If you only care about filming which would you pick. 7d/5diii/60d?

I know this is photo.net and not video.net I am not into filming but I have a friend who only does that and owns my old 40D and a few

lenses that is why he is only looking at Canon bodies.

In a nutshell he is willing to pay all the way to a 5dIII. He wants the best he can buy up to that price and he is going to take as many

pictures as I do video with mine (hardly any) so video is the criteria.

His kid play at at band and most video is at nightclubs and poorly lit venues, that is why I thought the full frame would benefit him,

primarily for the lack of light. In any case, I guess there are the 7D the 60D and the 5DIII and the three choices and chances are that in

decent lighting all 3 should be similar but under poor conditions I think the differences will start to show off.

Any recommendations will be appreciated.

Regards.

Alex

If you are interested only in filming, then why not to buy a good camcorder in the same price range as say 7D! Along with 7D and 5Dll, I have a Sony CXE730E which makes very good HD movie as well as captures good quality still images. Following is just a captured image from a recent video - hand-held under the room light!<div></div>

Between the 7D and the 5DIII, it shouldn't make a big difference. Lots of video production companies use the less

expensive 7D when they don't need a full frame angle of view. Reviews that I have read indicate that the 6D has some

shortcomings in the video department, but I don't recall the details.

 

Keep in mind that choosing the proper video accessories is probably more important that the body itself (plus, of course,

learning video technique). This includes lights, mounts/stabilizers, external video monitors, and optional audio recording

gear. Check out the cinema5d website for details on this type of gear.

<p>The best reason to buy a 7D or 5D3 (or 60D or 6D) for video is if you want to do things that 'normal' HD video can't do. If you/he isn't planning on trying to shoot cinematic level videos, or utilize the capabilities of fast primes in your video work, as Husain says, you are probably better off getting a high quality HD camcorder - some of which can be had for significantly less than a 5D3, but will give even an advanced amateur much better results out of the box. I personally am not knowledgable on the variety and quality of the plethora of available video units. <br>

A 7D and 5D3 will produce similar results up into the high ISO range where the 5D3 (and, I'd assume) and the 6D would trump the 7D/60D. The only reason, in general use, you might prefer a 5/6D are if you need the wider FOV granted by your FF sensor, or need the ultra shallow DOF also granted by the FF sensor. An extra stop or two of usable ISO range <em>can</em> be helpful, but often simply isn't.<br>

I ammend that, if you want good video tools also, a 5D2 (w/ ML) might give better results (even though a 7D ML alpha version is now out) than a 5D3 or 6D without ML. </p>

<p>If the 5D3 is within your price range and you are set on a DSLR for video, then I would recommend the 5D3. Others have mentioned most of its strengths. The 5D3 should also have less moire and will the have the better video encoding options (I have been told at least twice that the 6D is a bit dumbed down in this category).</p>

<p>Or you could hold a bit for news of the 7DII - I have a hunch it will be announced quite soon.Then again, its hard to imagine it will best the 5D3 w/r to high iso noise, moire, encoding, etc.</p>

<p>Keep in mind if this is just for general video of family, etc the camcorders autofocus, wide focal length range and built in image stabilizer may be sorely missed.</p>

<p>+1 for ML (Magic Lantern) if you go the DSLR route.</p>

<p>7D will be less focus critical due to smaller sensor. When focusing manually that is always a plus.<br>

6D will be best in low light. Does 6D have AF in video mode? (Can't remember but would be a huge bonus)<br>

5D MkII is a great option at a fantastic price.<br>

5D MkIII offers little over the 5D MkII as far as video is concerned.</p>

<p>T4i. Touch screen. Silent stm lenses specifically designed for quiet shooting with the t4i. AF in video mode. Uses phase detection for capture. Articulating screen. Digic 5 processor. A lot less money. Live view. But what makes sense is a camcorder. I have a 7d and a t4i. I don't do much video if any. I think all three of my cameras with video, 7D, t4i, and NEX 5N are good for about thirty minutes and they get hot with continous use. Low light depends on lens more than anything else. As I don't do video someone needs to correct me if I have mistated. The 40 mm stm lens is f2.8.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But what makes sense is a camcorder.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not in low light they don't. Thats what the OP's friend needs it for.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Low light depends on lens more than anything else.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The lens is extremely important, but not more important than "anything else". A 5D shooting at f/5.6 will still give vastly superior image quality to a camcorder shooting at f/2.8 or f/4. Stick a modest 50mm f/1.4 lens on a relatively modest 5D MkII and you have image quality and low light performance most camcorders can only dream of.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think all three of my cameras with video, 7D, t4i, and NEX 5N are good for about thirty minutes and they get hot with continuous use.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I shot for two whole nights (8 hours per night) almost continuously in Amsterdam on a single 5D MkII body making a music video with no overheating issues whatsoever (indoors and outdoors). 90% of the work was shot using the £70 50mm f/1.8 and the footage was outstanding.

<p>However, I do agree that something like a T4i would be a great choice for those on a limited budget.</p>

<p>I am not much of a videographer, but when I shoot video I prefer my wife's little Lumix P&S camera over any DSLR I have tried, simply because the Lumix boasts AF during video capture. The first Canon DSLR offering this feature is the T4i with STM lenses, like the new 40/2.8 STM and the 18-135 STM. If I was looking for a DSLR for video, I would choose the T4i over any of the more expensive models you are considering.</p>

<p>Maybe more advanced videographers use techniques that make AF less desirable, but somehow I doubt that, and certainly for me AF during video capture is a huge deal!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>5D MkIII offers little over the 5D MkII as far as video is concerned.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Canon added a number of video features to the 5D Mk III: headphone plug, HDMI out, the ability to change the audio levels in real time while recording, aperture control while recording, chromatic aberration correction for video, a dedicated video button, etc. Plus it's a more rugged, weather-sealed body with better high ISO performance. Whether that constitutes "a little" depends on each videographer's needs.</p>

<p>I shoot video with a 5D2 and 28 1.8 or 85 1.2L. I would agree a video camera is better if you mainly shoot video. Focusing in low light with a fast prime is extremely difficult. For this reason a 7D is generally better for video than a 5D2 because the 5D2 Focus plane is actually too narrow. When a person moves forward or backwards just a little bit it messes up the focus. Real video camera's can also be really fast opening up to F1.8 as well but focus much faster in low light. You can get greast video with a Digital SLR however, it is more difficult to get than a good HD video camera.</p>

<p>Another benefit to the 7D: in many cases, the smaller sensor is actually better for video. Your shutter speed should be around 1/60th-1/125th at all times when doing video (unless you want shutter effects). Since your shutter speed is borderline fixed, you only get to change aperture, ISO, or use ND filters.</p>

<p>If you want a reasonably deep depth of field on a close subject, the full frame camera may require stopping down further, which will require a higher ISO. You can get shallow DOF effects better, but actually using these during the day will require strong ND filters, since raising your shutter speed too much will make your footage look jagged. And to be honest, it's debatable how good a super-shallow DOF looks on video. Most people would consider that an 'effect', and would use it as such.</p>

<p>If you're going to be filming in low light, the 5D offers a lot of benefits. But if you mostly shoot during the day the 7D will certainly be easier to use, and might even be better.</p>

<p>Shooting video with an HDSLR isn't all it's cracked up to be unless you're willing to do it properly. That means spending money on a rig to hold it, an external mic, an HDMI monitor, etc. So you can easily spend what you did on the camera for accessories. If you don't do it right it's possible to shoot five minutes here, five minutes there but otherwise it's shaky, questionable focus, and poor sound. I would recommend one of Canon's low cost professional camcorders like the XA10-HD. It's a proper (professional) video camera that's small, easy to use and won't wear you out. It costs about what a 7D does but ready to go. I will say that if your friend is looking for those "cinema like" shots with a 50mm f1.2 then this camera will not work. It's lens has sharp focus but nothing near the dreamy slice of depth of field that an f1.2 lens has. But for knocking about and ease of operation it's the ticket. Good luck.</p>

<p>Ditto what John Fulton Jr. says. If it's casual shooting in clubs, non-cinematic style production, go for a dedicated semi-pro camcorder from SONY, Canon or Panasonic. Otherwise, it will become a PITA by the time your friend buys and masters all of the additional gear to pull it off with a DSLR. If he shoots video with a DSLR without the gear, the video is going to look rank amateur.</p>

<p>Jamie - WOW, great, fun video and excellent voices on the group, are you in the UK?</p><div></div>

<p>Yes Mark, I'm in the UK!</p>