Affordable HD cam for a documentary- professional look

Hi Kelly,

It may depend on what exactly you're planning on shooting and what you'd feel comfortable using, but to be honest, with your budget, I would go with the Canon EOS 60 DSLR. You probably won't come close to anything of equal or greater quality given your budget.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732048-REG/Canon_4460B004_EOS_60D_DSL...

Other options are to try and find something used or possibly rent a camera.

Best,

Dave J

I agree, to an extent. I have a Canon EOS 60D, which I bought to replace an older digital Canon body, which had in turn replaced my Canon film cameras. So ... I had a few lenses around. That's where you'll ultimately spend your money.

I also also have one high-end consumer and two low-end pro cameras ($2500 range), and the 60D is easily my best video camera. I've done a bit of low light shooting of rock bands lately, 2 and 3 camera shoots, and I'm actually getting a bit frustrated with my 3-chip Panasonics in this scenario. However, with more light, they'd be much better matched.

The Canon is also the most annoying device to use as a camcorder, precisely because it's a digital still camera with video features. You're not getting video autofocus -- not an issue for many kind of shoots, but I wouldn't choose this for sports video. And it also fails there on the quirk of many HDSLRs... it cuts out after 4GB. Since the 60D records at 44Mb/s (about twice the data rate of my Pannys, but it's also recording somewhat less complex AVC -- it IP frame only, if you know that means, no B frames), that's about 12-13 minutes.

You can get MagicLantern add-on software for the 60D, and if you do video, you must. This adds some video camera features, like zebra stripes, on-screen audio meters, tons of stuff. It'll also re-start a recording after 4GB, but there is going to be a drop. If you're following a film model of about 10min per "reel", no big deal, but if you come from the camcorder world, you have to change your workflow.

Even the newer models, and Sony and Panasonic and other HSDLRs and EVIL cameras that can shoot longer tend to stop at 29'59". This is not a technical issue, it's a dodge for a camcorder tax that's levied in the EU... regardless of where you live. We all pay for that in mis-features.

Audio is a big deal, too... the on-camera mic is only good for audio sync with other audio. That's pretty true of any camcorder, but much more true of HDSLRs. I have a couple field recorders (Tascam D1, Zoom H4n, Tascam US-1800+PC) depending on the recording needs. You will too, if you go 60D. It's technically possible to hook a Beachtek XLR interface to a 60D and feed in real mics, but it's more clumsy, and the Beachtek devices cost about the same as a Zoom H4n, and more then many simply solutions (the H4n has the advantage of real mic support via XLRs with phantom power).

Visually, a 60D at 24p looks pretty darn "filmy". If you're after that look, the shallow DOF, etc. a large sensor HDSLR or EVIL camera can deliver that. Camcorders, on the other hand, have much smaller sensors, so you're getting much more DOF at the same equivalent focal length. Depending on the cinematography plans and subject matter, one is better than the other.

-Dave

DSLR's (at least the ones from Canon) have become very popular because of the full 35mm (or near 35mm) aperture which allows for shallow depth of field and low light shooting. It's much the same as a 35mm motion picture (film) camera.

They record video at 1920x1080p (23.976p) at a decent compression rate of 44Mbps though, you may want to re-read one of the last posts which explains the rate more accurately.

The TV show "House" used them to shoot (I believe) a full season a couple of years ago; and the new film "Marvel's Avengers" used them as b-cameras for some of the action scenes.

The three I would stick with are the Canon EOS 60D, 7D and 5D Mark II.

Dave J

I would still get the Canon EOS 60D or 7D, and get better glass like this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/264304-USA/Canon_8014A002_Zoom_Wide_A...

IMO, DSLR is the way to go, and the Canon cameras are all basically the same. But, good lenses are equally, if not more important. You should also look into getting accessories like this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/673398-REG/Redrock_Micro_8_003_0023_m... and anything else you may need to go with it.

Hope this helps,

Dave J

[Kelly Evans] "Thanks for all the great advice. Wondering what you all might recommend if I was able to double the budget?
"

Accessories.

Basically, there are a few different Canon HDSLR lines. The EOS 1 series is priced out of your range, even if you double it (mine too). The EOS 5D Mk II sports a full 35mm film camera sensor. This is the camera that started the whole HDSLR revolution, and the one they used a year ago to film the last episode (not the whole season) of "House" (they may well have been used on other episodes, but they were used entirely for the season closer). This camera has recently been updated in the EOS 5D Mk III, offering longer shooting times (still capped at 29min 59sec) and higher bitrates (along with the I/P Frame AVC, it can shoot in higher bitrate I-Frame only AVC, also know as AVC-Intra, which is found in some higher end camcorders as well).

The EOS 7D and 60D are the next step to look at. They offer the same sensor, which is "APS" sized, more or less similar to the image size of a Super35 cinema camera -- so very film-like in DOF. This is where I'd look, largely because even on a $4000 budget, if you don't already have Canon lenses, you'll need some. While there are some great still photography lenses that'll do just dandy for video, for a price you can also get lenses specifically designed for cinematography. The 7D is a more rugged model, and has two processing chips, faster autofocus, and more buffer memory, all of which make a difference in still photography but not so much in video. The 7D body is magnesium alloy, while the 60D is polycarbonate over aluminum... the 7D is also better sealed against moisture.

I went to Canon because I've been using Canon ever since Olympus stopped making film SLRs in the early 90s (I have an OM-1 and OM-4 around here somewhere). So I have a good investment in lenses, and the 60D is also my primary still camera. The other I'd consider, coming into video cold, would be the Panasonic DMC-GH2. I mentioned the Magic Latern "hack" for the Canons, which give you some really nice video friendly features not part of Canon's standard firmware. The GH2 has firmware hacks as well, but they go way farther. Mainly, folks have been hacking the GH2 to support higher quality recording modes. It can now to AVC-Intra (like the 5D Mk III) up to 176Mb/s or so. You can find numerous sites showing how the quality stands up to much more expensive cameras.

The other reason is that Panasonic is moving rather fast to making real camcorders (like the AF100) that use the same Micro-Four-Thirds (m43) lens system that the GF2 uses. The m43 sensor size is half the area of the full 35mm frame, still perfectly large enough for that "film look", particularly versus the APS-sensor cameras (Canon APS sensors are 62.5% the area of a full 35mm sensor, m43 is 50% the area; the actual real difference depends on the camera, since you're probably cropping for 16:9 video anyway). Canon is delivering cinema cameras with an EOS mount now too (C300, C500), but in an entirely different price class.

Anyway, just suggesting you take a look at both before making any final decisions. I don't think you can go wrong with either series.

And do be sure to include the extra needed to make an HDSLR work well as a video device. Obviously, you need a good tripod if you're a tripod shooter. If not, you will need some kind of support right to make video shooting with an HDSLR work better... but it's really not the camera I'd choose for anything not shot from a tripod.

And as I mentioned, sound. You need proper sound. If you're doing an indy film up right, that probably means you have a sound guy with a field recorder, boom, shotgun mics, zeppelins, etc. That's another $500-$750 even on-the-cheap. Most video people think of sound as a second-class thing, but it's going to make or break most video productions. And since the built-ins on HDSLRs are well past the point of being usable in any stretch of the imagination, you have to account for this, one way or another.

-Dave

Almost everything you need to know about DSLR shooting can be found at:

http://nofilmschool.com/ [see the free pdf Guide]
http://philipbloom.net/blog/

With Magic Lantern hack on the 60D you can record audio directly to the camera [one channel] and monitor it live [Google it].

I recently made a full-length documentary for PBS with two DSLR's - looked great!!

Wayne

Audio is a whole other beast. If you're doing sit-down interviews then I would go with a Beachtek adapter for the camera. Plug a hard-wired mic, lav or boom, into the XLR input on the Beachtek and set levels accordingly. If you're doing a lot of on-the-move type stuff then you probably want a separate recording device like the Zoom.

That said, if you're using a zoom or other separate recorder, you really need to have someone other than the person who's running the camera, operating it. Trying to do both at the same time is recipe for disaster. That's why there are people (production sound mixers) who just deal with the audio. There's no such thing as "set it and forget it"; you may have to consistently ride the levels depending on what you're recording.

Above all, employ the limiters and ALWAYS monitor when you're recording. Just because the levels look correct, doesn't mean you're not recording distorted audio. Use headphones.

Dave J

[David C Jones] "Audio is a whole other beast. If you're doing sit-down interviews then I would go with a Beachtek adapter for the camera. Plug a hard-wired mic, lav or boom, into the XLR input on the Beachtek and set levels accordingly. If you're doing a lot of on-the-move type stuff then you probably want a separate recording device like the Zoom."

I used to recommend the Beachteks, but given that the field recorders finally actually work (the early ones would wander substantially in an hour; the H4n is accurately clocked), they're actually about the same price, and far more flexible. Of course, if you're using a single camera, having good audio on the HDSLR eliminates one small step (or the price of PluralEyes).

[David C Jones] "That said, if you're using a zoom or other separate recorder, you really need to have someone other than the person who's running the camera, operating it. Trying to do both at the same time is recipe for disaster. That's why there are people (production sound mixers) who just deal with the audio. There's no such thing as "set it and forget it"; you may have to consistently ride the levels depending on what you're recording."

I very much disagree with this. Yes, if you have an audio guy, use the audio guy and let him/her be entirely responsible for the audio. This allows the use of a boom (can't hold a boom and a camera yourself... I've tried), and even better, the dedicated audio person will be able to call attention to sound issues you won't even know exist if you're doing both.

But that's kind of the point... you won't know that anyway, using audio-on-camera. And as well, off-camera gear is going to be far, far more forgiving than on-camera gear, so you if you'd like to "set it and forget it", you're far better off with the Zoom.

Why? 24-bit recording. Yeah, that used to be 16 or 18 real bits and 6-8 marketing bits, but these days, 24-bit is actually a big jump over 16-bit. Chances are, for an interview, you'd be totally and completely happy with very clean 12-bit audio. Going to 24-bit, you get do your sound check, get levels... knock it all down to -12dB or -18dB or so. Particularly on an interview, you're now totally insulated from going over 0dB (clipping), and if nothing peaks beyond -18dB, you still have 21 bit resolution on the full audio.

Yeah, this also presumes good micing. But I use this all the time.. I did a 13-track recording of a band last Monday, all tracks at 24-bit/96kHz. There were a few complications (the singers needed a room monitors, so I had to run mics though a board first, giving me lower levels at my recording interface than I would have liked), but even with a few peaking only up to -18dB to -24dB, that's really not much of a problem. If every track were an honest -24dB or below peak, that's a recording with 20-bit resolution. Mixing 13 20-bit tracks yields a result with the potential for a 33-bit result. So I'm cutting these down considerably anyway, doubling some, compressing some. End result ... each track doesn't look perfect, but the end result is stellar. Using 24-bit audio is like shooing in 4K for an HD project.

And for interviews, you can go one further and use the old single mic "run and gun" setup. You get your levels on one channel, then dupe that to the next channel, about 24dB-32dB down (some field recorders these days have this as an option, most camcorders and I suspect the Beachtek interfaces make this easy, too). Now you're getting a 28-32dB dynamic range, between the two tracks. That's well beyond the difference between complete silence and a sound loud enough to kill you... not to mention overdrive your mic. I need to worry about these things recording and shooting local rock bands.. you really never will, shooting an interview.

[David C Jones] "Above all, employ the limiters and ALWAYS monitor when you're recording. Just because the levels look correct, doesn't mean you're not recording distorted audio. Use headphones."

Totally agree with this... you have to listen. If for no other reason than tragedy... you'll check the levels, go on to video things, and not notice that the mic failed five minutes after you last checked it (1/8" cable fell out, batteries weren't changed in your powered mic/Beachtek/field recorder, etc). You need to listen, and for real.. get some nice, comfortable, shut-the-world-out headphones (I'm pretty happy with my KRK KNS-8400, which I got for late night audio mixing, but I find I'm taking with me everywhere. And cheaper than some of the over-hyped "studio" phones.. enough so that I actually don't fear taking them with).

But use all the tools available to ensure you don't have to worry about distorted audio anyway. It's human nature to get lost in other things... if my video hat needs to be on in full, my audio hat is over there on the chair, despite the fact I've been doing audio twice as long as video. And since I can set up virtually bulletproof audio, that means I actually can concentrate more on doing the video right. Or bring another video guy in, and I'll go get my boom pole and 16" shotgun...

-Dave

Thank you everyone for all the amazing lessons. I'm still looking for Canon Mark3 cameras. They don't seem to be in stock anywhere.