I really want to use it for filming, I like its unique style . Is there anything similar or better for around the same price ?
If your true goal is to produce high quality video, then you are wasting your time with a still camera that just happens to have a video feature. Even when shooting with the fine 5D, Mark II, you will only be using 2 mp of the total 21 mp on the sensor. You can do the math and see that. The Canon 1D, Mark IV will provide you with larger pixels, but costs $5,000.
What a video camera does is collect the video information on three separate CCD's (RGB) and combine them into the video file, so you get three times the information in your video file (3 * 2 MP = 9 MP of data)
Canon, JVC, Panasonic and Sony make cameras with 3-CCD configurations that also shoot in the HD mode
I suggest you redo your research and pick a different camera
Note, thus far only a few camera system makers have gone down the road of including video with their fine still cameras. It may well be, when all dust settles, this feature may fade away, at least in the higher end version of DSLR's
It suffers from moire pattern because it uses 1 out of three (or four can't remember) to record the video because its CPU can't (in real time) compress the data so * not * all the lines are used.
This is not my video of course [URL Truncated] see the spider web?
I used it for video only once to record a play (it looked fine) The camera however works very well for plain still photos - you'll get a lot of details, etc. [URL Truncated] I can't complain really.
The Nikon D3S is a great camera too, but it sounds like you need a video camera. Try the Canon X1. For basic shooting the Canon 5D mark ii is a great choice
Answer by KB on 30 Dec 2009 05:02:36The 5D Mark II is very popular for HD video right now but, there's nothing else like it in the same price range right now. Nikon's new D3s offers HD video and is more expensive but, it's 720p rather than 1080p video. The next step down from the 5D Mark II is the new Canon 7D which is not a full-frame and is "only" an 18mp camera. From my understanding, the 7D offers a bit more control when recording video in manual mode. Not being much of a videographer/cinematographer, I haven't tested or verified this with my own 7D.
Answer by Eclipse on 30 Dec 2009 05:04:55Yes, A 50MP Hasselblad. For making movies, the best brand would be Panavision. Getting the best does not require price restrictions though. For filming or making videos, the Digital Camera including dSLRs is the worst you could possibly use.
Answer by keerok on 30 Dec 2009 05:22:32The "unique style" you speak of is because the 5D II, accepts all EF Canon lenses (so consider lens cost in your "same price" scenario). It is some what awkward to use for shooting video, the results are fine, but you can not rely on auto focus.
I do take (for once) exception to fotoaces comment, 1080p, IS only 2 mpx! So yes, you are not getting the full 21 mpx resolution, but it's not needed for HD video.
The link that Pookey posted, has been post processed to something other than 1080p, but never having taken videos of dewy spiderwebs, I can't make any comment there.
Yes, the 7D, and the 5D IV, are newer cameras, so you can expect to see advances there. I have neither yet, but will probably be dumping my 1D III, for a 1D IV, soon, stay tuned for the update!
And in a finial note in agreement with all, I also have an XHA1 (The main camera that was used in Crank 2), and it is far easier to shoot video with it. At this point is about the same or less costly than a 5DII, if your main concern is video.
0 comments:
Post a Comment