I am a camera owner who shoots reality shows, concerts and
some ENG. So I expect certain things from a camera. While
the DSLR cameras are building in stature among movie makers,
I find them useless for production. I know that much of that
stems from my past experience with video (and film) cameras.
Someone with no previous experience with cameras may never
notice the differences - or care.

A DSLR does offer what most under $2,000 cameras don't -
interchangeable lens. If that is important to you and you can't
afford a video camera that offers that option then a DSLR is
what you need. To me, there are too many other issues with
those cameras when shooting a feature.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

The big dealbreaker for me is the option for native 24P, I'm bursting my budget for the 999$ S200, but if the Ti2 can do the exact same thing for 100$ less, then I'd probably love it, and I'd probably end up getting alot use out of the lenses, espcially if the depth of field is better and much easier to adjust. If the ability to adjust shutter, white balance, ect ect were less manual, I probably wouldn't be too happy, though. About the production details, I'm not at the expertise level yet, so I don't know if I would notice the difference between these two cams (I saw a short video on here made with a camera that was a couple steps in the Mark series, and it looked outstanding, based on how non-digital it looked, so I figure the Ti2 can't be that far off.) Overall, for the price, and if there's truly not many differences that could impact a video in a large way, I think the Ti2 would be for me.

Just the things that have me cautious is of coarse, if it can really do Native 24P, if there's as much manual control, decent image stabalization, and if there's any certain things I should be cautious of.

From what I gathered, main differences between the two categories are the auto-focus (where camcorder intelligently follows the subject, and DSLR does not), auto-gain/exposure (camcorder adjusts as needed, DSLR does not), maximum shot length (file size limitations, CMOS sensor overheating/shutting down) and depth-of-field issues.

I have no practical experience with DLSRs, so I can't tell. Anyone want to elaborate what are the real, meaningful issues when shooting a feature with a DSLR?

Have you guys seen recent Political ad video by Ron Howard? He seemingly used 7d for whole 5 minute set. The whole behind the scene video is in youtube you can check that it is called something "Funny or die".

The whole finale of The Hours is being shot with 5d mark ll recently. And the director of the show has admitted that "dslr is the future". What is your opinion on these news?

See, the EOS 7D is a DSLR camera that shoots in full HD (even native I'm guessing) and the blessing that has been designed to accompany this specific camera is the fact that it's exposure and everything else can all be manual. It's designed to be pretty much everything like a camcorder, although I'm not sure about a couple things. Since the Rebel T2i also records full HD, I'm wondering it's settings are just as manual. This specific one is advertised as being the 'automatic, easy' counterpart to the 7D, but I'm wondering if this is just a marketing ploy to get detailed people to buy the 700$+ more expensive one. I checked all of the specs and it seems these two cameras have very little, if anything, different, but I may be wrong. *simply because some of the specs on the DSLR's seem like different terms than what I'm used to with camcorders*

I've been looking at a sub $1000 camera for awhile now, and had settled on a camcorder until I saw the T2i. The image quality is simply unparalleled in that price range. There's NOTHING else like it.

From my understanding though, the biggest production issue is sound. I don't have experience with it, but I'm thinking through different possible workflows, and it seems like I'll honestly be going to a clapper solution with an exterior audio recorder because of the lackluster audio capabilities. Which isn't unusual by any means, but it's a concern of mine, because that significantly complicates a shoot and I have little experience with it. Something to consider.

So does it seem to have all the manual controls that a camcorder would have, concerning exposure, white balance, and all that yada? Also, any info on wether it records in native frame rates?

I believe only camcorders do interlacing, since their output is often downsampled to SD and delivered on analogue TVs.

Essentially, my general take away from all the discussion is that for the vast majority of situations that could come up on a feature shoot, DSLR would give more and better choices than a comparably-priced camcorder. Issues that were discussed here (poor audio, limited auto-focus, auto-gain, auto-exposure, limited shot duration, overheating after prolonged continuous shooting) are, for the most part, not an obstacle during your typical shoot (audio is often recorded separately and synchronised with a clapper, focus-puller handles focusing issues, very rare are individual shots longer than a few minutes, and there is a lot of stop-and-go for the camera on a feature shot).

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSmitty

So does it seem to have all the manual controls that a camcorder would have, concerning exposure, white balance, and all that yada? Also, any info on wether it records in native frame rates?

---

Of course it has white balance and exposure controls, it is a camera after all! Well, that's the other thing about it. There is, again, NOTHING else in that price range that has the same amount of manual controls, let alone the usability. Don't know if it has zebra stripes though. Or what the audio monitoring is like.

?and Vasic's summarization sums up my opinion as well.

The body of a DSLR also isn't really designed for video though. That's something to take note of. It's not a big deal really, but the ergonomics of it aren't designed for video production.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Corax
The body of a DSLR also isn't really designed for video though. That's something to take note of. It's not a big deal really, but the ergonomics of it aren't designed for video production.

---

It's a big deal to me and a major deal breaker.

Well, I've been reading some reveiws on the Ti2 and supposedly, when recording in video, you have to keep pressing the auto-button for the video to even look normal because it supposedly gets all out of focus if the subject moves and stuff. Dunno if this is true, but that would ruin a shoot depending on how you want it to look =/.

If you're shooting a documentary (single-person, single-camera), it's out of the question. If you are shooting a feature, you'll presumably have someone who will pull focus. It would limit your choices, but could still work.

Riding focus on a DSLR is nearly impossible. The body design is
made for still shoots. A photographer can ride the focus while
shooting and if 4 out of 10 pictures are out of focus it doesn't
matter. If one quarter (or even one tenth) of the video footage is
out of focus it's unacceptable. Of course you can by a shoulder
brace, lens rails and a follow focus, but then the cost rises.
Just like I'm used to shooting with a pro video camera and the
DSLR body is too difficult for me, most people today are used to
auto focus. Riding focus on an excellent prime lens takes skill
and a lot of practice.

Sure, looking at footage on websites shows you can get excellent
images from a DSLR. Actually using one of those cameras for a
documentary is really difficult. Even when shooting a narrative
you need more support equipment for the camera then with a digital
video camera.

I think it's time for you to pick one up and spend a day shooting
with it. Make a simple short movie with actors, a location, a
small crew and lights. See if it meets your needs.

For one thing I'm worried about, there's the open type of scene, maybe you're filming a scene that happens in a room and there's no need for a depth of field or fancy focus, you just want to open the whole shot up and capture whatever happens. Wether you're zooming in a little on the faces, or whatever, say you generally want the focus very open and simple, and you just want to preset the focus and all the other settings beforehand and keep them as they are. Are there any reasons a DSLR cam would mess this type of shot up or cause any complications because of any auto features or corrections? Obviously you wouldn't want a low depth of field for a shot like this, but I'm also worried about any mechanical issues that may get in the way. Also, if it was a daylight scene, you wouldn't want the camera to go haywire every time it sees a window, or go haywire every 5 seconds on some sort of focus rampage.

Generally, I do like camcorders because they are very black and white, very simple and easy to understand, the mechanics are built for the purpose... but since alot has been said about how DSLR's for generally the same price have much better sensors and quality (and the depth of field bonus), it's such a hard choice to make. I don't mind learning more things or having a new challenge, but I do need a camera that can be very versitile during a shoot when needed.