ac6000cw Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 I guess another consideration might be the level of video shooting experience - something like a GH3 (sticking with cameras inside the OPs stated budget) is a lot less likely to bite you with moire and aliasing problems if you get it a bit wrong. And mirrorless cameras have a viewfinder usable for video...Also if you have to do 'run and gun' documentary stuff, a camera and lenses that can do a decent job in full auto mode might be useful - pressing the 'iA' button followed by 'record' has got me footage of events that would have gone away if I'd had to spend time setting it up manually.(but these a just my thoughts as an amateur ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronFilm Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 Name me one film this year that won any type of award shot on a smart phone...... You simply don't limit your tools because you have an amazing story, you combine them both. No cheap consumer MFT Camera I would place above a C100, none.I stand firm with my suggestion as buying a 5D Mark II for that cheap which can be used for excellent pictures + very good low light shooting. If you have the money combine it with the C100 Mark II or even 1 with the auto focus upgrade. Canon has the best colors in this cheaper price range of all cameras imo as well.That is very very silly if you think an old 5Dmk2 is better than all of GH4/A7s/NX1. Heck, I think it is even debatable if the stock 5Dmk2 is truly that much better at filming than even the original GH1 (which can be got for a mere $150 now on eBay). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.f.r. Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 That is very very silly if you think an old 5Dmk2 is better than all of GH4/A7s/NX1. Heck, I think it is even debatable if the stock 5Dmk2 is truly that much better at filming than even the original GH1 (which can be got for a mere $150 now on eBay). I own an A7s and I would rather have an 5D Mark II over a GH4 or NX1. Full Frame, much better colors, no question for photography and much better in low light. The only thing "silly" is people commenting and not having used these cameras. My original post clearly stated that a 5D Mark II and a C100 would be the perfect documentary cameras within their price range. C100 looks much better than GH4 and 5D Mark II is much better in low light + dog if so desired and colors are not even close. GH4 has frame rate advantage, but outside of you using that for something specialized I simply occludent make it my main camera as the colors of skin look like plastic. I owned a GH2, 3 and 4 as a matter of fact my first camera in this dslr world was a Panasonic GH1. I speak from experience, not brand loyalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 That is very very silly if you think an old 5Dmk2 is better than all of GH4/A7s/NX1. Heck, I think it is even debatable if the stock 5Dmk2 is truly that much better at filming than even the original GH1 (which can be got for a mere $150 now on eBay). For me, the thing to keep in mind is that a tool can still be great for a task even though it might not be "better." I still use my 5DII because FF with a fast 50mm just looks good for interviews. I think that encouraging someone to consider the 5DII is good advice; depends on what they're doing, you know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosvus Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 I think the main thing to think about for Sam is, what else has he budgeted for and what does he need? Is he planning on using external audio equipment? Does he have a decent pc/mac and the necessary editing software? How about lighting? Lenses?If he wants to run really bare-bones, he needs to make sure he has a mic-input on the camera, and then can use a cheaper lav or shotgun to get some decent audio. 4K is fantastic for reframing and get better quality out of footage, when outputting 1080p, but it does require some horsepower and the right software.If the Canon is enticing for magic lantern, keep in mind the only way to get picture that matches or bests the gh3 etc, is to use raw. That is very space and time-consuming. One of the reasons the GH3 has a good reputation is that it out of the box (stable) has a good codec that doesn't break up easily. I also have the LX100 that some people recommended. Great quality, but the two caveats for your purpose is: a) no mic input, and b)to get really good quality you need to use the 4K mode, and that again requires a fairly powerful pc/mac (not crazy much, but you'll be happy to have a beefy one..) and the software that can handle 4k input files. The FZ1000 (with 4k as well) or Rx10 is probably a better filmmaking kit, but not quite as good in low light as the LX100 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.