Before you make ANY purchase, it's important to consider what you intend to do with the final product. There's no point in over-buying (getting better quality than you need at unnecessary expense). And you don't want to under-buy (getting equipment that isn't suitable for your needs).

If you're just thinking about YouTube uploads, you don't really need to spend very much. A 5D or 7D isn't necessary. A simple inexpensive camcorder will do.

What's almost MORE important is sound. If your projects will have dialogue, then you do not want to rely on the built-in camera microphone. Invest in a boom mic and/or an RF lav. An audience will forgive a less than perfect picture but if the soundtrack sounds cheap, then they'll write you off and stop watching no matter how much work you put into it.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

Look up NTSC.

The Sony FX1 is a fine camera. Are you sure you want a NTSC camera? You're in the UK, right?

The Canon HV40 is a fine camera, too. You will be quite happy with it.

Many people love the Canon T3i. The audio is not acceptable so you will need an audio recorder.

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

?bjdzyak I know youtube gets the rep of just being full of people falling over and cat videos, but I am hoping to make or hopes of making short movies or just in general videos, e.g. maybe something along the lines of this ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDKfXLBOBm0&feature=channel). And don't worry for sound, I've got a rode videomic pro

?certified instigator Yes I am in the UK, but as the ebay post says, it can be burnt onto DVD so I'm wondering if it would be fine for my needs as I shoot in 24 fps anyway, that if I'm going for youtube, it would be ok? But is it worth switching over to HDV I believe it is when I have tried to learn a lot about DSLRs? I mean I imagine I'd have to do another learning process with the camera.

Canon HV40, I mean if I'm quite happy with it, it isn't the same as happy with it? Or would I be?

And the T3i, I am thinking of going down this route, I'm just wondering would it suit me due to I think it's tie up between the Sony FX1 and the T3i unless you have any other suggestions for cameras? But do not worry about audio, I've got a Rode videomic pro as stated above.

quote:

---

Originally posted by benakaginge
Canon HV40, I mean if I'm quite happy with it, it isn't the same as happy with it? Or would I be?

---

Perhaps there is a bit of a word usage error. Is "quite"
some kind of qualifier? If one is "quite" happy with a
camera that means less than if I said you will be happy
with that camera? I wasn't aware that I was making an
error in word usage.

I have used and like the HV40. I have spoken to other
users of that camera who also like it. I didn't realize if
I say "I quite like the camera" that it means I don't fully
like it - to me it means I like it quite a lot. Sorry for the
confusion.

I like the camera, I know others who like the camera, it's
a fine camera. You will be happy with it.

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

quote:

---

e.g. maybe something along the lines of this ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDKfXLBOBm0&feature=channel).

---

There's a shot about 1:10 in that should be a warning about choosing cameras. It's an over-the-shoulder of the little girl with the television in the background. The image on the TV is overexposed by at least two stops. And the depth-of-field is critically low for a shot like this as the TV image is way out of focus. That wouldn't be a big deal except that her dialogue is specifically referencing what is playing on the screen.

Part of the problem there is lighting ratio. The television is putting out X footcandles of light and the lighting on the girl is at least two+ stops under that so exposing for her means the TV is over-exposed. The lighting ratio problem and the depth-of-field issue could both have been solved by increasing the footcandles on her up to the level of the television... which would have required stopping down on the iris which, as all photographers know, increases depth-of-field.

Another aspect of this is the camera chosen. Odds are that A) whatever camera was used doesn't have inherently high latitude, meaning, it can't handle extreme ratios no matter what you do... and B ) most consumer camcorders do not have manual control over exposure (ie. iris, shutter, ASA).

So the point being, when asking the question, "What camera should I buy?" it is important to think about A) goal for the final product (internet, DVD, projection, film-out), B) capabilities and limitations of the camera itself, and C) the Cameraman's knowledge and skill in photography and lighting so he can work within the parameters of the equipment and resources to actually SHAPE the image instead of having to settle on whatever the camera delivers.

It's well and good to run through the alphabet soup of camera makes and models, but without a clear understanding of those three aspects above, there is no base-line to judge a single piece of gear with.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

Hey, thank you for all the help you've given me.

?bjdzyak Thank you for pointing all that out in the video, I was unaware of it. I do believe the camera used was either a 5D mark II or a 7D just from guessing with the behind the scenes footage.

But in my decision, I was told in other places "if you want to be a photographer first and film maker 2nd, then go for a DSLR". So I have chosen to go for a camcorder. Preferably the Panasonic HDC-TM900, it generally seems to have very good reviews so I think I may try and get that unless anyone has any recommendations for something better? But again thank for the help. Much appreciated

quote:

---

Originally posted by benakaginge

Hey, thank you for all the help you've given me.

?bjdzyak Thank you for pointing all that out in the video, I was unaware of it. I do believe the camera used was either a 5D mark II or a 7D just from guessing with the behind the scenes footage.

But in my decision, I was told in other places "if you want to be a photographer first and film maker 2nd, then go for a DSLR". So I have chosen to go for a camcorder. Preferably the Panasonic HDC-TM900, it generally seems to have very good reviews so I think I may try and get that unless anyone has any recommendations for something better? But again thank for the help. Much appreciated

---

If it was me buying a camera in that "class" of equipment for MOVIEMAKING, I would use this one instead: http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921666294237#accessories

I actually own one and have been very happy with it so far. The primary difference is that in addition to being a 1080i camera, it also can shoot at 24P (actually 23.98P for anyone who understands the technical differences).

This frame rate is important for MOVIEMAKING, in my opinion, because the standard frame rate of 29.97i is too "smooth" and television-like. The camera you mention says it shoots at 50i which I'm still trying to understand why, unless you are in the UK or another PAL country. In any case, the point is that movies people are used to seeing are shot and projected at 24fps while normal television (such as news and sports) are shot and transmitted at 29.97fps. That subtle frame rate difference accounts for a lot in terms of perception. If you want to use an electronic video camera to make movies, you are better off using one that can acquire images at "24P" rather than one that uses a normal TV frame rate like 29.97 or 50.

The camera I list is a bit more expensive than what you are looking at, but it's worth it. In addition to the frame rate choice, you can also have manual control over exposure and focus which are critical if you are interested in creating a narrative movie and controlling your shots (in addition to careful lighting, etc).

I use mine mostly as an additional camera when I shoot behind-the-scenes for feature films. My primary camera is the Sony F900. I also use the Sony EX3 in addition to GoPros and the Sony HDR-CX700V that I linked to above. And they all seem to cut together fairly well, so quality-wise, it holds up.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

?bjdzyak Interesting. I do live in the UK as it is but couldn't I technically film in 60p and then use sony vegas which I think automatically changes the footage to 24p if you have it set on the property options? But I mean going by this website:

http://www.camcorderinfo.co.uk/content/Sony-HDR-CX700V-Camcorder-Review/Panasonic-HDC-TM900-Comparison.htm?redirected=www.CamcorderInfo.com%2Fcontent%2FSony-HDR-CX700V-Camcorder-Review%2FPanasonic-HDC-TM900-Comparison.htm

The Panasonic seems to outdo the Sony everytime except on battery life. And in regards to being able to have manual control over certain functions, I do believe the Panasonic is a little bit more capable than the Sony.

quote:

---

Originally posted by benakaginge

?bjdzyak Interesting. I do live in the UK as it is but couldn't I technically film in 60p and then use sony vegas which I think automatically changes the footage to 24p if you have it set on the property options? But I mean going by this website:

http://www.camcorderinfo.co.uk/content/Sony-HDR-CX700V-Camcorder-Review/Panasonic-HDC-TM900-Comparison.htm?redirected=www.CamcorderInfo.com%2Fcontent%2FSony-HDR-CX700V-Camcorder-Review%2FPanasonic-HDC-TM900-Comparison.htm

The Panasonic seems to outdo the Sony everytime except on battery life. And in regards to being able to have manual control over certain functions, I do believe the Panasonic is a little bit more capable than the Sony.

---

Acquiring your images first at "24P" (23.98P) is going to give you an inherently different look than doing it in post. The comparison you listed says "its Full HD 60p record mode produced sharper video and better motion,..." It's difficult to know what they mean by "sharper" exactly, but in general, "sharper" is reserved for standard television whereas 24fps is preferred for narrative moviemaking even though it is considered "less sharp."

In the end, it's up to you to choose which acquisition format and framerate best suits your sensibilities and budget. If you really want to shoot a "real" movie with full easy control over exposure, framerate, etc, then you'll either shoot with real film or RENT a more expensive professional camera for your production (ie, F900R, Alexa, etc). But once you dip into the consumer or pro-sumer level, they will be exponential compromises as you drop in price. If it's under $1,000 USD, you're giving up something significant whether they tell you about it in their marketing or not.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

?bjdzyak True, although I'm still unsure of what camcorder to go for now, I feel like a woman at the moment. I keep switching my mind on what to go for.

But I'd love to go for a professional camera if I had the money but obviously being only 19 and not a millionaire's son, I'm limited to a budget of about ?800-?900, maybe ?1000 if I stretch it and wait. And I suppose with that I've got to make do with what I can get and try and use everything I've tried to learn off a videos on the internet to make something good (we'll see how that turns out).

quote:

---

Originally posted by benakaginge

?bjdzyak True, although I'm still unsure of what camcorder to go for now, I feel like a woman at the moment. I keep switching my mind on what to go for.

But I'd love to go for a professional camera if I had the money but obviously being only 19 and not a millionaire's son, I'm limited to a budget of about ?800-?900, maybe ?1000 if I stretch it and wait. And I suppose with that I've got to make do with what I can get and try and use everything I've tried to learn off a videos on the internet to make something good (we'll see how that turns out).

---

If you're not able to purchase what you really need at minimum, is there anyone you know who you can borrow a camera from for the few days you actually need it? What I'm getting at is why spend all of your money on something that is less than satisfactory for MOVIEmaking if you can just borrow something similar for zero cost?

You could use that money instead for other things that your movie may need on screen and off.

Since you brought up your price limit, did you include SOUND anywhere in there? I hope you weren't planning on relying on the camera mic because you (and your audience) will be very unimpressed by any visuals you manage to create if the sound (dialogue) is "amateurish." An audience will forgive a less than perfect picture but they are very unforgiving when it comes to sound. Capture GREAT dialogue tracks on set then spend LOTS of time in post editing and sweetening them before you mix the dialogue track with sound fx and music.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

?bjdzyak Maybe, I've been confusing you, it's that I want a camera that I will be using over a period of time not just for a couple of days. And the camera I need is going to be used for a variety of different scenarios. Indoors, outdoors etc etc. But I cannot borrow a camera as I do not know anyone with anything relatively ok.

In response to sound, I do have a Rode videomic pro and I am trying to learn how to edit sound so it can sound better in post from tutorials on the internet.

I have been looking at the Canon HF G10, and I'd like to know your thoughts on it as with the Sony HDR-CX700, I'd get a pal region one which does 25p not 24p which could be a problem. But could I possibly buy a NTSC Sony CX700 and have it working fine over here and use it for the 24p?

quote:

---

Originally posted by benakaginge

?bjdzyak Maybe, I've been confusing you, it's that I want a camera that I will be using over a period of time not just for a couple of days. And the camera I need is going to be used for a variety of different scenarios. Indoors, outdoors etc etc. But I cannot borrow a camera as I do not know anyone with anything relatively ok.

In response to sound, I do have a Rode videomic pro and I am trying to learn how to edit sound so it can sound better in post from tutorials on the internet.

I have been looking at the Canon HF G10, and I'd like to know your thoughts on it as with the Sony HDR-CX700, I'd get a pal region one which does 25p not 24p which could be a problem. But could I possibly buy a NTSC Sony CX700 and have it working fine over here and use it for the 24p?

---

The only reason to have a 25P or 50i format is if you're going to broadcast television with your finished product. You can shoot in ANY framerate and convert downstream if that winds up being the case, but for anything else (internet, DVD, film festivals) there should be no reason to be too concerned with framerate.

That said, if you don't shoot at 25fps, you MIGHT have some issues with flickering in lighting units as Europe runs at 50Hz. Here is a forum thread with more info regarding acceptable framerate/shutter combinations: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=29869&st=0&p=223665&hl=+europe%20+flicker&fromsearch=1#entry223665

Bottom line is that you can shoot 23.976P (24P for short... it's a marketing cheat to call it 24P but it is inaccurate... knowing the difference is very important).

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

My suggestion to choose renting over purchasing comes after hearing you describe the type of camera you want (and seem to need) and what your budget is. Unless you are in a near-constant state of PRODUCTION (not writing and not editing), then you only need a camera (and ALL the other production gear like sound, lighting, etc) for relatively brief spurts of time.

So instead of spending the lump of your saved cash on less than adequate equipment (and likely not everything you need), you could rent for a cheaper price and use the remainder of funds for the rest of your project(s) (Production design, marketing, etc).

Most people think they'll be shooting so much all the time that it only makes sense to buy a camera (and everything else), but the reality turns out to be quite different.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com