Looking for a budget "cinema" camera

[Toxic Tom]

Hi all, first of all I don't know much about photography/cinematography and I have never owned a proper camera before. I have been looking for a decent video camera to record documentary & short film type footage with a cinematic look.

The black magic pocket cinema camera really grabs me, and the footage I've seen recorded on it is really inspiring. I plan to upgrade to one of those a long way in the future if I find I enjoy filmmaking, but the bmpcc is way out of my price range right now.

So, I need to find a cheapish camera that I can use for the meantime, and see if I really like filmmaking.

I don't have any money to put towards it yet so I'll have to save up, but I'll be looking at £450 maximum (including some sort of lens) and I would prefer if it were in the £250-£300 range.

I'm not really bothered about stills, but I will be taking those too if the camera allows.

What say you camera people?

[ReTV]

In this price range, just go with the A5100 (and a vintage prime lens). It has got the same sensor as the awesome A6000 and it has internal XAVC S recording.

See sample footage of the cam here: http://philipbloom.net/2014/05/12/a6000/

And here is Cinema5Ds test of the 5100: http://www.cinema5d.com/exclusivesony-a5100-video-review-footage/

[Scruffy90]

What are you looking to shoot and do you need specific features that are usually baked into cine camaras?

 

What is your approximate budget?

[Victorious Secret]

Cinematic look also comes from how you edit and grade your footage after the fact. Look into "cine style" profiles for whatever camera you buy. 

[Bsmith]

the camera doesn't really matter, altogh mirrorless/DSLR is prefferd and if you want a real cinematic look its mostly down to the lenses(expensive as fuck!) and the way you edit your footage, just as @Victorious Secret said, altough i would say skill/experience is also a factor, that's why starting out with photography is recommanded to learn about the basics in video/cinematography, since its the same, but then with 24-60 pictures each second instead of 5 photo's.

[Toxic Tom]

In this price range, just go with the A5100 (and a vintage prime lens). It has got the same sensor as the awesome A6000 and it has internal XAVC S recording.

See sample footage of the cam here: http://philipbloom.net/2014/05/12/a6000/

And here is Cinema5Ds test of the 5100: http://www.cinema5d.com/exclusivesony-a5100-video-review-footage/

 

I'll have a look at that, thanks.

 

What are you looking to shoot and do you need specific features that are usually baked into cine camaras?

 

What is your approximate budget?

 

I don't think I need any specific features no, just something that produces nice looking video. I described my budget in the OP.

 

Cinematic look also comes from how you edit and grade your footage after the fact. Look into "cine style" profiles for whatever camera you buy. 

 

I'm gonna need a camera before I start doing that! But thanks for the tip

 

the camera doesn't really matter, altogh mirrorless/DSLR is prefferd and if you want a real cinematic look its mostly down to the lenses(expensive as fuck!) and the way you edit your footage, just as @Victorious Secret said, altough i would say skill/experience is also a factor, that's why starting out with photography is recommanded to learn about the basics in video/cinematography, since its the same, but then with 24-60 pictures each second instead of 5 photo's.

 

Any mirrorless/DSLR you can recommend? Which type is better for film?

[Victorious Secret]

I'll have a look at that, thanks.

 

 

I don't think I need any specific features no, just something that produces nice looking video. I described my budget in the OP.

 

 

I'm gonna need a camera before I start doing that! But thanks for the tip

 

 

Any mirrorless/DSLR you can recommend? Which type is better for film?

 

Based off your budget I'd look at some of the earlier Rebels that included 1080p/24fps recording (at minimum). Maybe see if the Panasonic GH2/GH3 are cheap enough now since those are some of the best mirrorless options for video recording right now. 

[Scruffy90]

I'll have a look at that, thanks.

 

 

I don't think I need any specific features no, just something that produces nice looking video. I described my budget in the OP.

 

 

I'm gonna need a camera before I start doing that! But thanks for the tip

 

 

Any mirrorless/DSLR you can recommend? Which type is better for film?

GH2/GH3 with firmware hack would probably be the best bang for the buck and may be within your budget (there are a ton of lenses available for m4/3 and a ton of adapters for existing lenses for other mounts).

 

Would also look at older Canon DSLR's (T2i comes to mind) and use magic lantern. It would breathe new life into the camera.

[Toxic Tom]

 

Would also look at older Canon DSLR's (T2i comes to mind) and use magic lantern. It would breathe new life into the camera.

 

Based off your budget I'd look at some of the earlier Rebels that included 1080p/24fps recording (at minimum).

 

Like a 1200D? That compared to the Nikon D3200?

 

Maybe see if the Panasonic GH2/GH3 are cheap enough now since those are some of the best mirrorless options for video recording right now. 

 

GH2/GH3 with firmware hack would probably be the best bang for the buck and may be within your budget (there are a ton of lenses available for m4/3 and a ton of adapters for existing lenses for other mounts).

 

Too expensive  A GH3 is like £640 in the uk

[Toxic Tom]

In this price range, just go with the A5100 (and a vintage prime lens). It has got the same sensor as the awesome A6000 and it has internal XAVC S recording.

See sample footage of the cam here: http://philipbloom.net/2014/05/12/a6000/

And here is Cinema5Ds test of the 5100: http://www.cinema5d.com/exclusivesony-a5100-video-review-footage/

 

How does that compare to the A5000? I like the mirrorless form factor of the sony cams

[ReTV]

How does that compare to the A5000?

The A5000 is a vastly speced-down version. Really not made for "cinema" use:

No internal XAVCS, only AVCHD. Less robust in grading, more mush in high ISO.

No standard slowmotion (i.e. no 60p).

Overheating issues.

Really, a5100 is as low as I'd go. Plus, you get a very capable stills camera (hybrid AF...).

 

I like the mirrorless form factor of the sony cams

For starting cinematographers that means vintage lenses. You can use old glass to build your lens collection fast and cheap.

[Scruffy90]

 

 

 

 

 

Like a 1200D? That compared to the Nikon D3200?

 

 

 

 

Too expensive  A GH3 is like £640 in the uk

 

What about the GH2? The GH2 is still a very competent machine.

[Toxic Tom]

What about the GH2? The GH2 is still a very competent machine.

 

I can't seem to find them anywhere...

[Toxic Tom]

The A5000 is a vastly speced-down version. Really not made for "cinema" use:

No internal XAVCS, only AVCHD. Less robust in grading, more mush in high ISO.

No standard slowmotion (i.e. no 60p).

Overheating issues.

Really, a5100 is as low as I'd go. Plus, you get a very capable stills camera (hybrid AF...).

 

For starting cinematographers that means vintage lenses. You can use old glass to build your lens collection fast and cheap.

 

Okay thanks, that's very helpful! What vintage lenses could you suggest? I presume I'd have to look on eBay/CL etc, to find them?

[polymoth]

get this and some m 4/3 lenses and your good

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/964117-REG/blackmagic_design_blackmagic_pocket_cinema_camera.html

[ReTV]

Okay thanks, that's very helpful! What vintage lenses could you suggest? I presume I'd have to look on eBay/CL etc, to find them?

Best bang for the buck are Minolta. Get one MD to NEX adapter (dont go cheap here) and a lens. For your first lens I'd suggest the Minolta Rokkor 50mm 1.7.

[Toxic Tom]

get this and some m 4/3 lenses and your good

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/964117-REG/blackmagic_design_blackmagic_pocket_cinema_camera.html

 

Did you read my OP? lol

 

 

Best bang for the buck are Minolta. Get one MD to NEX adapter (dont go cheap here) and a lens. For your first lens I'd suggest the Minolta Rokkor 50mm 1.7.

 

Okay thanks, I'll have a look

[Redmond]

I recommend against getting a m4/3 camera or any camera for that matter with such a small sensor size. One of the biggest tools to get a cinematic feel is the control of depth of field. You can get pretty shallow depth of field on m4/3 but to get this you have to spend quite a bit on lenses with apertures f1.4 or faster to make up for the smaller sensor size. And trust me, f1.4 lenses on any platform aren't cheap.

 

I recommend getting like a T5i or earlier and then getting a cheap prime lens. You can get an ef 50mm f1.8 for like $125 new. There's also options to go wider with Canon's 24mm pancake lens with an aperture of f2.8 for $150 new. It's not the fastest lens but since the Rebel line uses an APS-C sized sensor rather than m4/3 you can get away with a slightly slower aperture.

 

With your budget, I think this would suit you best. 

[Toxic Tom]

I recommend against getting a m4/3 camera or any camera for that matter with such a small sensor size. One of the biggest tools to get a cinematic feel is the control of depth of field. You can get pretty shallow depth of field on m4/3 but to get this you have to spend quite a bit on lenses with apertures f1.4 or faster to make up for the smaller sensor size. And trust me, f1.4 lenses on any platform aren't cheap.

 

I recommend getting like a T5i or earlier and then getting a cheap prime lens. You can get an ef 50mm f1.8 for like $125 new. There's also options to go wider with Canon's 24mm pancake lens with an aperture of f2.8 for $150 new. It's not the fastest lens but since the Rebel line uses an APS-C sized sensor rather than m4/3 you can get away with a slightly slower aperture.

 

With your budget, I think this would suit you best. 

 

Okay thanks. I've looked at some of the vintage lenses and you can get f1.4 prime lenses for not too much money... maybe a larger sensor would be nice though

[Redmond]

Okay thanks. I've looked at some of the vintage lenses and you can get f1.4 prime lenses for not too much money... maybe a larger sensor would be nice though

 

I meant to imply modern new lenses.

 

EDIT: derp moment. Vintage lenses are definitely an option.

[Omon_Ra]

 

 

Too expensive  A GH3 is like £640 in the uk

 

 

Two used GH2's on Amazon.co.uk for £300: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH2EG-K-mirrorless-supported/dp/B004445O1S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1425064229&sr=8-1&keywords=panasonic+gh2

 

The Panasonic G6 is basically the GH2 but with 1080p/60fps (the GH2 can only do 720p/60fps) and is £379: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-DMC-G6KEB-K-Digital-Compact-Interchangeable/dp/B00CI3ITDW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1425064239&sr=8-1&keywords=panasonic+g6

 

If you go with the GH2, get some good SD cards and hack away. I still shoot with a GH2 with Driftwood's Moon Trial 7 and the footage is great. I will probably upgrade when a GH5 or a second gen BMPCC comes along, but it's still holds its own. If you can even find a used GH1, you can hack that as well.

 

 

I recommend against getting a m4/3 camera or any camera for that matter with such a small sensor size. One of the biggest tools to get a cinematic feel is the control of depth of field. You can get pretty shallow depth of field on m4/3 but to get this you have to spend quite a bit on lenses with apertures f1.4 or faster to make up for the smaller sensor size. And trust me, f1.4 lenses on any platform aren't cheap.

 

I recommend getting like a T5i or earlier and then getting a cheap prime lens. You can get an ef 50mm f1.8 for like $125 new. There's also options to go wider with Canon's 24mm pancake lens with an aperture of f2.8 for $150 new. It's not the fastest lens but since the Rebel line uses an APS-C sized sensor rather than m4/3 you can get away with a slightly slower aperture.

 

With your budget, I think this would suit you best. 

 

 

Have you shot with m4/3? I really think the 'lack of depth of field' is greatly over-stated. There's more to the 'cinematic feel' than shallow depth of field. Just because an APS-C or full frame sensor will give you a tiny sliver of focus when shooting wide open, doesn't magically make it 'cinematic.' And then keeping focus on a moving subject can be rather tricky, especially without a follow focus. I find myself stopping down more than usual shooting on full-frames to keep people's entire faces in focus. You can get plenty of depth of field on m4/3 with a f2.8 or 1.8 lens, which are plentiful, especially on the used/legacy market. Add a SpeedBooster and you can get a little bit more if you desire. There are some f/0.95 lenses out there, but they are fairly expensive (it's not like super fast Canon/Nikon glass is cheap either though). 

 

Aside from depth of field though, there's other things to consider for a camera. The GH series basically has no moire issues, m4/3 can be adapted to use a lot of quality, inexpensive, legacy lenses, and the fact they are (generally) smaller and lighter is quite noticeable on long shoots. Since it's not a Canon or Nikon, nobody really thinks twice when I'm shooting, which is nice for public settings or with models/actors who aren't super comfortable in front of a camera. That's not to say m4/3 is free from drawbacks, low light performance is acceptable, but nothing great (except for 12800 in B&W..somehow it's pretty nice), the crop factor makes using legacy wide angle lenses difficult, but there are so many more native wide angles now than when I first started shooting m4/3. The T5i is a nice camera, especially if OP is going to be doing stills in addition to video, or shooting in a lot of low light situations; but I think at this budget, and as a first camera, m4/3 is the way to go. 

[Toxic Tom]

snip

 

Wow, thanks, really detailed post!

 

So what would you say is the advantage of these Panasonic cameras over the Sony a5100?

[Redmond]

 

 

 

Again I said depth of field is a tool. I agree too much shallow depth of field can definitely ruin a shot or make it a pain to shoot which is why I didn't go recommending a full frame camera and expensive full frame lenses. Keep it mind the poster has a very small budget. Also m4/3 sensor size is small meaning (generally) lower low light performance. You noted the metabones speed booster which in it self is almost as much as the the OPs budget. You also noted m4/3 crop factor of 2x which I agree is a pain trying to adapt legacy lenses, getting different adapters (some of as noted before can be very expensive), trying to even find the lenses you need, at the prices you need.

 

Everything you said is just more evidence not to get a m4/3 camera, especially while the OP specifically said he doesn't know too much about the subject and more so that he has a small budget. I'm not saying m4/3 doesn't have its uses but you're not taking into account that the OP is just getting his feet wet. 

 

EDIT: Also I don't really see the benefit of not shooting canon or nikon out in public or in front of actors. The GH2 that you're recommending is just as big and when you get a video rig going it'll be roughly the same size anyway. I hardly think the public is going to specifically point out that you're shooting nikon or canon and then proceed to act strangely. If you're actors suddenly cannot act in front of a camera with a different name brand, then I am unsure if they should be actors. 

[Toxic Tom]

Best bang for the buck are Minolta. Get one MD to NEX adapter (dont go cheap here) and a lens. For your first lens I'd suggest the Minolta Rokkor 50mm 1.7.

 

How much would I need to spend on a MD to NEX adapter to get a decent one? I've been looking at the Minolta Rokkor 50mm 1.4 and it's not much more, should I get that?

[ReTV]

How much would I need to spend on a MD to NEX adapter to get a decent one? I've been looking at the Minolta Rokkor 50mm 1.4 and it's not much more, should I get that?

 

Yeah, the 1.4 version is fine, too. I'd recommend KIWI / photodiox adapters (they look like this) over cheap ones. KIWIs have better internal coating against reflections and their security pin doesn't rip your skin of (like it's the case with those cheap chinese ones).