What are SLRs like for shooting HD video?

Right. I'm going to go for this.

I'm looking at buying it with the standard 18-55 lens and a few high speed/capacity SD cards.

I have plenty of experience in video editing and I've spent a few days playing around in Premiere Pro and Magic Bullet. It's incredible what you can even do with iPhone 4 HD video in these software packages so I can't wait to get started with the sLR.
I don't however have much of a clue when it comes to lenses. What will I need to produce decent looking footage? Perhaps a wide lens?

What would be a 'must have' lens and how much is it? I cannot afford to be blowing hundreds on lenses so I have no objection to third party lenses providing they are not terrible.

Cheers
 
Raikiri said:
Full details:


Edited in Sony Vegas 10.0 and Adobe After Effects
Color Correction using Magic Bullet Mojo
Canon T2i/550D
Canon 18-55mm IS
Canon 55-250mm IS
Canon 50mm f 1.8

So they only used 3 cheap lenses, the kit lens and the other two would cost around £210 for the pair. Not bad considering!
Click to expand...

£210. Surely that can't be right?

As above I'm clueless about lenses so what do each of these do?
What does the 50mm do that the 18-55 doesn't? I realise with the 55-250 you could get some decent depth of field shots??

Even on entry level cameras the video quality is amazing, it's the audio you want to watch out for - either an external mic socket or just recording the audio separately to overlay later can make the difference between something that looks professional and something that's good. Not that it would matter if you just shot video then dubbed music over it later.
Click to expand...

I've always used an external Mic for dialogue in short films and most of our work is arty/creative or will be used for skiing so audio shouldn't be too much of a problem.
 
Last edited:
whitecrook said:
The 2 zooms will give you the range, the 50 will offer better low light and much greater dof effect
Click to expand...

With my style of filming I rarely use the zoom. In the old days I used to stand as far away from the subject as possible and zoom right in such that the background would be out of focus and the footage would look better.

I'm assuming the 50 lens would be the answer to this problem and thus a wiser purchase than the zoom lens?

Cheers
 
scott212 said:
I don't however have much of a clue when it comes to lenses. What will I need to produce decent looking footage? Perhaps a wide lens?

What would be a 'must have' lens and how much is it? I cannot afford to be blowing hundreds on lenses so I have no objection to third party lenses providing they are not terrible.

Cheers
Click to expand...

What do you shoot? People often moan about the limitations of IQ from the 18-55 but you get for what you pay for. If you need wide shots then stick with it till you want to invest in a wide frame lens like the canon 10-22mm or Sigma 10-20mm lens.
 
scott212 said:
With my style of filming I rarely use the zoom. In the old days I used to stand as far away from the subject as possible and zoom right in such that the background would be out of focus and the footage would look better.

I'm assuming the 50 lens would be the answer to this problem and thus a wiser purchase than the zoom lens?

Cheers
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
I appreciate you're trying to be as helpful as possible but you're going to have to treat me like a fool as my knowledge of lenses and photography is limited. Does the lower f/x.x value imply a greater depth of field (background out of focus/subject in focus) or is that incorrect?

I need two lenses. I need one for wide shots to capture an environment. I need another for shooting action shots/subject shots which results in the subject being sharp in focus and the background out of focus - Assuming the 50mm will do this. I don't really need a zoom lens in fact the 18-55mm is probably all I would need.

I have on my desk right now a Nikon D50 with an 18-105mm lens. When I zoom right out that is acceptable enough to capture 'wide' shots but getting even more of the image in the frame would be preferred, I'm assuming this is where it gets expensive! As for imagining I was shooting HD through this lens, it doesn't really achieve that effect of having a blurred background to the extent I'm after unless zooming right in!

Many thanks, I'm grateful for all the advice.

EDIT: I'll have a look on Google to see if I can find a beginner's guide to lenses and what all these numbers mean! :)
 
Last edited:
scott212 said:
I appreciate you're trying to be as helpful as possible but you're going to have to treat me like a fool as my knowledge of lenses and photography is limited. Does the lower f/x.x value imply a greater depth of field (background out of focus/subject in focus) or is that incorrect?
Click to expand...

Depth of Field is how much is in focus, so a lower f/number will result in a smaller DoF = Less in focus.
 
explicit4u said:
Depth of Field is how much is in focus, so a lower f/number will result in a smaller DoF = Less in focus.
Click to expand...

I thought I had the wrong end of the stick.

So the effect I am describing is a shallow (small) depth of field as the subject is razor sharp in focus and everything else is out of focus?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom