Ive always had an urge to suppliment my 'stills' bird photography, with a few movie/video clips, as a side-line interest only {nothing fancy IE: perched/roosting birds, and not anything too tricky, such as panning etc}.
For the last few weeks ive been researching the likely cost of kitting myself out with S/H camcorder gear, such as the canon XL2 {which would allow me to share genres, by using my nikon 400mm/3.5 on it, via an adapter}, but by the time i add the extra expence of essential accessories, it adds up to quite a sum, considering my limited requirements for movie type stuff.
It 'appears' that some future DSLR's are likely to incorperate a movie mode, and although the first generation of cameras with this mode have already arrived {more or less}, i'm wondering if any of you who are more clued up on this type of thing than me, would advise me to wait until the DSLR movie-mode cameras are more established/improved etc, or whether it is still worth forking out for a more conventional camcorder etc.
I'm not requiring the very very, very highest picture quality available {only have a standard TV at the moment}, for my intended limited use, but i am looking for pretty decent results.
Anyone have any views on DSLR movie modes, and whether this will eventually be a viable alternative to the camcorders route, for occasional users {as i would like to be}.
Hi Alan the cheapest way would be with a small digital video camera with 10/20 times optical zoom and one of the aftermarket 3x tc I use a little canon one with built-in image stabilisation a 20 times optical zoom it has the option of recording straight to a SD card or digital tape, I have seen a few that have been modified with a adapter that fits the front of the camcorder to a body mount of your choice I think SRS actually make some of these.
Phil.
Ps I only paid £300 for my digital camcorder
Posted by Steve Makin on October 17, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Dave, i have looked at the new Canon camera info, and it seems better than nikon's movie mode version, for my purposes, as the nikon appears to prevent manual focusing through the viewfinder {focusing has to be done via the live-view screen }. I think the Canon allows focusing through the viewfinder, but i may be wrong.
Unlikely these latest cameras will be within my budget for a couple of years {second hand}, although i am thinking it may be worth waiting and saving up, rather than fork out for a decent quality camcorder {second hand} in the very near future.
Hi Phillip, yep, i guess i could get myself a relatively cheap/basic camcorder, and use the supplied zoom lens, and gain some experience while i wait, although for convienience {in the field}, it would be useful for me to have a camera that allowed stills and movie through the same lens.
If i buy a basic camcorder, i fear it may be relegated to the back of the cupboard, once a dslr with a movie-mode falls into my price bracket, and therefore i may be better off saving my cash to put towards the dslr {hopefully nikon will bring out a model that will allow MF through the viewfinder}.
Tricky decision to make, as i was saving up to replace my D2h {ready for when it eventually packs up}, and with the 'apparent' move by the camera manufacturers to include a movie mode on their dslr's, it may be worth my while killing two birds with one stone, and getting a dslr instead of a camcorder and another stills camera.
Thanks for that..............food for thought!!
Thanks for that link Steve.........You must have posted while i was replying {shall have a look at that review}
Alan
Posted by John Robinson on October 17, 2008 at 8:33 PM
Alan
I think an important point to think of is - what do you want to do with the stuff you get ?Sounds a simple question but think about it,
JR
A good question, and i don't have a concrete answer.
I guess i feel it would give me an option of a different viewing experience, from my usual print viewing, as i always get a buzz from watching the birds going about their daily business from close range {usually while killing time in my hide}, and i like the idea of re-living 'some' of this intimate live action, when ive returned home.
I don't have the urge {or skills} to get fully involved with constructing 'complete' wildlife movies {completely different ball-game from stills stuff}, but ive often been presented with situations that would be suited to short video clips, that wouldn't require a huge range of user skills, and ive always liked the idea of having a 'different' record of a days shooting.
Its only the recent advent of dslr's {with movie modes} that has rekindled my interest in this subject, as ive had to place it on the back-burner for many years, due to the cost of kitting myself out with a completely new type of system/gear, apart from my stills gear.
However {as with dslr's} it appears that new camcorder prices also seem to plummet within a couple of years, and that option has now come into my range.
I do like the idea of stills & movie being available through the same body, but i am still going over the options at the moment.
Alan
Posted by Ben Micklem on October 19, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Re 5D mkII focusing through viewfinder- I don't know one way or the other, but I would be very surprised as I cannot see how the light can reach both the focusing screen and the sensor at the same time...
I have been having the same thoughts about moving into video. One of the advantages of going the DSLR route is that you get very 'film like' (movie film) DOF. However, at super-telephoto lengths, you'll probably still get enough subject/background separation on a camcorder.
Was thinking the same thing Ben {regarding viewfinder focusing},
I guess the DSLR ability to instantly switch from stills to movie mode, may allow focus to be achieved through the viewfinder first, and then flick to movie mode {may only be practicle in a few 'static/perched' situations though}.
Ive been seriously considering the D90, as my movie needs are pretty basic, but i'm not sure how i would get on if forced to focus using live-view, as i have a preference to focus my camera without glasses {using the diopter adjustments}, and therefore have never been able to use the rear screen. It would be a lot of farting about to change to glasses viewing, when using the movie mode, so i am still just toying with the D90 idea.
Discussion
8 repliesIve always had an urge to suppliment my 'stills' bird photography, with a few movie/video clips, as a side-line interest only {nothing fancy IE: perched/roosting birds, and not anything too tricky, such as panning etc}.
For the last few weeks ive been researching the likely cost of kitting myself out with S/H camcorder gear, such as the canon XL2 {which would allow me to share genres, by using my nikon 400mm/3.5 on it, via an adapter}, but by the time i add the extra expence of essential accessories, it adds up to quite a sum, considering my limited requirements for movie type stuff.
It 'appears' that some future DSLR's are likely to incorperate a movie mode, and although the first generation of cameras with this mode have already arrived {more or less}, i'm wondering if any of you who are more clued up on this type of thing than me, would advise me to wait until the DSLR movie-mode cameras are more established/improved etc, or whether it is still worth forking out for a more conventional camcorder etc.
I'm not requiring the very very, very highest picture quality available {only have a standard TV at the moment}, for my intended limited use, but i am looking for pretty decent results.
Anyone have any views on DSLR movie modes, and whether this will eventually be a viable alternative to the camcorders route, for occasional users {as i would like to be}.
Alan
Phil.
Ps I only paid £300 for my digital camcorder
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d90.shtml
Dave, i have looked at the new Canon camera info, and it seems better than nikon's movie mode version, for my purposes, as the nikon appears to prevent manual focusing through the viewfinder {focusing has to be done via the live-view screen
Unlikely these latest cameras will be within my budget for a couple of years {second hand}, although i am thinking it may be worth waiting and saving up, rather than fork out for a decent quality camcorder {second hand} in the very near future.
Hi Phillip, yep, i guess i could get myself a relatively cheap/basic camcorder, and use the supplied zoom lens, and gain some experience while i wait, although for convienience {in the field}, it would be useful for me to have a camera that allowed stills and movie through the same lens.
If i buy a basic camcorder, i fear it may be relegated to the back of the cupboard, once a dslr with a movie-mode falls into my price bracket, and therefore i may be better off saving my cash to put towards the dslr {hopefully nikon will bring out a model that will allow MF through the viewfinder}.
Tricky decision to make, as i was saving up to replace my D2h {ready for when it eventually packs up}, and with the 'apparent' move by the camera manufacturers to include a movie mode on their dslr's, it may be worth my while killing two birds with one stone, and getting a dslr instead of a camcorder and another stills camera.
Thanks for that..............food for thought!!
Thanks for that link Steve.........You must have posted while i was replying {shall have a look at that review}
Alan
I think an important point to think of is - what do you want to do with the stuff you get ?Sounds a simple question but think about it,
JR
A good question, and i don't have a concrete answer.
I guess i feel it would give me an option of a different viewing experience, from my usual print viewing, as i always get a buzz from watching the birds going about their daily business from close range {usually while killing time in my hide}, and i like the idea of re-living 'some' of this intimate live action, when ive returned home.
I don't have the urge {or skills} to get fully involved with constructing 'complete' wildlife movies {completely different ball-game from stills stuff}, but ive often been presented with situations that would be suited to short video clips, that wouldn't require a huge range of user skills, and ive always liked the idea of having a 'different' record of a days shooting.
Its only the recent advent of dslr's {with movie modes} that has rekindled my interest in this subject, as ive had to place it on the back-burner for many years, due to the cost of kitting myself out with a completely new type of system/gear, apart from my stills gear.
However {as with dslr's} it appears that new camcorder prices also seem to plummet within a couple of years, and that option has now come into my range.
I do like the idea of stills & movie being available through the same body, but i am still going over the options at the moment.
Alan
I have been having the same thoughts about moving into video. One of the advantages of going the DSLR route is that you get very 'film like' (movie film) DOF. However, at super-telephoto lengths, you'll probably still get enough subject/background separation on a camcorder.
I guess the DSLR ability to instantly switch from stills to movie mode, may allow focus to be achieved through the viewfinder first, and then flick to movie mode {may only be practicle in a few 'static/perched' situations though}.
Ive been seriously considering the D90, as my movie needs are pretty basic, but i'm not sure how i would get on if forced to focus using live-view, as i have a preference to focus my camera without glasses {using the diopter adjustments}, and therefore have never been able to use the rear screen. It would be a lot of farting about to change to glasses viewing, when using the movie mode, so i am still just toying with the D90 idea.
Alan