Best camera for an aspiring filmmaker

S

sidharthsid

Guest
canon 5d awesome resolution many more ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
F

FilmJobs

Guest
I know this thread was started a while back, but on the topic of best cameras for aspiring filmmakers... I've heard good things from friends in the film industry about the Canon 6D and is fairly comparable to the 5D, minus some built in anti-aliasing and a couple less megapixels. Plus, it sells for about half the price. So, if the budget isn't there for the 5D or A7r (also a great camera), you might consider checking out the 6D.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
F

FilmHB

Guest
If you're reading this in 2016, the Panasonic G7 camera is very inexpensive and will give you a fantastic image for about $600. As an entry-level camera it's currently the camera that will give you the most bang-for-your-buck, and will allow you to complete with filmmakers who have much more expensive cameras.

If you can't afford this camera, you could really use any camera that you have to learn, even a cell phone. But it would be more helpful to get a camera that can focus the lens, so you can learn about depth of field (making the background and foreground blurry).
 

Henrii

New member
Hello everyone! In last year i started my journey with film making, i was using my grandfather camera which was quite old and didn't had to many options to change. I would like to buy new one but don't know what should i looking for, i have around 600$ to spent. I done a little bit research and i was thinking about canon M3, in last post in this topic i readed about Panasonic G7, can someone spot me a difference in this two?
 
F

FilmHB

Guest
Panasonic G7 - 4K resolution, Micro Four Thirds (MFT) sensor (2.22x crop factor), the 1080 resolution mode shoots at 60 fps, slightly better dynamic range, 17% lighter weight (better when using stabilization equipment), 16% better battery life, image stabilization for photos. The G7 gives you the SAME exact image quality as the $1,400 GH4, except with a few features that you might not care too much about (not waterproof, stops recording after 30 minutes of video).

Canon EOS M3 - 1080p resolution, APS-C sensor (1.6x crop factor).

The M3 is about $168 less than the G7 on Amazon. You might be able to find some good deals on used cameras if you search around.

The G7 shoots in 4K resolution and the M3 shoots in only 1080p. This makes the image of the G7 much sharper, and is especially important when filming things in the distance. When reviewing a few M3 video tests, a lot of the shots were not that sharp. It's important to keep in mind that editing with the G7's 4K resolution videos will require a better computer that can handle the footage, but you can always convert your 4K videos to 1080p or use proxies to edit the 4K footage. It's not a big deal if your computer can't edit 4K footage efficiently, but would add a small benefit to your editing technique if you could.

The G7 shoots 60 fps when recording in 1080p, while the M3 can only shoot a maximum of 1080 at 24 or 30 fps. The G7 doesn't shoot at 60 fps if recording in 4K mode. So, if you film weddings or need a few shots in slow motion with the G7, switch your settings to record to 1080p.

The G7 has slighter better dynamic range than the M3. When viewing footage from the M3, lights were very blown out (there's a large glow around lights). The G7 isn't that great with dynamic range either, but the glow around lights would be reduced by about 20% when comparing it to the M3. This is important when filming images with dark and light sections in the same video. Usually, more dynamic range helps with filming outside light from windows, a bride's wedding dress, the sky, lamps/street lights, or anything else bright.

Video from the M3 seems slightly worse than the G7 with low-light -- the M3 adds more grain in low light. The G7 doesn't add much grain in low light unless you go above f-2.8/f-4.0. The M3 adds significantly more grain at these f-stops -- about the same, if not more, than my cell phone. If you light your scenes properly, then you shouldn't have any grain in low light with the G7, but will have a slightly-distracting amount with the M3. Without lighting (such as at a wedding), the G7 isn't the best in low-light, but with a good lens it's decent. Even with a decent lens, I wouldn't use the M3 to film in low light at a wedding.

The G7 uses a MFT sensor and the M3 uses an APS-C sensor. The sensor affects several things. First, it determines what type of lenses your camera can use without a lens adapter. The M3 uses EF-M lenses and the G7 uses MFT lenses. Before buying your camera, you should research the quality and price of the lenses that it accepts. The ASP-C sensor is wider than the MFT sensor, which gives your video better depth of field (the background and foreground of the ASP-C sensor will be blurrier, which is better.) The G7 has a crop factor of 2.22 and the M3 has a crop factor of 1.6. This means that the M3 records a wider image than the G7. If you're using a 50mm lens with the G7, the actual number of mm is 111 (50mm lens * 2.22 crop factor = 111mm). If you're using a 50mm lens with the M3, the actual number of mm is 80mm (50mm lens * 1.6 crop factor = 80mm). This means that you'll have to move the G7 back a foot or two in order to record the same image size as the M3. This is also important when purchasing lenses, since you'll have to take into account the crop factor when buying a lens with a certain mm number. Check out http://www.filmhandbook.com/camera-techniques/focusing-depth-of-field/ for more information about depth of field and your camera's crop factor.

Summary: The main pros of the G7 are a sharper image and less grain in low light. The main pro of the M3 is the sensor size, which gives you a wider image and slightly better depth of field. Even though the M3 gives you better depth of field and gives you a wider image, it's clear that the G7's image is significantly better due to the sharper image and less grain in low light. Without even thinking twice about this, the extra $168 is definitely worth getting the G7 over the M3, plus you get to use 4K to allow you to use creative techniques when editing. Cell phones are almost as good now-a-days as the M3, aside from the M3's medium sensor size.

Let me know if you have any other questions!
 

Kim Welch

Senior Member
Staff member
What do you think about the new multiple focus point cameras and their future potential especially in the editing and special effect? https://www.lytro.com/cinema

And what about RED? Just to expensive but is it worth it? Is it worth it to rent?
 
F

FilmHB

Guest
I absolutely love the idea of saving multiple focus points. I think every camera in the future will have this option, but not for a long time (probably 50+ years). I hope I'm wrong though, because I would love to use one of these cameras! It might work good with auto focus to correct any focusing issues in post, and could possibly save time during principal photography by not having to manually focus, but would increase time in post. To decrease costs, I'd rather save 1 minute during principal photography and increase the time in post by a minute or two. I sometimes have focusing errors when using the camera handheld if the actors don't move to their exact marks or I don't move the camera to the precise position, and when using a slider and dolly. It would be nice to have a few focal points recorded a few mm away from the len's focal point just in case the shot was slightly out of focus. When filming multiple actors in the same shot, it would be great to record each actor in focus, and choose in post which actor to edit in the shot.

Several of the RED cameras are a step up from mid-ranged cameras, so of course they're worth it to rent for the right production, and some of the lower-priced RED cameras are affordable to buy. Due to the cost, however, I wouldn't rent or buy a RED camera if you don't already have gear to use with it, excellent audio equipment, excellent lighting equipment, a great cast and crew, a decent budget for props, wardrobe, makeup etc. and a budget to rent it. Renting a RED for $1,500+ might increase the production value of your film by about 5%, but using that money towards other areas of your film might increase it by 50%+. A lot of the entry-level and mid-grade cameras come very close to the quality of the lower-budget RED cameras for just a fraction of the price. Most productions probably will not benefit from renting a RED camera, but a few might benefit if they have a much higher budget and more experience than the average independent filmmaker.
 

Kim Welch

Senior Member
Staff member
If it is something very useful I don't think it's going to take 50 years to become affordable and perfected. When we started these forums there was a large number of film only people. The President of the ASC at the time wrote a letter in the American Cinematographer Magazine about how he would only shoot film and that digital was not going to be that big. Within a few years most productions were using digital cameras and now very film are actually shooting with film. Everything has gone digital. We will see how the multiple focus goes. I am curious about it's effect on special effects and the VR productions.

As far as the budget for RED I don't really know where the budget substantiates renting or buying one. I am always curious about budgets. That seems to be the biggest point of failure to produce. Not having enough money.
 

zweezle

New member
You can start with Canon 600D,
It is ideal for a beginner.
You may further go for Canon 5D Mark 3, which is used by YouTubers and short movie makers all across the globe.
If you are travelling and making travelogue go for GoPro. (you won't get a cinematic feel in gopro.)

Zweezle is a video production company in Bangalore, they provide you corporate videos, corporate films, explainer videos, animated videos, product videos, testimonial videos, check the website here: http://www.zweezle.in/
 
Last edited:
Top