Dslr or video camera or mirrorless or iphone 7

davemang · 28 Apr 2017 at 21:29

Hi

Im looking to get a new camera however im looking to make videos much like video ive linked

I know I'll need a gimbal for fluidity etc

I just dont want to go overkill for what i need as the iphone 7 video camera including imovie would be ideal for youtube upload in good lighting?

I dont have a laptop either so that must be factored in to my budget

I was looking at a canon 5d mk iii however when adding lenses it becomes expensive which lense would be ideal for what I need?

Budget id say £3000 including a laptop or if I could edit from dslr sd card on a iphone that would be great

Thanks

P.s sorry if the link offends.

Energize · 30 Apr 2017 at 18:34

That video is relatively low quality and was shot on a $600 camera, I think you are being a bit overkill in budgeting £3k to achieve something similar to that, that said I don't see the iphone being able to compete with a 1" sensor, and trying to edit video on a phone is tedious beyond belief.

davemang · 30 Apr 2017 at 19:46

Energize said:
That video is relatively low quality and was shot on a $600 camera, I think you are being a bit overkill in budgeting £3k to achieve something similar to that, that said I don't see the iphone being able to compete with a 1" sensor, and trying to edit video on a phone is tedious beyond belief.

Thanks

Its the low light thats worrying me I thought a full frame dslr was the only way to achieve high iso values? Also the lense speed affects the amount of light? Which fast lense do I need that could record the content I'm wanting?

A canon 5d mkiii is kinda ok budget wise depending on lense, if I could possibly use it for other content blogging etc it should look professional,

Ive also heard I wont be able to zoom much so the auto/manual focus wont be troublesome???

Im not looking to edit much just to piece the work together, add music, maybe write text on screen exactly what imovie can do however a macbook pro might might be to expensive, windows imovie equivalent?

I mean if I should be looking at a £2000 video camera please let me know, however im a newb at post production so if its going to need a lot of colour balance changers etc I might be better on dslr route

Just want to make this as easy as possible.

Thanks again for any help

Zaf · 2 May 2017 at 22:47

Do you need 4K or happy with 1080, also how long do you plan or recording for at any one time?

Energize · 2 May 2017 at 22:52

davemang said:
Thanks

Its the low light thats worrying me I thought a full frame dslr was the only way to achieve high iso values? Also the lense speed affects the amount of light? Which fast lense do I need that could record the content I'm wanting?

A canon 5d mkiii is kinda ok budget wise depending on lense, if I could possibly use it for other content blogging etc it should look professional,

Ive also heard I wont be able to zoom much so the auto/manual focus wont be troublesome???

Im not looking to edit much just to piece the work together, add music, maybe write text on screen exactly what imovie can do however a macbook pro might might be to expensive, windows imovie equivalent?

I mean if I should be looking at a £2000 video camera please let me know, however im a newb at post production so if its going to need a lot of colour balance changers etc I might be better on dslr route

Just want to make this as easy as possible.

Thanks again for any help

Mirrorless and SLR offer the best ISO performance yes, and a fast lens reduces the ISO you need to use. There are loads of ~f/2 lenses that are fairly cheap depending on what system you go for. You can zoom just fine when shooting video if you buy a zoom lens, fast zoom lenses cost a lot more though.

davemang · 18 Jul 2017 at 23:40

just a quick update i got the iphone 6 plus WOW the video quality is awesome in good lighting and imovie is easy to use, job done for now

however ive also seen what the sony a7s ii can achieve and its good even uploaded to youtube its as professional as you would need

thanks for the help

EsaT · 21 Jul 2017 at 16:08

davemang said:
Its the low light thats worrying me I thought a full frame dslr was the only way to achieve high iso values? Also the lense speed affects the amount of light? Which fast lense do I need that could record the content I'm wanting?

For same depth of field every system gathers same amount of photons:
What area advantage bigger sensor has gets negated by need to stop lens down for same amount.
So if you want bigger depth of field smaller sensor isn't automatic disadvantage.

Columbo · 21 Jul 2017 at 17:26

EsaT said:
For same depth of field every system gathers same amount of photons:
What area advantage bigger sensor has gets negated by need to stop lens down for same amount.
So if you want bigger depth of field smaller sensor isn't automatic disadvantage.

What?

Energize · 21 Jul 2017 at 23:51

That comment seems completely irrelevant to what the op was talking about which was concern over noise at high iso values...

D.P. · 22 Jul 2017 at 01:37

EsaT said:
For same depth of field every system gathers same amount of photons:
What area advantage bigger sensor has gets negated by need to stop lens down for same amount.
So if you want bigger depth of field smaller sensor isn't automatic disadvantage.

A lot of people seem to ignore this fact. I shoot s lot of events and I often need to be at f/4.0 or 5.6 on FF to keep a small group in focus. Would be trivial to do the same on a crop sensor at f/2.8-4

D.P. · 22 Jul 2017 at 01:40

Columbo said:
What?

An f/2.8 on APS-C allows the same.amount of light as f/4.0 on FF and has the same depth of focus.

The 2 are directly linked.

EsaT · 22 Jul 2017 at 09:15

D.P. said:
A lot of people seem to ignore this fact. I shoot s lot of events and I often need to be at f/4.0 or 5.6 on FF to keep a small group in focus. Would be trivial to do the same on a crop sensor at f/2.8-4

Likely ignored because it would make it clear that every single system is just different combination of compromises.
Which doesn't fit to policy of religion of smallest analog film format with good enough performance for most uses.

Heck, for same DOF different formats even have same diffraction limited resolution, because physical lens aperture size is same.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 22 Jul 2017 at 10:31

D.P. said:
An f/2.8 on APS-C allows the same.amount of light as f/4.0 on FF and has the same depth of focus.

The 2 are directly linked.

However,the problem is that if you are shooting at F2.8 that is more or less wide open for many zooms,whether they are APS-C or 35MM frame. In the end most zooms are much softer wide open anyway,so you will need to stop down slightly even on APS-C,and is what I do for both my APS-C and FX systems,and I always tend to shoot more in what is the optimal sharpness point for my lenses,which is between F5.6 to F8.

Also if you in very low light conditions,and have to shoot wide open,forget DoF, you are mostly likely using the lens at its softest aperture and focusing becomes probably less critical in low light,plus OFC the effects of noise reduction,and it doesn't matter what format sensor you will be using for a lot of general purpose pictures.

Plus people really need to get it out of their head - the 35MM frame is not "BIG". It isn't - medium format is what was considered the start of bigger formats(medium not big). You only have to look at some 6X4.5 film to see that:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/bwrightphoto/5388575653/

The 35MM format came along since cameras were truly huge in the past,and IIRC was derived from people modifying cine film(IIRC) to fit in cameras.

Plus the issue,a lot of sensors are designed with high MP counts which means the surface area of the photo-detectors is generally smaller than some of the more common 35MM frame sensors,and this is why some of those 35MM frame sensors have such good DR and low light capabilities at a similar technical level. But then as seen with some of the very high MP 35MM frame sensors,DR and low light sensitivity suffers.

That is an issue in itself - technology can help in a way(microlenses,re-arranging the processing circuitry and certain back end processing,etc) but people concentrate on the physical size of the chip,which is not really the most important aspect of it. If you look in science,for example,when people are looking at imaging cameras,they rarely go by sensor size,but photodetector area,readout speed and other more important metrics.