcast quality, a slight step down from the XL1 in CCD size, but I made more than enough money with it to pay for it. (Keep in mind a broadcast quality camera will do in most instances.)

But with a feature film I had distributors tell me they wanted better quality than miniDV for transfer to film. (For direct to DVD it was fine.)

So when I replaced the GL1 I went for the Canon XH A1. (I had already purchased the new 24" iMac and upgraded to Final Cut Studio. ) I know people who love and use Mac laptops. But the 24" high def screen on the new itel imac is wonderful.

I did not buy the Canon XL H1 for the same reason I did not buy the XL1. I knew I could get by with the 20x optical zoom and would not need the ablity to attach expensive additional lenses. However, unlike the GL1, the new XH A1 has the same CCD's as Canon's $9,000 camera. That means it has the same HD quality for $6,000 less.

And in comparisons Canon's XH A1's CCD's compares extremely well with 2/3" CCD's in $45,000 to $100,000 cameras.

So the reason I bought the XH A1 was I'd get quality equivalent to a $45,000 camera.

There is currently a $250 rebate on the XH A1. (Of course, I bought my two weeks before the rebate was offered.) You can find the rebate info at Amazon.com.
 
hvx200

hvx200

I think the hvx200 is the perfect first camera, besides just a cheapo consumer camera if you just want to get your feet wet. If you are going to spend some $$ buy somthing that will give you plenty of room to grow. You don't need all the extra p2 cards and other extras until you start shooting HD. The hvx does shoot dv tape. Its only too much money if it just sits and collects dust! You can buy new on Ebay for under $4000 check feedback before buying though and beware of good deals at camera websites they are a sham.
 
I've done a bit of research, and it all comes down to what you want to do with the camera.

1) you want to shoot the best quality at the lowest price

- Canon T2i or 550D - $800 body only, $900 with 18-55 lens - it's basically a 7D in a plastic body - T2i-s are selling like hotcakes now
- Canon 60D - available at the end of sept 2010 - $1100 body only - this is my recommended buy along with a 50mm 1.8 EF lens (it's about $100 for one, spending $350 on a 1.4 50mm is well worth it too) - the swivel LCD is a dream come true - you will need to purchase an lcd monitor to use the T2i for some shooting situations - so all in all, you will spend the same or more for a T2i with the extra LCD and bracket, than the 60D with the built-in swivel LCD.

DSLRs are limited to about 12 minutes of continous shooting - plan on having at least 2 fast (class 6 or better) SDHC cards (or SDXC cards), and a laptop or a photobank drive ready to unload them (this is the major drawback of DSLRs). You also need a fast computer with plenty of ram to edit 1080p video.

If you have more money to spend, spend it on good prime lenses or a good L series zoom lens with the range you want. Spend only on a more expensive camera if you can afford it along with the good lenses. If you have the cash, the 5D mark II is used on the tv show 24, and House, among others. The 7D is a T2i in a metal alloy body.

The reason for the prime lenses or the L series is that you need a fast lens to get the shallowest depth of field (DoF) - shallow DoF along with 24p native on the Canon DSLRs makes your video look like film.

DSLRs are for hardcore filmmakers - plan on reading a lot of filmmaking books to make the most of them.

2) if you want something that can shoot documentaries as well as short or long movies, and won't break the bank

Canon Vixia HF series is a good buy. From about $500 for the HF10 to $1400 for the HF S11. The problems with the vixia are the quality of the image - which is great, but not so good in low light. In comparison the DSLRs shoot excellent video in low light due to the larger sensor and better optics of the lenses. The battery life is also pretty abysmal - you will have to purchase additional batteries for any serious work.

Canon Vixias HF10s were used for shooting some scenes in Crank 2 (there's an article about it in indie mogul).

The advantages are - if you get the hf10, it will be very cheap, great quality, and you can probably edit in a not-so-good computer without too much trouble.

If you don't know what to buy, then $500 spent on the HF10 will be well spent, and by the time you outgrow it you will know exactly what you want from experience. Being able to shoot continously without having to constantly stop to unload sd-cards is a big advantage if you're learning how to make movies.

If you're worried about image quality or grain, I suggest you watch Lars Von Trier's Breaking the Waves. It's grainy, the camera is unsteady throughtout the whole movie (on purpose - dogme 95 influence), but it won a Cannes Palm D'or. Why? Because of the absolutely fantastic way the story is told with great actors and an amazing screenplay.

If you have more than $2500 to spend, then your options are much wider. There are great cameras in this price range from Sony and Panasonic, among other brands.

The XH A1 was also used for filming crank 2. It's about $3,600.

Besides a good camera - you would do well to invest in a good video tripod, some sort of steadying mechanism, and a portable video LED light for shooting in low light situations (for documentaries). A stereo external mic is also a great investment, and you can easily turn it into a boom mic.

My Recommended low budget setup for an aspiring filmmaker:

1) spend $100 on good filmmaking books such as - the grammar of the shot, on directing film by mamet, the grammar of the edit, and any syd field book on screenwriting - the more you spend here, the better your films will be (if you read the books of course) - you can also check your local library - it might have all of these books and more
2) Canon Vixia HF10 - around $500 refurbished or used
3) Stereo Shotgun Microphone - $90 on ebay
4) Ravelli AVT Video Camera Tripod with Fluid Drag Head - $80 on amazon.com
5) Manfrotto 585 ModoSteady 3-in-1 Camera/Camcorder Stabilizer and Support System - $90 on amazon
6) Ravelli ATD Professional Tripod Dolly for Camera Photo and Video - $33 on amazon
7) Opteka Micro Director's Viewfinder - $99 on amazon or ebay
8) BP-819 battery on ebay (buy from a top seller only) - $15
9) Sima SL-20LX Ultra Bright Video Light (Black) - $29 on amazon

Grand total = $1036 + shipping of items

With this setup there's a huge amount of stuff you can do. Read the best books you can find. Then read some more. Then go practice and see if you understand what they are telling you.

If you wanna spend more money than that, invest in good lighting equipment (books included). Lighting a scene properly is the difference between pro-work and amateur unwatchable footage.

A continuous light fluorescent kit is about $150-$200 + shipping on ebay. These usually screw 4 fluorescent bulbs together for a good amount of light with low heat. If you are swimming in money, then go ahead and buy some litepanels (LED light panels).

My recommended extremely low budget setup for an aspiring filmmaker:

1) spend as much as possible on books - but find good books with good reviews (amazon.com top sellers are usually good) or find them at a local library, local used books store or fellow filmmaker
2) Opteka Micro Director's viewfinder - $99 or just cut out a 3cmx4cm window on an expired credit card (cut a rectangle hole with the aspect ratio you want 3x4cm is 1:1.333 tv video)
3) any still digital camera or your cell phone's camera

with this setup, read read read, then read some more, then read the books again. Go around and use your director's viewfinder everywhere and anywhere that you can - frame shots, look through it, practice composing shots and making camera movements. Annoy the heck out of people, they will understand you're a crazy aspiring filmmaker. Make storyboards with digital still shots and practice putting them together in a video editing program. Watch films without any sound and study what the director and the editor have done. Use de video function of the digital still camera if there is one and see if you can cut things properly in a program.

Another thing I almost forgot is to buy a really good acting book such as Acting for Film by Cathy Haase. Student films are notorious for really bad acting and if you read this, and can have your talent read it too or at least tell them a few things your film will be much better.

I hope this helps you somehow, as I too am an aspiring filmmaker.

Regards,

Will Bae
My first short
 
Hello guys,
I am about to by me a used Panasonic AG-HVX200. Does anyone of you have experiences in shooting films with that camera? Would you still recommand this for todays shooting enviroment? I like making documentaries and short films. Are there any films/movies known to you shot with this camera?
 
Wow Will, you most certainly have done your research sir! what an incredibly informative post. I absolutely agree, though I would swear by the trusty Canon 5D Mk II since you can get some quality images for it at quite a reasonable price now (since the MK 3's come out). Plus its used by so many low budget indie filmmakers now you can get a lot of very helpful tutorials for free online.
 
I know this thread was started a while back, but on the topic of best cameras for aspiring filmmakers... I've heard good things from friends in the film industry about the Canon 6D and is fairly comparable to the 5D, minus some built in anti-aliasing and a couple less megapixels. Plus, it sells for about half the price. So, if the budget isn't there for the 5D or A7r (also a great camera), you might consider checking out the 6D.
 
If you're reading this in 2016, the Panasonic G7 camera is very inexpensive and will give you a fantastic image for about $600. As an entry-level camera it's currently the camera that will give you the most bang-for-your-buck, and will allow you to complete with filmmakers who have much more expensive cameras.

If you can't afford this camera, you could really use any camera that you have to learn, even a cell phone. But it would be more helpful to get a camera that can focus the lens, so you can learn about depth of field (making the background and foreground blurry).
 
Hello everyone! In last year i started my journey with film making, i was using my grandfather camera which was quite old and didn't had to many options to change. I would like to buy new one but don't know what should i looking for, i have around 600$ to spent. I done a little bit research and i was thinking about canon M3, in last post in this topic i readed about Panasonic G7, can someone spot me a difference in this two?
 
Panasonic G7 - 4K resolution, Micro Four Thirds (MFT) sensor (2.22x crop factor), the 1080 resolution mode shoots at 60 fps, slightly better dynamic range, 17% lighter weight (better when using stabilization equipment), 16% better battery life, image stabilization for photos. The G7 gives you the SAME exact image quality as the $1,400 GH4, except with a few features that you might not care too much about (not waterproof, stops recording after 30 minutes of video).

Canon EOS M3 - 1080p resolution, APS-C sensor (1.6x crop factor).

The M3 is about $168 less than the G7 on Amazon. You might be able to find some good deals on used cameras if you search around.

The G7 shoots in 4K resolution and the M3 shoots in only 1080p. This makes the image of the G7 much sharper, and is especially important when filming things in the distance. When reviewing a few M3 video tests, a lot of the shots were not that sharp. It's important to keep in mind that editing with the G7's 4K resolution videos will require a better computer that can handle the footage, but you can always convert your 4K videos to 1080p or use proxies to edit the 4K footage. It's not a big deal if your computer can't edit 4K footage efficiently, but would add a small benefit to your editing technique if you could.

The G7 shoots 60 fps when recording in 1080p, while the M3 can only shoot a maximum of 1080 at 24 or 30 fps. The G7 doesn't shoot at 60 fps if recording in 4K mode. So, if you film weddings or need a few shots in slow motion with the G7, switch your settings to record to 1080p.

The G7 has slighter better dynamic range than the M3. When viewing footage from the M3, lights were very blown out (there's a large glow around lights). The G7 isn't that great with dynamic range either, but the glow around lights would be reduced by about 20% when comparing it to the M3. This is important when filming images with dark and light sections in the same video. Usually, more dynamic range helps with filming outside light from windows, a bride's wedding dress, the sky, lamps/street lights, or anything else bright.

Video from the M3 seems slightly worse than the G7 with low-light -- the M3 adds more grain in low light. The G7 doesn't add much grain in low light unless you go above f-2.8/f-4.0. The M3 adds significantly more grain at these f-stops -- about the same, if not more, than my cell phone. If you light your scenes properly, then you shouldn't have any grain in low light with the G7, but will have a slightly-distracting amount with the M3. Without lighting (such as at a wedding), the G7 isn't the best in low-light, but with a good lens it's decent. Even with a decent lens, I wouldn't use the M3 to film in low light at a wedding.

The G7 uses a MFT sensor and the M3 uses an APS-C sensor. The sensor affects several things. First, it determines what type of lenses your camera can use without a lens adapter. The M3 uses EF-M lenses and the G7 uses MFT lenses. Before buying your camera, you should research the quality and price of the lenses that it accepts. The ASP-C sensor is wider than the MFT sensor, which gives your video better depth of field (the background and foreground of the ASP-C sensor will be blurrier, which is better.) The G7 has a crop factor of 2.22 and the M3 has a crop factor of 1.6. This means that the M3 records a wider image than the G7. If you're using a 50mm lens with the G7, the actual number of mm is 111 (50mm lens * 2.22 crop factor = 111mm). If you're using a 50mm lens with the M3, the actual number of mm is 80mm (50mm lens * 1.6 crop factor = 80mm). This means that you'll have to move the G7 back a foot or two in order to record the same image size as the M3. This is also important when purchasing lenses, since you'll have to take into account the crop factor when buying a lens with a certain mm number. Check out http://www.filmhandbook.com/camera-techniques/focusing-depth-of-field/ for more information about depth of field and your camera's crop factor.

Summary: The main pros of the G7 are a sharper image and less grain in low light. The main pro of the M3 is the sensor size, which gives you a wider image and slightly better depth of field. Even though the M3 gives you better depth of field and gives you a wider image, it's clear that the G7's image is significantly better due to the sharper image and less grain in low light. Without even thinking twice about this, the extra $168 is definitely worth getting the G7 over the M3, plus you get to use 4K to allow you to use creative techniques when editing. Cell phones are almost as good now-a-days as the M3, aside from the M3's medium sensor size.

Let me know if you have any other questions!
 
I absolutely love the idea of saving multiple focus points. I think every camera in the future will have this option, but not for a long time (probably 50+ years). I hope I'm wrong though, because I would love to use one of these cameras! It might work good with auto focus to correct any focusing issues in post, and could possibly save time during principal photography by not having to manually focus, but would increase time in post. To decrease costs, I'd rather save 1 minute during principal photography and increase the time in post by a minute or two. I sometimes have focusing errors when using the camera handheld if the actors don't move to their exact marks or I don't move the camera to the precise position, and when using a slider and dolly. It would be nice to have a few focal points recorded a few mm away from the len's focal point just in case the shot was slightly out of focus. When filming multiple actors in the same shot, it would be great to record each actor in focus, and choose in post which actor to edit in the shot.

Several of the RED cameras are a step up from mid-ranged cameras, so of course they're worth it to rent for the right production, and some of the lower-priced RED cameras are affordable to buy. Due to the cost, however, I wouldn't rent or buy a RED camera if you don't already have gear to use with it, excellent audio equipment, excellent lighting equipment, a great cast and crew, a decent budget for props, wardrobe, makeup etc. and a budget to rent it. Renting a RED for $1,500+ might increase the production value of your film by about 5%, but using that money towards other areas of your film might increase it by 50%+. A lot of the entry-level and mid-grade cameras come very close to the quality of the lower-budget RED cameras for just a fraction of the price. Most productions probably will not benefit from renting a RED camera, but a few might benefit if they have a much higher budget and more experience than the average independent filmmaker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kim Welch
What is the best Camera under $2000
Replies
1
Views
886
Staff
Staff
Pint760
Best Camera for Yacht Vlogging and Filming?
Replies
1
Views
1,271
Pint760
Pint760
Maura N.
Best Tips For Proper Camera Gear Maintenance
Replies
0
Views
1,143
Maura N.
Maura N.
Maura N.
Acting for the Camera: Techniques for Getting the Best Performance from Your Actors
Replies
0
Views
1,641
Maura N.
Maura N.
M
What is the best camera to film a short film in 2023?
Replies
2
Views
1,715
Pinkcat234
P
Back
Top