# T2i vs. 60D vs. 5dMKII



## jasonmillard81 (Nov 3, 2011)

Hey gents (and ladies). In my prior post I asked about the 60D or wait for a new model.

I've accrued a bit more funds since then and have also accrued more knowledge.

It seems like their is so much diverse opinion for HDSLR and video.

1. 5dMKII body and an inexpensive lens for a few months and slowly save for better lenses
2. 60D body and get two decent lenses and slowly save for better lenses
3. T2i body and get a really nice lens now and then slowly add as I go
4. Screw it and get a Panasonic GH2

Opinions?

Secondly...

new vs. used? thoughts? Ebay/Craigslist/Refurbs


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 3, 2011)

All of us weighed the options and made a choice based on what we needed and what we could afford. Eash of us made the decision that was right for us, and people will give you their preference, and why they think its a good choice.

The fact is, they are all good camera bodies, putting more money into a good lens will give you something that will outlast several camera bodies, so plan on getting a upgraded lens and T2i as opposed to a 7D and beginner lens. 

The choice of lens, is a whole different question. A t2i along with a 15-85mm lens is a good start,add a 50mm f/1.8 lens for low light, and you will cover most common usages. If you need a telephoto lens, I'd get a 70-200mm f/4 non IS for a low cost high quality lens.


----------



## jasonmillard81 (Nov 3, 2011)

MT points well taken. I failed to mention that I have no legit experience with photography. I am into creativity art and music. As a teacher I'd like the ability to film my students, create documentary narratives, and have the ability to shoot my kids playing sports from time to time.

I do assume that there is enough of a difference between the 4 bodies I listed that definitive differences can be pointed out.

I have been drawn to DSLR and sold my Canon HFS20 because the DOF and cinematic quality was to die for. Now I see that low light performance, white balance, color neutrality, cinematic quality, aliasing, moire, focus, etc matter

I'm just not experienced enough to do it without sincere and educated advice.

As far as the second questions, thoughts on new vs. used/refurbished? I'd like to save $$$ but not compromise quality, value, and long-term integrity if something breaks.


----------



## samueljay (Nov 3, 2011)

I was in the same boat as you Jason! I opted to get a Rebel T2i and a 50mm f/1.8ii to start with as it was simply too cheap to pass up. From there I will see how it goes, and find out what I need to fill in the gaps. My camera and lens arrives tomorrow, let me know if you want to know how I find it (coming from a film student in Australia who learnt using various HD Video cameras (Panasonic HVX-200, JVC (can't remember the model) and Sony Z1P's as well as a little bit of 16mm film  )


----------



## Fandongo (Nov 3, 2011)

For the best video I would recommend the gh2 with canon glass.
5dii is incredible, but 3 years old (and still hard to get under $2k)
You could probably find a $450ish t2i used.
Magic Lantern has the coolest features for the t2i, as it's the only camera with an lcd sensor... and you can use it to adjust focus/take stills/start video etc without ever touching your camera (awesome for gimbal stabilizers)
ML also has built-in timelapse/hdr ability.


----------



## npherno (Nov 3, 2011)

60D. You don't really state what your primary use is, but given what you have said, i would go 60D.

Why?

Autofocus. 9 Cross points may allow you to get shots you cannot get with a T2i.
Better controls. Canon Prosumer ergonomics are way better. You need hard buttons or get stuck mired in menus.
Better build quality. Magnesium body.
Auto ISO. Not sure if T2i has this. 
Wireless Flash control built in. If you like photography and need a multi light setup, you will save $$ or be forced to buy wireless controllers. 
Faster shooting speed vs T2i.

The 60D helps you get the pictures you want with less hassle, like other more expensive bodies. That said, if you are unsure at all I would not get a 5dII, just because the features (low light shooting, FF) might not be missed. If you really want a camera "you can grow into" the 7D is probably better served than the 5DII. 7D has better autofocus, and good video from what i've read. It also has wireless flash control, better AF, and built in flash (5DII has no flash), and faster shooting speed than the 5DII.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 3, 2011)

On the topic of menu controls versus hard buttons: I think that's almost a "to taste" issue. Being able to hit something on the side of the camera to change a setting can be useful, but with the menu systems you get pretty exact visual feedback about what you're changing (and even some hints about what it's doing). Some of the abbreviated button labels will look like gibberish to new DSLR users, and even after cracking open the manual you might not know if it's a two state toggle, or toggles through more modes, unless you have an eye on the rear screen and it displays what's going on (this is a problem on, for example, the Nikon D90 which by default turns the back panel off unless you hit the view display button).

That aside, there's really no argument that the T2i is the better camera.

Actually, I view the pentamirror finder (of the T1i, I'm assuming brightness is similar in the T2i) as not a big handicap, and sometimes it's even a benefit (if you want to "shade" a scene you're looking into).


----------



## Leopard Lupus (Nov 3, 2011)

I have own(ed) all three of the bodies you have mentioned, and based on your prior post of use as well as your experience level, you will be happy with the 60D. It is a solid consumer camera with great features. Personally, the 5D mk ll is not a simple camera to work with. Full manual is necessary while using it, and the T2i feels like a toy.
My recommendation: Invest in quality lenses. I have shot with a Rebel XSI and a 85mm 1.2 and received wonderful results, better than a cheap lens on an expensive body.

Happy shooting!


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 3, 2011)

Leopard Lupus said:


> Personally, the 5D mk ll is not a simple camera to work with. Full manual is necessary while using it, and the T2i feels like a toy.



I went through the 40D and 50D upgrade route and now 7D as well as the 5D and now 5DII route. For taking stills the 5DII is so simple and idiot proof (me). Basic shooting on AF and the only choice to make is the standard one of which metering do I do (using auto ISO). I do use the other options BTW when in more serious mode but hardly ever need the manual as it is straightfoward stuff that always has been in the digitals.

More complicated stuff in the 60D but the results I see from comparitive beginners is very impressive. I would go for the 60D with 24-105L as the basic start lens.


----------



## jasonmillard81 (Nov 3, 2011)

Interesting debates. Thanks for the advice. 

It sounds like the overwhelming recommendation is 60D. 

Just to clarify since I wasn't clear. But my primary use will be video. I'll be looking to do narrative documentaries think "Inside Job" or any PBS or Michael Moore film. 

Secondly I'd use it for sports for my students. 

Finally I use it for stills. 

Assuming the 60D still holds as my best for this what top 3 lenses would you suggest ... Sounds like a 50mm and small zoom lens? I'd like to spend no more than a thousand on lenses. I also need suggestions for:

SDHC card
EXT Mic


----------



## jayvo86 (Nov 3, 2011)

I own a 60D and have been very happy with it; I love doing video with it. However, if I had to buy my first camera all over again, I would have bought a 5D MK1. You can pick them up for under a grand and then get some juicy glass to go with it. The 5DMKII is only going to continue to devalue at this point.

All else said, the 60D is great. If you need better focusing and faster processing, the 7D is also something to consider. (It feels better too.)


----------



## npherno (Nov 3, 2011)

jasonmillard81 said:


> Interesting debates. Thanks for the advice.
> 
> It sounds like the overwhelming recommendation is 60D.
> 
> ...




i would buy the fastest lens for the available light you intend to shoot. Some people swear by longer lenses for portraits to prevent distortion off facial features. Personally I shoot portraits with a wide angle and it looks fine.
If you want natural light video, i would say get a 2.8f or less. Daytime shooting or lit scenes would change that though.


----------



## K-amps (Nov 3, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> All of us weighed the options and made a choice based on what we needed and what we could afford. Eash of us made the decision that was right for us, and people will give you their preference, and why they think its a good choice.
> 
> The fact is, they are all good camera bodies, putting more money into a good lens will give you something that will outlast several camera bodies, so plan on getting a upgraded lens and T2i as opposed to a 7D and beginner lens.
> 
> The choice of lens, is a whole different question. A t2i along with a 15-85mm lens is a good start,add a 50mm f/1.8 lens for low light, and you will cover most common usages. If you need a telephoto lens, I'd get a 70-200mm f/4 non IS for a low cost high quality lens.



+1: Nailed it. 

If budget allows, upgrade the T2i to a 60D which is a bit better for video.


----------



## NormanBates (Nov 3, 2011)

this is what I know about these cameras; it may help (afraid not much):
http://www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_cam.html


----------



## thejoyofsobe (Nov 3, 2011)

the T3i for DSLR video

articulated LCD screen (not in T2i)
manual audio controls (not in T2i)
wireless flash control (not in T2i)
digital zoom while filming (not in 60D or T2i)
Magic Lantern software available (also for 60D and T2i)


as for lenses you need a least one image stabilized lens if you want to do handheld video. the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 and the 24-105mm f/4L are all excellent. of course the new 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens isn't terrible with its four-stop IS.


----------



## davethomas (Nov 3, 2011)

Here's my 2 cents. 

I've got a 550D (T2i to you North Americans) and it's great, image and video quality comparable to the 7D (controls not as good). The screen is not great though and the articulated LCD on the 60D is worth its weight in gold. That alone would make me buy it. Build quality isn't great on the T2I but it is very cheap. 

Lens wise, I love my cheap Canon 50mm F1.8 for video. It's plastic, it feels cheap (it is cheap!) but it looks great! Be warned though Shallow DOF is very hard to manage for shooting video handheld, on a tripod it works fine but you'll need a DSLR rig and follow focus to make the best of it. 

I use my 7D and 550D almost exclusively for documentary film-making and have for the last 2 years. I recently bought a Sigma 24-70 F2.8 which is almost as good as the Canon 24-70L but I paid a third of the price second hand (well worth looking out for). The build quality and autofocus isn't as good but the F2.8 is a great starter lens and perfect for most video use. A 100mm F2.8 is a good idea as well, as is a 30mm Sigma F1.4 all great for video lenses. The essential one is the 24-70 as you can use that almost all the time and keep it in focus! 

Sound wise you can plug in a Rode Video Mic, great quality and cheap. Or do it the best way and get a Zoom H4N handy recorder with a radio mic or lapel mic (which is what I do). Remember to look into how you'll edit it, there's millions of options now, Premiere and Sony Vegas will do it natively, FCP you'll have to transcode the footage before you start. 

Whatever you buy will be great! Also remember to download some picture styles as the built in ones aren't the best for video!


----------



## J Live (Nov 3, 2011)

As the saying goes 'invest in the glass, not the bodies' - and I would have to agree with it. You will probably switch your body every 3 to 4 years, whereas good lenses should last 15 years +. 

I really don't think the Canon Rebel line is up to the task you want it for - I'm not sure about the T3, I've never seen it but if it can't shoot native ISOs like the T2i can't, forget it. The 60D is a good entry level body and i'd start with that, I would encourage eventually a 2nd body (for both safety and 2 camera interviews) so if you eventually get a 5D, you won't have to throw out your 60D, you'll still get a ton of use out of it. As far as people talking about better or worse 'autofocus', you really have to believe me that in the video world, autofocus is never used, so any kind of 80 point autofocus argument is simply not applicable to what you are wanting to use it for - and 'servo zoom during shooting' don't get me started on how useless that feature is. ;D

As far as lenses go, Unlike most 'pro' video cameras, which essentially have one 24 - 500 mm lens (and a wide-eye adaptor you can pop on the front), that's simply not an option in the DSLR video world for anything decent quality. So eventually, you will need several lenses. But to start I would say either the 24-105 f4 L or the 17-55 2.8 IS if you plan on shooting lots of handheld. The advantage of the L series is the build quality & if you eventually get a FF body it will be very useful with that, the drawback is you don't have a wide lens (38mm on crop camera) and in video you really do need that option. The advantage of the 17-55 is you do get that wide angle you will need and you get a 2.8. The Disadvantages of this lens is the build quality, no weather proofing, limited focal range and you can't use it on a full frame camera down the road.

I do a ton of handheld shooting so IS is really essential for me, as is a good viewfinder like Zacuto (part of your budget?) but if you think you won't be doing much handheld I would recommend an L series 2.8 like 16-55 or something so you can use on any future camera. You get great build quality, your wide angle but not much telephoto - but I still think you're wide options are more important initially than your telephotos - in some cases you can move closer to get your nice portrait CUs etc, but you can't back thru a wall to get a wider shot.

Also, since you want to do docs and lots of interviews you are going to need approx $2K for the audio gear you need although pro most sound guys would even scoff at that number saying that's what they pay for 1 mic. I in no way mean to get preachy, but most people new to video greatly underestimate the importance of getting good sound. 
If you have the best lit/looking video but crappy audio, your interviews, and therefore your project since interviews are the backbone, is useless. But if you record great audio and you leave the lens cap on, you could still create a great doc. from the audio and b-Roll cover. So you really need to budget that into your kit - you'll need Mics (more than one type for different situations), headphones, XLR cables, boom poles, windsocks, & external recorder(s) - I always travel with 2, explaining to client that your interview is not usable because your $200 recorder broke after they've flown you halfway around the world and put you up in hotels is not a conversation I want to have - luckily good microphones like good lenses should last over 15 years, one of the AKG shotgun mics I use is over 20 years old and still sounds fantastic. Don't scrimp on the headphones either, if there's a buzz or hum in the room because you're crossing your audio cables over AC cables or getting wireless interference from PA systems or cellphones you won't hear it with iPod earbuds - again, hearing that can take seconds to fix on set but missing it can ruin your entire interview - which of course you won't realize until your in the edit suite - it's not just your time (& maybe clients money wasted), there are moments you capture in interviews you can never re-create a 2nd time even if that particular person did agree to let you do it again.

Sorry went long on the audio note - but since you're not getting into video to shoot HD stock or music videos, I'd say get a T2i and a used $100 50mm 1.8 lens if it means you otherwise can't afford decent audio gear for your interviews (or hire a sound person) - Good luck!


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 3, 2011)

I own all three and would recommend the T2i and good glass or (if you have good lenses), the 60D and more good lenses. Get the 5Dmk2 only if you need full frame or shoot a lot of low-light work.


----------



## K-amps (Nov 3, 2011)

J Live said:


> As the saying goes 'invest in the glass, not the bodies' - and I would have to agree with it. You will probably switch your body every 3 to 4 years, whereas good lenses should last 15 years +.
> 
> ---edited----
> 
> Also, since you want to do docs and lots of interviews you are going to need approx $2K for the audio gear you need although pro most sound guys would even scoff at that number saying that's what they pay for 1 mic. I in no way mean to get preachy, but most people new to video greatly underestimate the importance of getting good sound.



+1 on both counts especially on Audio. 

I was an audio guy before I got into the photography thing.... you can get kilobuck mics and gear, but a $250 budget can land you decent gear... the point still stands for anyone who grew-up in the mp3 era... never skimp on the audio, if someone does not like your video, they can look elsewhere, but if your audio is crappy, they have nowhere to hide.


----------



## Zuuyi (Nov 3, 2011)

If you have around $2500 in funds.

Get a CLP 60D for $600 + taxes

Get a Tamron 28-75/2.8 $400

Get a Canon 70-200/4 $675

Get a Canon 50/1.8 $100

Get a Sigma 30/1.4 $400

Get a Canon 85/1.8 $400


If you really want a 5d try to wait out until CLP gives the discount on the 5d2 again; because then you can get a Refurb one for $1600

Get a Canon 50/1.8
Tamron 28-75/2.8
and Possibly a 70-200/4 when you can afford it.

I'm going the 5d path when they allow CLP 20% (broken camera) discount on it again.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 4, 2011)

DO NOT waste your money on anything from tamron it will make you want to slit your wrists
they produce absolutely the biggest load of rubbish around you may as well set fire to your money
I got a tamron lens and was so appalled at the horrid build terrible image quality massive vignetting even on a crop sensor i sent it back and they exchanged it for a genuine canon lens.

If $ are an issue get the cheaper body for now and good glass, shoot for a year or so and wait till the new 5D model comes out then upgrade.


----------



## whatta (Nov 4, 2011)

just one question:

is there ANY difference between the AF of 60d vs AF of the rebels from 400d (to 600d)
IF I only use the manually selected central AF point?
(cross type f2/8)

thanks!


----------



## jasonmillard81 (Nov 4, 2011)

*REPLY FROM CANON!*

This is what Canon says about this issue...any thoughts?:

*"Thank you for your inquiry about the EOS 5D Mark II, EOS 60D and EOS
Digital Rebel T2i. We value you as a Canon customer and appreciate the
opportunity to assist you.

Of each of these, the EOS 5D Mark II and EOS 60D are the better choices.
The EOS 5D Mark II is the best choice because it has the larger image
sensor, so it manages the amount of noise a little better. Also, it has
all of the video options available that some other models do not have.

Video from each of these is still the same resolution and compression,
so there is not much difference except for what I mentioned above about
the larger image sensor. The EOS 60D does have one feature that you may
find very useful and that is the LCD can move around to different
positions. If I had the choice, and many others may agree, I would say
that saving a little of the cost on the body and investing in the higher
quality lenses is important if you had to choose between the two. Both
the EOS 60D and the EOS 5D Mark II will still produce great quality
video."*


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 4, 2011)

*Re: REPLY FROM CANON!*

One thing to consider is that the 5D's sensor, while high resolution, captures the central portion with lower resolution than you would get from one of the cameras with an APS-C size sensor. Another way of putting it: The APS-C sensors make all your lenses appear "longer," and appear to make the area of deep focus larger. This could be good or bad depending on what you're doing: Wildlife (especially bird) photographers tend to like the APS-C cameras for the extra resolution centered around the middle of a lens, while landscape and building photographers generally need the extra degrees of view using their wide lenses on a wide camera. The full frame sensor camera (5D Mark II) also has better dynamic range characteristics, in addition to the better low-light performance, and a larger viewfinder (the T2i's viewfinder uses mirrors, and will be a bit dimmer than the 5D's and 60D's). Of the three cameras you mention, the 60D is said to have an autofocus system at least equal to that of the 5D, and possibly better. The 7D would be the best in terms of specs alone.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 6, 2011)

*Re: REPLY FROM CANON!*

That seems accurate, but less easily understandable than simply pointing out that the APS-C sensors both make lenses appear "longer" and that the portion of the frame they cover offers more resolution than on the current FF camera (as you say, in terms of pixel pitch the 5D is stuck in 2004, all other things being ignored). It is confusing to say "when the subject is maybe 1/4 of the sensor" because you haven't specified _which_ sensor - I suppose I could have made my lead sentence a bit longer (something I normally try to avoid!) by adding "...although the APS-C sensor will have no leeway for cropping." However, I could say the same of tallying up every other pro and con of APS-C compared to FF, which would be too much information to dump in one sentence. I have to take things one variable at a time when possible.


----------



## samueljay (Nov 6, 2011)

Wow, hearing all this praise for the T2i is awesome and echoes my thoughts, I just got mine on Friday, and have been having so much fun with it. I have come from film, and what I like the most is how easy the transition has been from film to digital. All the settings I would adjust when taking a photo on my minolta are on my new Canon DSLR, and I've been able to jump straight into full manual mode. I had no idea how metering would work on digital, but it's actually really intuitive, and I love how your settings all come up when you look through the viewfinder.

Hm, I went off topic, what I mean today is how surprised I was with this camera. I never expected the image quality and video to be so good! I'm using Canon's 50mm f/1.8 ii lens (the cheap plastic one) and can't believe how good the toyish lens actually is


----------



## RichST (Nov 7, 2011)

Unless you have to have moire-free video immediately I'd get the cheapest body you can and then sell it next year when the Digic V-based DSLRs start appearing. For low-moire video from Canon I think the only option right now is the 5DII+that special filter (can't remember the name). 

The lenses are going to be what matters in the long run, in 5 years all the cameras you can buy today will be way antiquated in the video department. I'd only get the GH2 if you absolutely have to have sharp, essentially moire-free video immediately and you don't need many lenses or are happy with old manual lenses (of course you can sell it when Canon releases its next-generation DSLRs if you haven't dumped a small fortune into m4/3). Canon's vast lens arsenal and commitment to video make it the best choice if you're in this for the long haul


----------



## Axilrod (Nov 8, 2011)

Everyone is making great suggestions/recommendations, but no one is mentioning the fact that dslrs are not great for documentaries. It's hard to run and gun and you're limited to 12 minute clips, which can ruin a great interview. Just a thought, but if you have to get a DSLR go witha 60d.


----------



## jasonmillard81 (Nov 9, 2011)

If DSLR's stink then what would you recommend? I sold my Canon HFS20 as it had a "soccer" mom feel to it with no DOF or cinematic quality. It did better with action shots, audio, and long filming.

I could see doing an interview with a 12-minute max be problematic. Are there any workarounds to this? Also are there any workarounds to moire/aliasing?

Or am I better off getting a GH2 and learning how to make it "cinematic" looking in post-production?


----------



## samueljay (Nov 10, 2011)

Colour Grading and alterting the picture in post will only do so much, if it's not there to begin with, it would be very hard to emulate shallow depth of field in After Effects or similar. The only way I can think of doing it would be to rotoscope around your subject that's in focus have another layer of the video underneath and blur it, to mock dof, but that would be a tiresome process, does anyone else have any ideas on this? Personally, I don't think it would be worth your time, however it would be valuable skill to have 

I know what you mean about those little camcorders having a soccer Mum feel. The only work around I can think of for the 12 minute thing would be to have two cameras? But that's not ideal, and I can imagine it would be terribly problematic if it was during an intense / emotional interview, 'excuse me, I just have to press record again' haha!


----------



## frumrk (Nov 29, 2011)

I realize that this post is a little old... but if you are still looking... there is a way around the 12 minute limit. Install Magic Latern on the Camera. It is really fairly simple... you just copy the Magic Lantern files to your SD Card... then setup your camera to accept it. All the details are on the Magic Latern site. They claim you could get 200 minutes + on a 16GB card.

I have also shot interviews with my T2i. I bought one of the Bescor LED Lights and mounted right on the camera. Shot with a 24-70L 2.8 Canon lens... great Bokeh on the background as this was at a company event while interviewing customers. Worked Great!

Lastly... if you could just pause for a few seconds while restarting the video every 12 minutes... then you wouldn't have to do anything to the camera.

Good Luck!


----------



## Axilrod (Nov 29, 2011)

I think the T2i was a great camera when it came out, but as cheap as the 60D has gotten it seems like a better solution. I don't think the 5D needs to be in this comparison, it's 4x more than a T2i and at least 2x more than a 60D. 
The 60D is somewhat newer, has more control options, and the swivel screen helps. I just know out of the 7D/T2i/60D the T2i's menu feels the most consumer-ish. Don't get me wrong I loved my T2i, image quality was great, amazing bang for the buck, etc., but I could never go back after using the 5D this long.

The thing that kills me the most about the T2i is the ISO increments (100,200,400,800,1600) with no 1/3 stop increments. Sure you can get Magic Lantern firmware or whatever, but not everyone wants to put third party software on their camera.


----------



## frumrk (Nov 30, 2011)

I wasn't advocating the T2i over any other camera... really just responding to the 12 minute limit issue. And really ... you are actually not loading the Magic Latern software on to the camera... sure it is loaded in memory when you have the camera turned on... however as soon as you remove the SD Card... it is Gone. It loads on top of the Canon OS... and not in place of it. Regardless... I haven't had a need to use it... just tested it once and say... "Hey... Nice!"...LOL

In regards to the 60D.. I probably would have purchased it when instead of the T2i, however it wasn't out yet. But I think that you will find from all reviews that the image quality between the T2i, 60D and 7D are all essentially the same (Same sensor, same digic processor... etc). The big advantage for the 60D is the swivel screen for doing video. Not sure how much of an advantage that is though if you are doing everything on Tripod. There are other advantages if you are shooting photo's however.

Anyway... Good Luck to the original poster!


----------



## Jedifarce (Dec 8, 2011)

jasonmillard81 said:


> If DSLR's stink then what would you recommend? I sold my Canon HFS20 as it had a "soccer" mom feel to it with no DOF or cinematic quality. It did better with action shots, audio, and long filming.
> 
> I could see doing an interview with a 12-minute max be problematic. Are there any workarounds to this? Also are there any workarounds to moire/aliasing?
> 
> Or am I better off getting a GH2 and learning how to make it "cinematic" looking in post-production?



Hmm, I would've kept that HF S20, unless of course if you needed the money to purchase a Dslr. I was looking through the specs on Amazon and it looks pretty decent. I purchased the Canon HF G10 last week for a ice skating chrismas show because it would've been impractical to have my dslr video setup due to lack of operating room (I had to flim from a stairway), long range, and attempting to pull focus on fast moving skaters for 2 hours. So logically a small camcorder attached to a monopod was the way to go. 

I have to say, judging from the footage I got in comparison from a high-end video camcorder I used to own - the JVC Gy Hm100 - which cost double of the G10, the G10 kicks it's ass. It's easier to use, lighter - don't be fooled by the advertisements of someone holding the Hm100 one-handed it gets damn heavy just after 5 minutes - and the images coming out of the G10 are far superior. 

One thing I was surprised to note was in the cinema mode it produced imagery akin to the DSLR's picture style of Cinestyle - which is a flat picture style developed by Technicolor for folks not aware - this is great for post editing. Although I would've perferred bringing down the contrast a bit more, the lowest you are able to go is -2 on all picture style setting on the G10 - lowering the contrast in camera even more would've given me a bit more latitude in color grading. This makes me wonder, are people aware that the cinema mode actually is a flat setting and should be color graded? Unless you come from a DLSR background working with flat settings you probably won't know to do so and will post it directly to sites like youtube. There is probably a certain amount of truth to this because I've seen some pretty dull and drab footage when I did a search on youtube prior to buying the G10. 

Now the downside, this brand new G10 started to overheat - in a 50 degree environment - after about an hour or so of constant filming, which is bad for the sensor. From my DSLR experience you start to get increased noise and overexposure so I quickly turned off the camcorder and let it cool down for 15 minutes and resumed shooting. But as you can see, I lost 15 minutes of performances. I can only imagine how much longer it would take to cool down if you weren't in an ice box as I was or how much sooner it would've heated up in a sunny outdoor setting. 

Also the G10 would get slightly confused going from low light - which performed very well - to increased exposure, you could see the video start to stutter on the LCD screen. Minor gripe but it's a flaw which affects the quality of your footage. Because the video files are AVCHD, they don't require a file conversion and are simpler to work with. However, simpler file means it's capturing less data than my 5D would so it's a tradeoff. 

I guess what it comes down to is what you need the equipment for and what you can afford to spend. To go the DSLR route is very expensive. Even the 5D body in comparison is cheaper (unless you buy a 1D Mark 4) when you add in the L glass lenses (I hope to purchase a couple of Zeiss CP.2 primes -gag- next year), follow focus, video rig, external monitor, audio equipment, tripod, fluid video head, and all the little accessories you'll need it's enough to make your eyes bleed.


----------



## SleeplessChaos (Jan 9, 2012)

jasonmillard81 said:


> If DSLR's stink then what would you recommend? I sold my Canon HFS20 as it had a "soccer" mom feel to it with no DOF or cinematic quality. It did better with action shots, audio, and long filming.
> 
> I could see doing an interview with a 12-minute max be problematic. Are there any workarounds to this? Also are there any workarounds to moire/aliasing?
> 
> Or am I better off getting a GH2 and learning how to make it "cinematic" looking in post-production?



The main issue with buying a Canon DSLR based on what you have posted is really the fact that it lacks the ability to autofocus during movie recording. This really wouldn't be a problem for you if you were only shooting interviews but anything with action in it will ultimately take you some time to master - especially if you listen to these photographers with their recommendation for the 50mm 1.8, which is a terrible lens for video (the shallow depth of field at 1.8 and crummy manual focus ring would make it a pain to keep things in focus, not to mention its lack of image stabilization). Going with one of Sony's A-NEX cameras or some of the newer Nikon cameras that support autofocus during recording is always an option, but the downsides are that the still images and lens selection for the Sony cameras are sub-par and Nikon's video is not really that great.

Basically if you're getting a Canon rig specifically for video, go with the 60D, 7D or 5D Mk2 with a lens that is preferably not an EF-S and that has Full Time Manual Focus (most Ultrasonics have this) and Image Stabilization. 

As for APS-C vs Full Frame, you will get a nicer DoF with the FF sensor and there will be less of a chance of you out-resolving the less sharp lenses, which you WILL be buying if you want to spend less than 1k. Which ultimately means that cheaper lenses will look better.

Here's an example (The 1Ds Mk2 is a 16.7 MP FF camera, the 50D is a 15.5 MP APS-C camera, the difference is clear.)

I hope that this information was a bit more helpful than the rest. BTW, I shoot video with both the 5D Mk2 and 7D on a daily basis for my job and I would say if you can afford it, go with the 5D Mk2 (the 24-105 f/4 kit is great for video).


----------



## skitron (Jan 9, 2012)

K-amps said:


> I was an audio guy before I got into the photography thing.... you can get kilobuck mics and gear, but a $250 budget can land you decent gear...



Same here and you're right. 

Not the most elegant solution but very well may be the cheapest that can deliver acceptable quality, a Tascam DR-08 (about $70 right now), a used Behringer Eurodesk 8 (about $30 on eBay) and a *fill-in-the-blank* inexpensive hypercardiod, shotgun or lavalier as depending on your needs, and you can get surprisingly clean good sounding 2496 files. 

The trick is run the noisy DR-08 at line level and 0 gain then use the (surprisingly clean and quiet) EuroDesk to preamp and gain up the mic to suit, using the DR-08 record level meters to adjust the EuroDesk main out to the DR-08. Then take the recorded files directly from the SD card on the DR-08 for edit, do not attempt to re-record a playback to your workstation.

The DR-08 is not something I'd try to use by itsef, it's way too noisy. Given my expectations and what I've seen of the Zoom, I'd probably use it the same way I use the DR-08...i.e. running it a line level and 0 gain and preamping it with something quiet in order to get a decent S/N ratio.

If you need something more portable than the EuroDesk 8, a Juiced Link will do it but much more $ and not sure if it has phantom power.

For reference, I have kilo-bucks-a-plenty of audio gear for my music studio.


----------



## Cornershot (Jan 9, 2012)

The only thing about using second system sound (an external recorder) is that you have to sync it later in post. That can be tricky, especially with cheaper digital recorders that can drift. Really, it's easier to just buy a preamp and a good external mic and use camera sound. The 60D will allow you to monitor and adjust levels. The one thing that sucks in the 60D and 5D is that the HDMI output actually goes down in resolution when shooting if you have an external monitor. It's only HD in Live View mode when not recording. The 7D is the only DSLR that remains HD throughout. I'd say skip the T2i because of the controls. Buttons and the top LCD make a huge usability difference in my opinion. Going through menus sucks when you need to change something quickly.


----------



## archangelrichard (Jan 9, 2012)

definitely the 60D; price / performance the winner

As far as lenses - Video just doesn't have or need the same resolution / quality as still so for video I would look at an 18 - 270 range lens (wide angle thru telephoto)

for stills, yes to the 50mm f 1.8 (again price / performance can't be beat); you might look at a 17 - 85 USM IS (non L glass) or a 28 - 135mm USM IS (non L glass - actually physically the same lens but different glass) as these are both good performers and lightweight --- then use them and see if the L glass is worth so much more, you won't lose much money when selling and you could buy then sell used (around 300 each)

You will (when you can afford it) want the 70 - 200mm F 2.8 L lens

You may want to get a good macro - the 100mm macro will do fine, but you might try using the 50mm f 1.8 with close up diopters (+1, +2, +4, +10) or extension tubes, etc. first and see if it is worth it to you

You may want telephoto, if you can afford them the newer canon 500 or 600 L glass and try a telextender to get longer, (note these will be a bit awkward weightwise so get a good tripod) NOTE: you can adapt long M42 / pentax screw thread mount lenses for MANUAL use, incredibly cheaper, as are telextenders for them; even find mirror lenses; and the glass quality for major brands is very good to excellent; even celestron made a 1,000mm F 11 that I can find on craigslist for $250; ... and then you can get a telescope adapter and go really really telephoto .......


----------



## skitron (Jan 10, 2012)

Cornershot said:


> The one thing that sucks in the 60D and 5D is that the HDMI output actually goes down in resolution when shooting if you have an external monitor.



I think Magic Lantern unified allows full HD monitoring. Not positive, but I think I saw that feature.


----------

