Hi, which produces a better video? 4k video camera or a 4k stills camera?
Also which would be better In low light ie: room/s at night with a lamp or 2 on.
Thanks.
4k vid or still Camera?
askme69 on 12/10/2020 - 14:00
Last edited 12/10/2020 - 14:00
Last edited 12/10/2020 - 14:00
Comments
I think OP is referring to a mirrorless that can record in 4K vs a dedicated video cam.
I see. My second paragraph is appropriate then. A sony a7s is going to be miles better than a 4k handycam with a phone camera sized sensor.
You can get DSLRs that shoot pretty darn good video. But more of it has to do with the lense you're using. Appeture and ISO are important with Low light situations. Any prosumer grade gold standard video/dslr wouldn't be much difference it would all look pretty good. But when you get to that level it's mostly software based in post processing that makes it look really good.
Something like an A7Siii or GH5S is probably the direction I'd be looking: "Hybrid" shooters with a heavy emphasis on the video side of things. Obviously depends on your budget and/or how seriously you intend to take this.
There's lots of Hollywood movies that are shot on DSLRs these days. There's even been a few shot on smart phones (although you might consider them more indie films, than blockbuster Hollywood releases).
I think it really comes down to individual preference and the style you're going for. Things like lenses, lighting, microphones will obviously have a huge impact on the end result.
Almost no Hollywood movies are shot on DSLRs. You may get a couple seconds of DSLR as a crash/underwater cam or some other specialty shot but that’s not the same thing. Steven Soderbergh shot Unsane (it’s on Prime) and High Flying Bird (Netflix) on iPhones but he had additional adaptors/apps on the phone, plus the quirky smart phone video isn’t made to look cinematic but to the contrary.
askme69, if you have no need to take photos, your budget is $600 and you need decent low light performance, a DSLR isn't the right way to go. DSLRs are difficult to use plus you need to spend at least $1100 for good DSLR video, plus the cost of lenses, and there probably won't be image stabilisation inbuilt. A 4k camcorder like the Panasonic HC-VX1 is about $800-900 but could be found for less used. That'll have a 24x zoom, decent low light performance (1.8 aperture), a lot of inbuilt effects and image stabilisation.
Almost no Hollywood movies are shot on DSLRs
Not sure if you've take offence to me use the term "lots", but yeah, there's at least 2 that are entirely shot on dslr (from a quick search) and then lots more with certain scenes shot on dslr.
Give yourself a pat on the back, you're doing an awesome job keeping the internet safe.
Yikes, are you OK? No need to be petty mate.
Since you have a thing about semantics, Ok, I'll bite: if there are thousands of Hollywood movies and 2 were entirely shot on DSLR, then that's "almost none". And you were the one to distinguish Hollywood from indie films. So, yes, "lots of Hollywood movies that are shot on DSLRs these days" is not only false but misleading. This isn't controversial.
2 were entirely shot on DSLR
I said at least two. Learn to read. That was from a quick google search. I'm sure there's more.
Regardless of whatever proportion of a movie is shot on a DSLR, my point stands that feature films are being shot of equipment designed for still photographs, so the benefits of a dedicated video camera for a prosumer are debatable.
@salmon123: And you couldn't share with us the results of your exhaustive research, which 2+ movies these are? Even if you found three or even ten movies (which you won't be able to) the fact remains that DSLR use in Hollywood is niche at best. If I quickly search "Hollywood movies shot on DSLR", I'll get results like The Avengers and Mad Max: Fury Road. These films have SECONDS of dslr footage at most. The other two hours are shot with $100k+ cameras.
I have nothing against that point - the question whether a consumer/prosumer needs something like an Arri Alexa is ridiculous, because it's completely unaffordable. You might be ignorant or lazy, I don't care about that, but you're misleading and you reach an insane conclusion; just because VHS is sometimes used in big budget movies (such as when a character watches home videos), doesn't mean "feature films are being shot with VHS cameras".
you couldn't share with us the results of your exhaustive research
I guess you missed the LMGTFY link as well. Geez.
Arri Alexa is ridiculous, because it's completely unaffordable
I think you've just proven my point for me. Shooting on dslr (or other still cameras) is good enough for most prosumers. Take a look on youtube - most of the vlogging content is produced with that type of equipment.
I think you've just proven my point for me. Shooting on dslr (or other still cameras) is good enough for most prosumers
No, your point was that "lots of" holiwood movies were shot on DSLR, which is false.
No, your point was that "lots of" holiwood movies were shot on DSLR, which is false.
Thanks sherlock, Perhaps you can learn to read and spell, before commenting.
So 4k video camera are ruled out?
Pana Lumix g7 for 4k vid?
Budget around $600 or so. Or is used an option?
Cheers.
If you have a flagship or higher mid range phone from the last 2-3 years, consider using that. If this is just going to be a single event, consider hiring the gear.
Panasonic is not as good as APS-C or 'Full Frame' 35mm cameras for low light video because a) the micro 4/3 sensor is smaller and b) their DFD auto focus technology hunts a lot in low light to the point where it may result in unusable footage if it is very dark. The lower end Panasonic cameras also have a crop to their 4k video i.e. the angle will be narrower for video than for photos. Having said that, for a $600 budget for body and lens, I would go for a second hand LX100 mk I. You can find plenty of low light/indoor samples of Lx100 4K mK I on you tube.
Do you need a zoom lens (worse in low light, or more expensive but more versatile) or are you able to get away with a fixed lens (usually better in low light and/or cheaper but less versatile)?
Finally, it doesn't matter how good your gear is - you don't want to shoot low light if you can help it. If you have any influence in the set up, getting more lighting on your subjects will improve your results. Also consider why you need 4K.
What are you filming?
$600 won't get a decent lens. So might be better off using a phone or separate video camera.
Depends on the requirements, for commercial purposes then a 4k video would be required, say a $50,000 Red camera.
As for youtube/smaller budget projects 4k SLR cameras seem to be the popular choice as they give you a great choice of lenses with microphone attachments.
Slr with video lens.
Most BTS porn shoots seem to use that so must be good
Also which would be better In low light ie: room/s at night with a lamp or 2 on.
Homemade porn?
How about this: Panasonic DC-GX880KGND 4K LUMIX Camera, Orange. Includes: LUMIX G Vario 12-32mm / F3.5-5.6 ASPH. / MEGA O.I.S. Lens
$400
Any good?
Cheers
Never Mind, has 5 minute limit on 4k video.
It can do the job, but will probably look fairly similar to a phone.
Compared to the LX100 mk 1 with the ~12-35mm f1.7-28 lens, the 12-32mm f3.5-5.6 lens that comes with this kit will let in just one quarter as much light (it is 2 stops slower at both the widest and narrowest focal lengths) and therefore be significantly worse in low light, with a similar sensor size.
What? 4k is only about 8MP, you'd struggle to find a camera with resolution that low nowadays.
The one that will do better in low light is with one with a larger aperture, and/or larger sensor.