It's time for a new Camera

Hack the GF2 for amazing HD video! I record at 44Mbps 1280x1080 on mine with amazing results. Blows away my actual HD video camera. The only drawback is that the GF2 can't playback the videos due to the high bit rate so you have to watch and edit them on a PC. Another bummer is that my lens is way too slow at auto focus when it comes to video so I need to shoot video with manual focus until I buy a faster lens.

 

I highly suggest the Canon Rebel XT it is a pretty old camera and it is perfect for a beginner it is what i use it is simple, durable, and is awesome i am pretty sure it is about $200 or cheaper and i suggest buying a used one i promise you will fall in love with it good luck...






[TABLE="width: 498"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 498"]Gold Coast Photographer[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

Old thread, and it wouldnt help his video issue.

 

I use a Panasonic GH2 now and with the right lens that can do broadcast quality HD video. I made a video a while back and was astounded by the quality.

 

Get a Sony NEX, DSLR in your pocket.

 

Well my Galaxy S2 and S4 (smartphones) can take a incredibly high details from picture, Video and still image. Almost good as your.

 

No phone can match a DLSR. They can't even get close to the amount of detail a quality DLSR can. Sure, they may say they can but they can't. It's a technological fact. It just isn't possible.

Now, modern high end phones can take amazing photos, there's no doubt in that. My own Android smart phone takes fantastic 1080p video that craps all over my 5 year old Panasonic HD video camera but can't even compare to the level of detail and depth that my GH2 can capture with a lens that cost as much as the actual camera.

 

I very well aware that High quality cameras always be ahead like what you said, No doubt about that. I have Nikon D5100 Digital SLR cost me over £500 and love it. Best camera I ever owned.

My purposes of saying this I very surprise that Galaxy S4 smartphone is absolutely fucking brilliant! The amount of details can be taken from Pictures and Videos. That all I'm saying.

 

Most hand helds can't either. The Sony RX1 and the FujiFilm X100 or whatever it is are stunners, but for instance, their auto-focus systems are nothing compared to the latest DSLRs. They are cheaper, but still pricey. The RX1 is basically a miniature DSLR in terms of quality and dynamic range. I've not used the X100 but have heard good things about the image quality.

If you want to see some amazing shit, look at what the Magic Lantern team did w/ the 5D Mark III & 7D. Dual ISO video. They've extended the dynamic range of the computer 3 stops. This is big news for home pornography hobbyists.

 

Eh, they've reduced the noise with filtering and, as you'd expect, things have gone soft and blurry. It's nothing new.

Despite advances in sensor technology allowing better high ISO photography, you're never going to replace using a decent light source for optimal sharpness.

 

Are you high? It's made headlines through the DSLR community. The dynamic range of the camera is effectively expanded 3 stops (in camera). Call filtering all you want, but that's all digital cameras are doing anyway (even w/ stills) to a very large extent. It is also not filtering. It's actually shooting half the frames at one ISO speed and the other half at another. Read me. Nice try though. :-/

Well no shit, but that's obviously not always going to happen. A lot of people shoot with only available light for any number of reasons. If I used flash I wouldn't have to worry about a lot of things, but I don't.

EDIT:
Woot. Looks like it might be cumming to the 5d2. This is huge news for my upcoming home sex video.
http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/08/dual-iso-makes-its-way-to-the-eos-5d-mark-ii-eos-6d/

 

Yeah, basically the same as HDR taking photos at different exposures, then combining them. Again, it's nothing new. And no, I'd never use it, because it looks bad.

Still, I don't need to, I shoot Nikon lol

 

Except that it is. It is a simple idea, but no other hardware offers it (even Canon's, out of the box). It's a low level, sensor hack

I guess you're entitled to your own opinion, but I see far, far less noise and the same level of detail. The polar opposite of bad.

 

I can see the horrible blurring you get from high ISO. How can you not see that?

It IS nothing new. Sure, you can't do it in camera, but you can take a photo, adjust ISO, take another and Photoshop the two together.

Sure, for video it's something different... but you shouldn't be shooting professional video on a DSLR! If you want decent video, get the proper kit. Just as Yakumo said no phone can match a DSLR, no DSLR can match a pro video camera. Sure, they do give good results now... but not AS good.

 

Video is a bit of a blind spot with that rule when it comes to price. A good DSLR cost about the same as a modern high end phone yet can easily out perform any phone camera in any situation. The thing that makes really great video is the lens. You can always change the lens on a DSLR camera. I use a lens made with video in mind which gives amazing results. I know you can get better with a real pro-video camera but that would cost a good few thousand pounds. More than twice what my set up cost at 1390 pounds.

Another point with video is that the standard DSLR camera is actually pretty crap for video due to the spinning mirror. this is why I went with the micro four thirds system. My camera has a full range for photos plus is ideal for video because there's no mirror to slow things down. I shoot more video than photos you see but also wanted a good stills camera.

You'd be surprised at just how many lower budget movies use a DSLR for action scenes. The reason being, if the camera is damaged it's a lot cheaper to replace than a full on pro video camera.

 

Um, okay, so your problem is shooting high ISO vs low ISO. Of course dual ISO is not going to give you better results than shooting at ISO 100 in fantastic light. And it doesn't claim to, so that's all grand. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not God, and don't always get great light. Dual ISO helps in those situations.

There it is...

By your "logic" I should be shooting nothing but Leica. After all, a high end Leica lens is sharper in the corners than the center of anything Nikon, Canon, and maybe even Zeiss offers.

Even so, there are plenty of professional video studios using 5d2 w/ Magic Lantern. It does offer excellent video, and it's 5 years old. If it's good enough for them, it's definitely good enough for me. But yeah, I'm not shooting professional video, but that's no reason that I don't want it to look good.

That's only the starting point. While the lens is very important, the dynamic range of the sensor, and the ISO processing are equally as important. It is not hard to make a sensor that is unaffected by noise at ISO 100 or 200... at 400 things started getting noticeable (especially in small devices). Typically auto-focus in video has been a consumer level only thing. However, most casual users will demand it. I'll admit, manually focusing in video can be frustrating. On that front, Canon has upped the game w/ Dual Pixel. I've not looked too far into it as I don't take much video, but apparently it's pretty impressive.

Look into a used 5d2. They're like 150,000 yen here at most, and it's been called a game-changer since it came out. Indie videographers dream. There are other options for more, and are still affordable to sum, but this camera has had some serious longevity.

 

Yeah, shoot Leica - they're awesome lol.

To be fair, Leica make some nice compacts... and Panasonic rebadge them, albeit with a different firmware. So, as Yakumo says, you certainly can get some nice effects with small kit nowadays.

Yeah, DSLR is used for pro video... but it really is horrible to use because of the way an SLR is made. Focusing is nasty. I've seen people shooting music videos in the pit on a 5D with no focus ring. Fast action with a twist focus. They must like inflicting pain on themselves!

 

Well, if you're shooting video w/ a current, auto-focus lens (even a really high dollar one) it's going to leave a bad taste in your mouth. A $100 vintage lens would probably be better.

Leica's stuff is quality. Whether it's worth the money, is another story. To me, it's not. The fact that a used M3 from 50 years ago still demands well over $1000 is a testament their build quality. Up until the MM, for the most part the magic of the Leica was in the lens. There sensors weren't much to talk about until now. Wondering if the color version can process ISO as well.