Canon 500D or 1200D for video recording

[ichigo66]

Hi guys, i'm new in this forum so this is my first post. 

Im planning to buy my first camera. This camera will be used primarily for video recording in 1080p. Th problem is, my budget quite limited at only 400$. With that budget i can get a new canon 1200D. But one of my friend offer me his Canon 500d complete with secondary battery and 500mm canon lens at the same price. 

So my question is: Which one i should choose? 

Thanx

[ALwin]

A friend is offering you a 500mm Canon lens within that price?

 

I looked at the specs, it seems the 1200D offers a better implementation of video.  The frame rates on the 500D are limited, with 1080p running at 20fps which is a non standard frame rate.  The minimum frame rate should always be 24 fps for a normal video.  Slower than 24fps and you are looking at recording Quick Motion.

[ichigo66]

yap, thats why i'm really confused right now. its a very good deal, but i don't know if that DLSR is good for video or not.. 

oh.. i see.. so 1200D is more suitable for video recording. Thanks  for ur help, man. But i will still open this thread to hear another opinion because this is my first DSLR and i try t find the best with the budget i have. 

[ALwin]

snip

 

If you want to record video, one of the things you want to look for in the specifications aside from video resolution, are the frame rates that the camera records.

 

Standard frame rates:

1. 24p (23.97 fps)
2. 25p or 25 fps, mostly in PAL countries
3. 30p (29.97 fps)
4. 50p or 50 fps, mostly in PAL countries
5. 60p (59.97 fps)

The ones I indicated as PAL countries are not normally used in countries such as the US where NTSC is the standard.

24, 25 and 30 are the normal broadcasting, playback standards for all over the world, of course keeping in mind some countries are NTSC and some are PAL regions.

 

48fps (Peter Jackson, The Hobbit), 50fps, 60fps are used for doing either of two things:

• recording smooth motion
• recording at a higher frame rate to play back with a bit of slow motion

For example, video recorded with 60fps can be played back with either of these three settings:

• Record and play back at 60fps for smoother motion, less motion blur.  However you have to know when and where to use it.  If you're going to be filming someone who is standing still and talking, 60fps can be a waste of time.  But if you're at a basketball game, for example, where the players are moving fast then the higher frame rate could be very useful.
• Record at 60fps but convert/interpret footage to 30fps on editing/rendering.  The results of interpreting the footage would either drop the unnecessary frames or merge them.
• Record at 60fps and time remap to 30fps.  This will slow down the speed of play back by 50%, making it appear as if the motion in the video is slower.  Slow motion, to a certain degree.

Any video recorded under 24p (23.97 fps), you would have to interpret the footage or time remap to at least 24p.  With interpretation a program like Premiere will try to generate missing frames using the data from previous and next frames.  With time remap, you are speeding up the motion, making it appear faster.

 

Any video recorded faster than 60p (59.97 fps), you will have to interpret or time remap.  In this case, cinematographers avoid recording faster than 60p just to interpret because that's not why they are recording at high frame rates.  So 99.99% of video footage recorded faster than 60p is time remapped for slow motion.  All consumer cameras capable of recording faster than 60p will by default time remap the recorded video into either a default standard frame rate or a user selected frame rate before storing the file onto the memory card.

[.spider.]

 

24, 25 and 30 are the normal broadcasting, playback standards for all over the world, of course keeping in mind some countries are NTSC and some are PAL regions.

 

 

There is nothing to keep in mind. 

The ITU standards are dead (They are often confused with PAL/NTSC)

[ALwin]

There is nothing to keep in mind. 

The ITU standards are dead (They are often confused with PAL/NTSC)

 

This is one of the most ignorant comments you've ever made.

 

While the world may no longer use PAL, NTSC and SECAM as digital standards are replacing them, all the digital standards that are in use have a basis in the old analog standards of PAL, NTSC, SECAM.  Hence former NTSC regions tend to use 24p and 30p while former PAL regions where electrical frequencies are 50hz use 25p.  I guess you've never worked in broadcasting before?  Each country, each TV or broadcasting agency has their own guidelines on how to format video that they record or receive from freelancers.

 

And while standards like ATSC or DVB might have replaced NTSC and PAL, cameras are still labeled or have settings that differentiate between NTSC or PAL and 60hz and 50hz.

 

It might not matter for Youtube whatever frame rate is uploaded, but for anyone who wants to work with producing films or broadcasting, knowing where, when and why to use a certain frame rate is important.

[.spider.]

 

 

While the world may no longer use PAL, NTSC and SECAM as digital standards are replacing them, all the digital standards that are in use have a basis in the old analog standards of PAL, NTSC, SECAM.  Hence former NTSC regions tend to use 24p and 30p while former PAL regions where electrical frequencies are 50hz use 25p.  I guess you've never worked in broadcasting before?  Each country, each TV or broadcasting agency has their own guidelines on how to format video that they record or receive from freelancers.

 

And while standards like ATSC or DVB might have replaced NTSC and PAL, cameras are still labeled or have settings that differentiate between NTSC or PAL and 60hz and 50hz.

 

It might not matter for Youtube whatever frame rate is uploaded, but for anyone who wants to work with producing films or broadcasting, knowing where, when and why to use a certain frame rate is important.

 

Firstly former B, G, H, I country are using 24p in the same amount like former M countries do.

Secondly former B, G, H, I countries are now using 50i primary.  

Thirdly, most DVB receivers are totally fine with switching frame rates.

Fourthly, the thread starter never said a single word abuot broadcasting.

Finally 50Hz mains frequency countries use 24p, 25p, 30p, 50i, 60i.

 

 

 

but for anyone who wants to work with producing films or broadcasting, knowing where, when and why to use a certain frame rate is important.

 

  And it is quite obvious that you do not know that. 

[ALwin]

snip

 

Again I repeat, each region, country, production studio or broadcasting agency has their own guidelines on which standard to follow or requiring their film crews/freelancers to submit in which format.  It's obvious you don't know these things at all.

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/newsLetter/Frame-or-Non-Drop-Frame.jsp

The EBU standard is 25 and 50.

SMTE uses 30 - 60

Film is 24

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/contents/television.shtml

 

I didn't start the discussion about broadcasting, I was telling the OP to know when to choose the frame rate for his/her video and for which purpose.

[.spider.]

 

The EBU standard is 25 and 50.

 

25? i/25 or p25?

50? i50, or p50?

I am confused. 

 

 

 

I didn't start the discussion about broadcasting, I was telling the OP to know when to choose the frame rate for his/her video and for which purpose.

 

NO! You were spreading some half true information, which sometimes apply for broadcasting without indicating that. 

[ichigo66]

hmm.. this thread slanting quiet far from the first topic... hahaha...

 

So in the end, which one i should buy? 500D or 1200D? or someone have another suggestion for camera wether its DSLR or mirrorless? I'll use it primarily for video recording and a few photoshot. My budget is around 400-500$

[ALwin]

hmm.. this thread slanting quiet far from the first topic... hahaha...

So in the end, which one i should buy? 500D or 1200D? or someone have another suggestion for camera wether its DSLR or mirrorless? I'll use it primarily for video recording and a few photoshot. My budget is around 400-500$

Yeah, unfortunately there's at least one like that on every forum that - snip - . Most of the time I tune them out.

Anyway back to the topic on hand, you can always get an entry level Canon, Nikon, Sony camera or if you want to focus more on video, get a pretty good camcorder.

The main difference between DSLR and Mirrorless are size/weight. The advantage Mirrorless has over DSLR is the shorter flange distance enabling users to mount a variety of lenses using adapters.

If you need more help, read the guide in my signature.

Edited January 21, 2016 by alpenwasser
Snipped out not-so-nice remark directed at other member. Please don't do that. Thanks. :)

[.spider.]

So in the end, which one i should buy? 500D or 1200D? or someone have another suggestion for camera wether its DSLR or mirrorless? I'll use it primarily for video recording and a few photoshot. My budget is around 400-500$

Nikon D3300

Video quality is a tiny bit better, picture quality is a lot better.

[ichigo66]

@spider: Okk.. i will try to look at that nikon. thanx for your recommendation.
@ALwin: ouh... i see then.. i'll try too look at the guide first before deciding. thanx man..

[ALwin]

snip

 

Before choosing a Nikon, you need to be aware of a few things:

1. In the world of video cameras, even just at the consumer level, Canon, Sony, Panasonic and JVC are big players with years of experience. Nikon is playing catch up.
2. Nikon cameras with video are OK for people who just want to purchase it simply for the sake of having a camera that records video.
3. While out of the box footage with a Nikon can appear better initially, once past the editing phase, the difference between footage taken by similar Nikon, Canon, Sony, Panasonic, etc. cameras have very very marginal noticeable difference.
4. Canon for example, by taking the expertise they have from their video camera design team, have implemented very good features in their cameras for those who wish to use them for video production.  Hence you might have seen or heard that Hollywood has used a Canon DSLR for filming blockbuster movies.
5. Most often, Nikon records video at about a mere 25Mbps bit rate.  Sony, Canon, Panasonic tends to offer the user the choice to shoot in higher bit rates, either natively in the camera settings or (in the case of some Canon) via a third party firmware enhancement like Magic Lantern.

For a good example, look at this list and notice that Nikon cameras were used for only 4 movies and in one instance it was only to capture still photos, not for filming.  There's a good reason why Canon is preferred.

http://www.imdb.com/list/ls059550382/

 

Again, that's not to say Nikon cameras are useless or a bad choice.

 

For example:

• You need a camera capable of recording video to film family holidays, events such as birthdays, etc. and you don't really care about editing or any other production workflow, a Nikon is OK.
• You need a camera capable of recording video so that you can produce indie films, start as an amateur videographer so you can later become a semi-pro or professional, study video editing, etc. try to avoid getting a Nikon.

To quote one of my favorite photographers

"It's a fine line between getting great gear that works for us and just buying it because we think it'll magically make our images better."

- David DuChemin

 

Even in photography, an experienced photographer is capable of capturing a wonderful photo regardless of gear.  Photography and cinematography rely less on the technical capabilities of the hardware and more on the talent, vision, creativity and imagination of the person operating the cameras.

[.spider.]

You see there are no reasons for Canon except for I always used Canon and they were first.

Higher bitrate doesn't mean better image quality.

[ALwin]

You see there are no reasons for Canon except for I always used Canon and they were first.

Higher bitrate doesn't mean better image quality.

 

LOL I just realized, you think only in one dimension.

 

Whilst I never specifically told the OP to get a Canon over a Nikon or anything, there are many other factors that make getting a Canon or Sony a better option than the Nikon.  Not just bit rate and image quality.  Canon (sometimes with the help of magic lantern) and Sony provides videographers additional features like focus assist, zebra, vectorscope, waveforms and other things that assist in the creation of a better video.  Without having to resort to buying an expensive external recorder.

 

Additionally, higher bit rate master files are better to work with in post production.

 

Here are some of the stuff Magic Lantern adds to Canon cameras.

 

 

 

Oh, and image quality?  That depends on the user, not the camera.  A person can own a camera that has fantastic image quality (according to test charts) and produce low quality image/footage if they don't know how to use the camera, whilst an experienced user can produce better image quality even with a camera that has worse image quality (according to test chart comparisons).

 

As I keep saying, experience trumps!

 

Award winning photographers have used Nikon, Sony, Canon, Panasonic, Leica, Hasselblad, Fuji, etc. over the decades and not a single one of them has ever been praised for the camera they used.  They are praised for their artistic vision, talent, skill, the risks they take, the images they captured.

 

Here's a bit of an anecdote that reflects your statement about "image quality".

 

When Jack London had his portrait made by the noted San Francisco photographer Arnold Genthe, London began the encounter with effusive praise for the photographic art of his friend and fellow bohemian, Genthe. “you must have a wonderful camera...It must be the best camera in the world...You must show me your camera.” Genthe then used his standard studio camera to make what has since become a classic picture of Jack London. When the sitting was finished, Genthe could not contain himself: “I have read your books, Jack, and I think they are important works of art. You must have a wonderful typewriter.” - Anonymous

 

You're the person that thinks quality or talent is synonymous with gear.

[ichigo66]

Hmm.. so in the end its back to the user. Btw i want to correct something first. At my first post, i said 500mm lens but thats a typo and actually its just 50mm lens... Sorry bout that, just realize tha mistak now.. x_x. 

So the conclusion that i get is any beginner level camera wether its DSLR or Mirrorless is good for beginners because the first one i must learn is how to take a good video. It that right? 

[ALwin]

Hmm.. so in the end its back to the user. Btw i want to correct something first. At my first post, i said 500mm lens but thats a typo and actually its just 50mm lens... Sorry bout that, just realize tha mistak now.. x_x.

So the conclusion that i get is any beginner level camera wether its DSLR or Mirrorless is good for beginners because the first one i must learn is how to take a good video. It that right?

Yes. In a way.

Oh and I already figured you or your friend meant 50mm.

Don't forget about accessories like mics, lights, etc. for video.

[ichigo66]

okay then.. thanx for ur help, man.

[ALwin]

okay then.. thanx for ur help, man.

 

You're welcome.

 

As I said previously, if all you're doing is family home videos, vacation videos, etc. where you don't really care for editing in a program like Adobe Premiere Pro, only to be shared with family and friends to say "Here!  Look at what we did or where we went or what we saw." any camera capable of video or photo is fine.  Just look for the best one you can afford.

 

But if you want to use a camera to record stuff like interviews, documentary work, making your own independent films, you want to explore your creativity then you have to look at many different criteria than just the specifications of a camera.

 

Of the two camera you originally mentioned the Canon 500D or the 1200D, the 500D from your friend is an OK camera if all you need the camera for the first reason I just mentioned above.

 

But if you need the camera for the second reason, what I wrote in bold above, you need to take into consideration of many different criteria than just getting a capable camera.  1080p at 20fps on a 500D is good enough for "home video" but is not really a standard frame rate that's used currently by anyone for normal video.  The standard frame rates, I mentioned in a previous comment, are 24, 25, 30, 50, 60.  These five frame rates are the most commonly used frame rates in proper video cameras, both consumer and professional cameras.

 

Additionally you have to think about how to record clean or good quality audio.  How to properly expose the scene so that your recorded footage is not over or under exposed (unless you are intentionally under/over exposing for a desired effect).  You have to think about the scene, how are the "actors" in your scene supposed to act/react, their dialogue, etc.

 

I may sometimes go overboard with my explanations or comments, but only because I am trying to give you a better understanding of what you need to look for in a camera.  For me, simply saying "Buy this camera!" is not a good enough response.

 

And I work as a professional, with other professionals, both as a photographer and now as a videographer.  When I'm given a project to photograph or film I'm not thinking only about the camera hardware I need.  I'm thinking about how I need to prepare the lighting, the people who are going to be in the scene, how I am going to record their dialogue, what kind of editing I need to do, what kind of cutting and stitching of footage I need to do, etc.  My mind is looking at the task or project from various perspectives.

[.spider.]

LOL I just realized, you think only in one dimension.

 

 

I already knew that you do not know what you are talking about. To me it looks like that you never used a camera before. 

 

 

 

 

Additionally, higher bit rate master files are better to work with in post production.

I mean that is so ridiculous, it seems so you do not even know that that there are also differences because of codecs and encoder.

 

 

 

 

Here are some of the stuff Magic Lantern adds to Canon cameras.

I know what ML can and I also know what it can not do.

 

 

 

Oh, and image quality?  That depends on the user, not the camera.  A person can own a camera that has fantastic image quality (according to test charts) and produce low quality image/footage if they don't know how to use the camera, whilst an experienced user can produce better image quality even with a camera that has worse image quality (according to test chart comparisons).

Only someone who never tried to push a camera to the limit or does not bother about the highest possible image quality would say something like that. 

 

 

Award winning photographers have used Nikon, Sony, Canon, Panasonic, Leica, Hasselblad, Fuji, etc. over the decades and not a single one of them has ever been praised for the camera they used.  They are praised for their artistic vision, talent, skill, the risks they take, the images they captured.

 

Yeah, and yet some cameras are better.

 

 

 

You're the person that thinks quality or talent is synonymous with gear.

You may think that because you do not understand the correlation between the photographer and the camera.

[.spider.]

 

  1080p at 20fps on a 500D is good enough for "home video" 

No it is just useless. 

[ALwin]

I already knew that you do not know what you are talking about. To me it looks like that you never used a camera before. 

 

 

I mean that is so ridiculous, it seems so you do not even know that that there are also differences because of codecs and encoder.

 

 

I know what ML can and I also know what it can not do.

 

Only someone who never tried to push a camera to the limit or does not bother about the highest possible image quality would say something like that. 

 

Yeah, and yet some cameras are better.

 

You may think that because you do not understand the correlation between the photographer and the camera.

 

No it is just useless. 

 

With these two comments from you, I don't think I need to say anything else to show what kind of person you are.  You are just a small and petty person who really has no interest in helping others.

[.spider.]

With these two comments from you, I don't think I need to say anything else to show what kind of person you are.  You are just a small and petty person who really has no interest in helping others.

You are just an expert in insulting others.

[ichigo66]

@ALwin: okay then, thanx for ur advice. i think i will closed this thread before the fight betwen both of u got bigger. Thanx for ur help, guys..