# $2,000 Dollar budget! What to do?



## SteadyMedia (Jan 25, 2013)

Well. I have discovered this forum through a simple google search "photography forum" clicked the first one I saw. I will be honest. I want to you guys for your brains. Your experience. Your time. Thank you in advance.

I have $2000 dollars. I love to shoot music videos. In fact I shot a bunch with a Nikon D3100 with Nikon 50mm (don't have a clue what it means BUT! I know it gave me the quality I wanted).

Not a plug.. This link is for you to see what ive done.
youtube.com/thesteadymedia

I know nothing about camera's. I learn fast but forget quickly. Once I dump my own cash into my own set up, I will then take this serious. That's where you come in (if you want).

I had my heart set on a canon 7d. But I know that the 7d processor is the same as the t4i! SO same video quality. My main focus is video BUT I love taking pictures. 

This is the lens I would like:
Canon EF 24mm-105mm f4 L IS USM Lens, USA #0344B002 0344B002

Along with a 50mm aswell. 

I was thinking of getting the body on Craigs List so I can invest in some L series glass and maybe a nice battery grip and flash.

I would love your thoughts. I have much more things to say but thats pretty much to the point. Im an avid photoshop user so "perfecting" a picture would be easy so im not too picky on body.

Thank you for your time!!! I look forward to being embarrassed and assisted.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 25, 2013)

Ummm...Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS USM lenses sell for around $800, used. A TON of them were sold with 5D, and 5D Mark II kits. I bought a 5D kit with the 24-105-L, all in a nifty big ole' box from Canon...so...there are LOADS of them used, all over North America. In fact, I believe there is one for sale on TPF TODAY, for $800 OBO.

USED amateur-level cameras, like Nikon D7000, or Canon T3i or T4i, are a fantastic way to save a TON of hard-earned money. I normally buy used cameras, and used lenses. So, that's my advice--try to source some used gear, and save some money, and then get some accessories you will want.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jan 25, 2013)

Contax 645 Outfit w Planar 80mm F2 T Lens | eBay


----------



## Derrel (Jan 25, 2013)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Contax 645 Outfit w Planar 80mm F2 T Lens | eBay



I bet that shoots one helllll of a music video!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 25, 2013)

Umm, well I don't want to sound silly, but if your main interest is video, wouldn't your money be better spent on a dedicated pro video camera?  Just saying...


----------



## SteadyMedia (Jan 25, 2013)

coastalconn said:


> Umm, well I don't want to sound silly, but if your main interest is video, wouldn't your money be better spent on a dedicated pro video camera?  Just saying...



Just a little silly. DSLR is like the new industry minimum for indy ish types. 

I love taking pictures. if i knew how to upload some of my photos you would agree i have some sort of noobish talent that has some serious potential.


----------



## SteadyMedia (Jan 25, 2013)




----------



## brunerww (Jan 26, 2013)

Very nice picture, SteadyMedia. If your main focus is video, but you like to take stills, the best choice in your price range is the $1299 (body-only) Panasonic GH3. With the remaining $700, I would buy a selection of primes, the Sigma 19mm f2.8, the Sigma 30mm f2.8 and the Olympus 45mm f1.8.

With these three lenses and the camera's built-in extended tele converter mode, you will have wide, medium, portrait and short telephoto coverage.

The GH3 is a much better video camera than the Canons or Nikons (it has essentially no clip length limit, its viewfinder and autofocus continue to work in video mode, it shoots 1080/60p slow motion, and it has a headphone jack).  No Canon or Nikon DSLR can match that video feature set, even at the $3000 price point.

Here is the video Panasonic used to intro the capabilities of the camera:

[video=vimeo;49420579]http://vimeo.com/49420579[/video]


And here is the still image quality it can produce: Flickr: The Panasonic GH3 Pool

Hope this is helpful,

Bill


----------



## SteadyMedia (Jan 26, 2013)

brunerww said:


> Very nice picture, SteadyMedia. If your main focus is video, but you like to take stills, the best choice in your price range is the $1299 (body-only) Panasonic GH3. With the remaining $700, I would buy a selection of primes, the Sigma 19mm f2.8, the Sigma 30mm f2.8 and the Olympus 45mm f1.8.
> 
> With these three lenses and the camera's built-in extended tele converter mode, you will have wide, medium, portrait and short telephoto coverage.
> 
> ...




OH MY GAWD. I will research into this!!! THIS IS FREAKING FANTASTIC!!!!! Oh and thanks! that picture was taken with a nikon d3100 50mm lense.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jan 26, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Sw1tchFX said:
> 
> 
> > Contax 645 Outfit w Planar 80mm F2 T Lens | eBay
> ...


LOL it does have a built in motor drive, you know!!

for example:





He'd be shooting on essentially 70mm movie film!!!


----------



## SteadyMedia (Jan 27, 2013)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Sw1tchFX said:
> ...



im trying to figure out the humor here. am i being made fun of or something? if so... cool.


----------



## Overread (Jan 27, 2013)

Don't mind Switch - he's just a sleep deprived film addict  

As for your choices I sadly can't advise strongly on bodies for video work as I don't know enough about the features - however I would look into considering support items for video work. Almost all the DSLR rigs I see used for video work often make heavy use of accessories to enable easy video work (both for on the tripod and also for handheld work). There are loads of accessories for this from high price to cheap so I would strongly look into that area. Whilst its not a lens or camera body it will make the video shooting process itself easier and simpler and also increase the quality of what you can get.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jan 27, 2013)

Oh c'mon, you can't think i'm being serious now?


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 27, 2013)

SteadyMedia said:


> im trying to figure out the humor here. am i being made fun of or something? if so... cool.



You'll be just fine here.  Finally, someone who understands survival on the internet.  Just let it roll baby.  lol

And I think he's mocking himself, not you.  Although a few years back, the rage was to use a HVX w/ medium format lenses and a "vibrating projection screen camera obscura type thingy".  Thank god that era passed and we now have big sensors mated directly to good glass.


----------



## SJphoto (Feb 4, 2013)

For video, I would suggest the Canon 5D Mark II. Save up for it if you don't already have the money.


----------



## ktan7 (May 11, 2013)

You should invest in at least a Canon Mark II if you plan on shooting videos in the future. Don't buy something cheap and upgrade later. You will be wasting ton of money instead of saving!


----------



## FreshFromTheGrave (May 31, 2013)

coastalconn said:


> Umm, well I don't want to sound silly, but if your main interest is video, wouldn't your money be better spent on a dedicated pro video camera?  Just saying...



I work in post production for broadcast and we have directors shooting their commercials (and not low budget stuff either) on 5D's over broadcast cams more and more often now. In fact when comparing the footage off a 5D vs that off a Sony HDVCam which is actually more expensive, the 5D is the obvious winner. Actually I hate Sony HDVCams, footage is noisy, nasty, it doesn't key, there's no colour depth - they should be banned from studios!

So don't assume that a video camera will automatically be better than a DSLR at the same or even greater price point  I think I'd probably prefer DSLR footage over anything else up until Arri and RED level. But those will break several banks


----------



## JohnTrav (May 31, 2013)

I have a 7D and the video on it is amazing.  I don't do too much shooting of video anymore since still imaging really captured my interests more. 

Also you could always put Magic Lantern on your CF card for the 7D and install it when you use it. It has some great features in the menus for shooting video that canon doesn't offer in their menu on the 7D. I also believe they have Magic Lantern for 5D's as well. 

You can definitely get a 7D used and the 24-105 L used and stay within your budget. I seen 7D for as low as 800 used. 

Also keep in mind though how fast you want the video to shoot fps. I know the 7D does 24fps at 1080p and can do 60fps at 720p. I am not sure what the 5D is capable of. I personally always shot at 24fps at 1080p but I never slowed my video down to slow motion too much in post production.


----------



## Tailgunner (May 31, 2013)

FreshFromTheGrave said:


> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> > Umm, well I don't want to sound silly, but if your main interest is video, wouldn't your money be better spent on a dedicated pro video camera?  Just saying...
> ...



Audio on DSLRs is an issue, the controls are non exsitent or noisy and you need to fork over the extra coin for an external mic and software. The software alone could run an additional $200-300.


----------



## DGMPhotography (May 31, 2013)

I'd say you have several options here, the Panasonic suggestion being the best of course. I personally have my own plan for video which I'd be glad to share. This is more for those who are on a budget, or for you if you want to save a little more. For images I have my Nikon D5100 and kit lens which cost me about $500 all together. The video isn't BAD, but the audio could definitely use some improvement, like an external Mic. As for software, I just use iMovie which suits all my needs. My camera can record up to 20 minutes at a time which would be more than sufficient for something like a music video. Anyway, that's not my point. I do realize my DSLR's video limitations, so I plan to, at one point, purchase a flip cam. They go for around $100-$200, and are GREAT quality. You may still want to get an external Mic, but these things were made for video with a variety of options and of course, shooting at 1080p. In the end, you'd be saving yourself about $1300 with this setup with perfectly satisfying results. Just my 2 cents. Do some research! Let us know what you decide, and post some results!


----------



## FreshFromTheGrave (May 31, 2013)

Tailgunner said:


> FreshFromTheGrave said:
> 
> 
> > coastalconn said:
> ...



But you may end up needing to do that with a video camera anyways depending. Not all of them have capable shotgun mics and the ones that do tend to be quite small I think? Could be wrong  I've never seen a broadcast camera on shoot with a mic attached. You may be right about the controls though, pretty much every shoot I've been on that has even had audio was done with a separate sound guy with a boom mic completely disconnected from the camera. Which isn't a problem but it could start getting overwhelming logistically for an individual to do separate audio streams and have to sync it back up when there's lots of shots.

Doesn't Magic Lantern help out with audio controls though or is the audio hardware just not cutting it on these cameras? The other interesting point about filming on DSLR is your easily available and relatively cheap choice of lenses and accessories. But I'd just record audio separately if quality was an issue recording to camera (with something like a Tascam DR-40 not a boom mic!). As long as you keep yourself organised and have the same number of audio recordings as you do shots it's no problem putting them back together again


----------



## DGMPhotography (May 31, 2013)

Tiffany Alvord uses a DSLR with Mic attachment for her videos! 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...86853439.36754.123457944345887&type=1&theater

It would appear to be a Canon 600D, and Rode Videomic Pro!


----------

