ZoneWolf 0 Posted August 17, 2009 Looking to upgrade my rig. DSLR's and HD video cam technology is converging. The thing I like most about my current point-and-shoot is that I can do both stills and video easily. The most common subjects I shoot are sharks, other large pelagics, and wrecks. Second is macro life. My current P&S has bayonet lenses which I can change underwater - pop on the dome for super wide-angle, take it off for medium or zooming in, and put on a macro magnifier for close ups. This has been a major plus. Here are 2 vastly different setups I am considering. Strobes/lights and housing are TBD. I have tested both, granted non-scientifically, and both delivered outstanding results. I have not had the opportunity to take either one underwater. Sony HDR-CX520V (specs here) 1080p HD video and 12.1 megapixel still images. OR Canon EOS Rebel T1i EF-S (specs here) 15.1 megapixel and 720p/1080p video What is your opinion/experience with DSLR video? How about video cams with still capability? What direction would you go? Alternative suggestions? Most important is image quality, followed by future expansion capability (non-obsolete), and then cost. I would rather spend some extra $$$ to get the "right" base setup now rather than cut corners and have to rebuild from the ground up later. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davephdv 0 Posted August 17, 2009 I don't think they are converging at all. The dSLR won't give you quality video and the HD video will not give you quality still photos. Figure out which is most important to you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hani Amir 0 Posted August 17, 2009 ^ Taking into consideration the quality of say, the 5DmkII right now and taking into account how rapidly the technology is advancing; would you say the quality of such a camera a decade from now would not be "quality"? I think they are converging and at breakneck speeds. While there don't seem to be that many great DSLR quality still taking video cameras, it would be shortsighted to say that DSLRs which take video aren't nearing the quality of dedicated systems. I would personally go with the DSLR route as it seems more versatile (you can change lenses depending on the situation). I'm not sure of that specific model but judging from the Sony HDV cam we have here, I have a feeling that video from the DSLR would be more useful than stills from the video cam (if that makes sense). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZoneWolf 0 Posted August 17, 2009 I don't think they are converging at all. The dSLR won't give you quality video and the HD video will not give you quality still photos. Figure out which is most important to you. The July 2009 issue of Popular Photography contains an article entitled "The Truth About DSLR Video" which discusses the advances and benefits of DSLR video. One filmmaker, currently shooting a feature length film with a Canon EOS 5D Mark II, going as far as saying that "the DSLR - not the video camera - is the future of independent cinema." Right? Wrong? Who knows, but certainly an interesting thought. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MIKE POWELL 1 Posted August 17, 2009 Looking to upgrade my rig. DSLR's and HD video cam technology is converging. The thing I like most about my current point-and-shoot is that I can do both stills and video easily. The most common subjects I shoot are sharks, other large pelagics, and wrecks. Second is macro life. My current P&S has bayonet lenses which I can change underwater - pop on the dome for super wide-angle, take it off for medium or zooming in, and put on a macro magnifier for close ups. This has been a major plus. Here are 2 vastly different setups I am considering. Strobes/lights and housing are TBD. I have tested both, granted non-scientifically, and both delivered outstanding results. I have not had the opportunity to take either one underwater. Sony HDR-CX520V (specs here) 1080p HD video and 12.1 megapixel still images. OR Canon EOS Rebel T1i EF-S (specs here) 15.1 megapixel and 720p/1080p video What is your opinion/experience with DSLR video? How about video cams with still capability? What direction would you go? Alternative suggestions? Most important is image quality, followed by future expansion capability (non-obsolete), and then cost. I would rather spend some extra $$$ to get the "right" base setup now rather than cut corners and have to rebuild from the ground up later. Check out the 5D MKII video review at BACKSCATTER.COM Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scorpio_fish 5 Posted August 17, 2009 There are obvious trade-offs. The two formats are converging, but they haven't converged yet. Red and Scarlett may the answer, but it's not at a price point for the average consumer. Accepting that there is a compromise in either direction, I'd choose the DSLR right now. I would rather haves strobes for stills and shoot video w/o lights than shoot stills with no strobes. It's just a matter of time before someone at Backscatter will have a setup with strobes and L&M video lights on one setup if they haven't done it already. I laughed off the video feature on the DSLR at first. Now it has my attention. I eagerly await all the early adopters sorting out the issues and problems for me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mexwell 0 Posted August 17, 2009 Since your number one goal is image quality go with the Sony... why? Because the Rebel does not offer any manual control and Auto ISO will drive you nuts. The 5D would be nearly useless underwater if canon wouldn't have us given the manual firmware update!!! IMHO the merger of video and photo will be completed in 2 generations. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
james 0 Posted August 17, 2009 Hmm... have any of you used the video from the 5DII - it's amazing. Cheers James Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paul Kay 62 Posted August 17, 2009 2 years ago I shot some material for a tv program using a Sony A1U (I think that was the model), now I'm using a 5D2. I've tried the Sony alongside the 5D2 and to be brutally blunt, the difference is marked and the 5D2 looks very, very impressive. It may not be up to the quality desired by big budget productions but for low vis. work using a 15mm fisheye it is going to take some beating. Given the size of the (Seacam) housing and WidePort the package (even running a couple of Kowalski mini xenons) its a very capable outfit. My experience has been that many videographers don't believe it to be capable of much, but when faced with its output they have to admit that it is far better than anticipated (and I accept that it is far from perfect). I can see tremendous convergence and potentially faster than many might want/anticipate. Oh yes, and it shoots pretty good stills too! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mexwell 0 Posted August 18, 2009 Hmm... have any of you used the video from the 5DII - it's amazing. James, Wolf considers the Rebel not the 5DII. And the Rebel does not offer any manual control! WITH manual control the 5dII rocks, of course. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gavinparsons 1 Posted August 18, 2009 Not very many years ago pro photographers said digital would never be good enough for us. Now try and find one that doesn't shoot digital! I think professional film makers are about to get a taste of what pro photographers went through in the very near future. The popularity of the 5D MkII has demonstrated the desire for both video and still in one unit. Buy a saddle before the horse bolts is my advice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelew 4 Posted August 24, 2009 Sony HDR-CX520V (specs here) 1080p HD video and 12.1 megapixel still images.OR Canon EOS Rebel T1i EF-S (specs here) 15.1 megapixel and 720p/1080p video The lights for the video rig will cost a lot more than the strobes for the dSLR rig. The dSLR will get you better stills and passable video for much less money. I think Aquatica only announced the housing for the T1i on August 12th, so you would definitely be an early adopter on taking the T1i underwater. My feeling is that the Nikon D90 is the least expensive dSLR with good quality housings, video capability, and enough controls for my taste. I haven't used the T1i or D5000, but I've heard a lot of stories about how the menus and buttons are more cumbersome than their big brothers. If you're going to pay a few thousand dollars (or more than a few) for a full underwater rig, saving a couple hundred dollars by getting an entry-level T1i might not make the most sense. It seems like an awful lot of underwater photographers are using the flagship cameras, the 5DII and D700, because the percentage difference in cost for a fully housed underwater system is small. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drew 0 Posted August 24, 2009 Consider first which one is a priority, video or stills. The 1080p from the T1i is 20fps, useless for DVDs and topside unless you do only online work. So essentially it's a 720p camera. The AF is rudimentary for video. But it shoots RAW and has the shallow DOF and access to all sorts of lenses. A dedicated video camera has one lens, with converters for wide and tele and those options aren't great nor cheap once you get over 95°. Shoots only jpeg (and not well at that) but has all the video features including optical stabilization(pretty much essential for hand held). The best way is for you to head down to the local store and check both out. I'd consider the XR500 and Canon HF series before the CX series. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy Davies 0 Posted August 27, 2009 My gut feeling is that the DLSRs will win the convergence race as the move is towards collection of data in raw and processing of images afterwards. A Nikon or Canon "brain" will be alot cheaper and more compact that an equivalent Scarlet etc. Andy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
