I own a 50d, but need video.

[claytontullos]

<p>I'm expecting to have a baby sometime in Feb 2011. So perhaps like all new fathers I want to be able to shoot video. I don't own a video camera. I realize with any canon video slr setup I will need some sort of external mic.<br>

So I am faced with a certain conundrum:<br>

Sell my 50d in hopes of getting enough money to put towards a 7d.<br>

Buy a t2i and use it primarily as a video camera.<br>

Buy some yet to be determined 1080p camcorder for ~$1000.</p>

<p>In general I prefer to only carry one device with me.</p>

<p>What should I do? What would you do? I'm not even sure what kind of resale value I could expect on the 50d.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I've seen the 50D go for less than $800 with rebates so expect a mint sample to sell for a few bills less.</p>

<p>DSLRs do well for planned shots that are primarily static. Not so good for little kids 'n critters. Why? AF is awkward and slow: contrast AF is almost unusable and mirror AF interrupts video. MF is the most reliable. PLus you need to refocus after zooming as SLR zooms are not parfocal. If I was into rugrat video, I'd spring for a dedicated video camera so you can zoom and focus until the cows come home. Heck, you'd probably find the HD video feature of the iPhone 4 much easier and useful for kid video than a DSLR...</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>Keep the 50D and go for the camcorder. There are plenty on the market to suit nearly any budget. Congrats to you both. I know you'll be anxiously awaiting next Feb.</p>

[pbizarro]

<p>I suppose that a newborn will not be able to "move fast" and thus beat and cheat the AF in video mode of a DSLR... as always, there will be compromises, and it will depend on your expectations.<br>

Video with a DSLR will be a proxy to the "real thing", that is, using a dedicated camcorder. But, perhaps it will be good enough for you? Why don't you go to a store and try it yourself? It is certainly good to have both stills and video in the same equipment.</p>

[ashleypomeroy]

<p>I would be tempted to buy one of those Flip-style miniature HD camcorders. Unless you plan to make a professional film out of your kids, a digital SLR isn't really appropriate. In addition to the lack of effective autofocus you're also going to run up against the maximum clip length problem - remember that digital SLRs typically only shoot a maximum of 12 or 29 minutes or so, which you're unlikely to exceed BUT you never know.</p>

<p>On a personal level I would be tempted to sell the 50D, and put the proceeds towards a 550D and a Flip-style miniature HD camcorder. That way you'll at least be able to experiment with digital SLR video, and you'll have a backup option.</p>

[rwbowman]

<p>Carry just one device, for stills and video? How about a Panasonic Lumix GH1, GF1, G2 or G10?</p>

[pto189]

<p>As Mark said, "Keep the 50D and go for the camcorder."</p>

[anov]

<p>Get the flip style camcorder, some of them has 1080p (Kodak Zi8 for example). It costs $150 or so and you don't have to worry about focus tracking, clip length limitation or external mic (which make the DSLR even "bigger").</p>

[phule]

<p>I wouldn't go for a camcorder, but rather a point and shoot with decent video. The point and shoot will travel in the diaper bag when the 50D can't.</p>

[mfophotos]

<p>Get a Canon G11. It produces good video for such things, and the still-photography is excellent. As a father that used a mini-8 camcorder about 22 years ago... I have to say that it's the 35mm shots I took that I like the most. The videos haven't been looked at in 20 years.</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>I have to agree with getting a separate video camera. I have a 7D, and it does a good job on video, but you have to be on top of the manual focusing. I found using a prime lens to be easier, so I wouldn't have to worry about zoom.</p>

<p>I have a 7 month old, and let me tell you, even as newborns, they may not go anywhere, but the time flies and before you know it, they're crawling. So maybe you won't need the dedicated video camera for the first few months, but it won't take long before you'll wish you had one.</p>

<p>In the meantime, there's always stop motion video compiled from stills...I did <a href="

about 2 months ago</a>. It's not perfect, but for my first attempt, I thought it turned out well.</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I'd also suggest considering a compact point and shoot with decent video capabilities, for many of the same reasons mentioned above: AF and general portability.</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>The quality of video produced by 7D and 5DII is stunning. It is being used more and more by professional videographers. But there are some drawbacks. Nothing major though. I was able to learn and have no problems shooting videos today using my 5DII, including my 3 kids. In your situation I'd sell 50D and gotten 7D. That way you would have an excellent photo and video camera in one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>DSLRs do well for planned shots that are primarily static</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nothing could be further from truth. Season finale of House was filmed entirely using 5DII and it was not all panned and static shots. You simply must learn the camera and know what you are doing.</p>

[daniel flather]

<p>Carrying a DSLR and a baby (plus all related baby paraphernalia) is a big load, add a camcorder and it's too much; I speak from experience. Keep the 50D and wait and see if the Canon G12 comes with 1080P video, if and when it's released. The G12 will shoot stills in the same RAW format as your 50D.</p>

[pmind]

<p>Kodak Zi8.</p>

[ed_v.]

<p>I was in the same situation with my 40D. I eventually will upgrade to the 7D but for now, got a Panasonic P&S. Some have pretty good video (probably not 1080p, but 720p). I've even seen some that do optical zooming while shooting video. Mine doesn't but seems like a nice feature for a P&S.</p>

[w_t1]

<p>I too would keep the 50d and get a camcorder. the video quality of my Canon HV30 when hooked to my 1080 lcd monitor with HDMI cable is outstanding. Still working on the video editing here. Another vote for keeping them separate.</p>

[mattb1]

<p>I think the people advocating a dedicated video camera are themselfs not familar with shooting video with a DSLR. AF is definately something you will have to learn to work without, but it really is not that hard. IQ and low light performance are the strong points of HDSLRs. I take video of my nephew (3yr) and niece (7yr) whenever I can with my 5D II, and it works pretty well. Looks almost too good on a 55 inch HD LCD. My experince with small pocket size video recorders is not good, they "might" look ok on a small computer screen but usually fall a part at anything larger. Maybe the newest HD ones are better...</p>

<p>I'd get the T2I in your situation and keep the 50D. Keep the 50D for when you need what it provides, otherwise use the T2I for recording your kids. Or look at something like the Olympus PEN, its only 720 but looks pretty good.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Altogether wrong idea IMHO.<br>

My advice is to concentrate on the mother and baby and don't worry too much about the photographic "opportunity". Maybe the Rebel-video is OK, but keep it very simple and don't use the camera as an excuse to isolate yourself from what is really happening. Many birthing details turn out to be <em>way</em> too intimate for a general audience, including even the grandparents, much less friends. Bloody newborns with funny-shaped heads are not all that "cute" to most people. Things start to look "cuter" after a week or so. That's the time for the googoo pictures.<br>

"Been there, done that"</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>I never had the impression that we were discussing the birth so much as the events of ordinary life following the event. If you were looking for video suggestions for the birth, I agree with JDM...preserve the memory...you won't forget. My father still talks about watching my birth, 36 years later.</p>

[faysal]

<p>I have a Sanyo HD1010 (its a few models old now but still great) that is a small, inconspicuous, 1080p pistol grip camera. It works great, battery life is awesome, I film all my hookah video reviews (my vice is self promotional) with it, and im sure its going for cheap now on amazon and ebay. <br>

I believe forum rules disallow me posting the link, but if you want to see some footage of what you can do with something that fits in the palm of your hand, just message me.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>By a video recorder.</p>

[jacob_kerns]

<p>Im still wondering why people want video on their DSLR? I understand the quality and an episode of house was filmed using a DSLR but to me its just a gimmick that will hurt your DSLR sensor because of heat. I don't use it unless it an absolute necessary. I would rather use it to take still photos and use a camcorder or even a phone over using my DSLR for video.</p>

[hugh_j.]

<blockquote>

<p>In general I prefer to only carry one device with me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'll take the liberty of translating this to mean that you prefer to <em>travel light</em>. I don't think a separate camcorder, while probably ideal quality-wise, would be the best way to go. Now, I haven't used the 7D or T2i, but used to have a T1i and while it was an excellent stills camera, it can be a bit maddening to use as a video camera. You have to get really good at manual focusing because AF is absolutely hopeless, even with a fast USM prime. Maybe Canon has made a quantum leap in this area in one generation, or maybe not. I can't say from experience.</p>

<p>I'm shocked at the suggestion to get a G11. The G11 may be decent at certain things, but being stuck at normal definition, video certainly isn't one of them. The standard is now high definition, and Canon's been a little slow to wake up and smell the coffee, at least as far as their premium compacts are concerned.</p>

<p>In such a situation (and I've been in it before) I would say to keep your 50D and plop down the change for a pocket Panasonic. Most, if not all, of the currently available models feature HD video and do it quite decently. Granted, you won't get the "pro" narrow-DoF look of the SLRs, but with face-detection continuous AF, you can concentrate on making a nice movie of your family instead of fighting a manual focus ring. I have (or, more accurately, my wife has) a Panasonic TS1, which due to its water- and shock-resistance is great for family outings at the beach, on the lake, etc. I've even handed it to my now 5-year old to take some snaps. The camera's been dropped and dunked, and still works great, and the HD video is very nice. I understand this model has been replaced by the TS2 or somesuch.</p>

<p>Personally, I kind of went to a middle ground and bought a Panasonic GF1. With decent stills performance very close to that of my SLR, along with the same face-detection continuous AF in video mode that their point-and-shoots have, it's pretty much my go-to for family stuff. And with the 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens, it's small and light enough to wear in a pouch on my belt, unlike my old T1i and its 28/1.8.<em> </em></p>

[hugh_j.]

<blockquote>

<p>Im still wondering why people want video on their DSLR? I understand the quality and an episode of house was filmed using a DSLR but to me its just a gimmick that will hurt your DSLR sensor because of heat. I don't use it unless it an absolute necessary. I would rather use it to take still photos and use a camcorder or even a phone over using my DSLR for video.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because it enables us ("us" as in not just family guys, but also professional photojournalists which is what I used to do for a living) to carry one less piece of gear. I had to bring two of everything on assignment, because "my gear failed" is not an acceptable excuse to return with nothing. That meant at least two stills cameras and two camcorders.</p>

<p>Speed is another reason. On my personal camera, a GF1, there is a video button on the top panel. If I'm in stills mode and suddenly need to take a video, I tap that button once and the camera instantly switches to camcorder mode and starts recording HD video. I tap the same button once whenever I want to end the clip, and the camera is back to stills mode and ready to shoot. There simply isn't a setup faster than this.</p>

<p>Even if I lose a camera sooner because of it (if such a thing were even possible - heat is a non-issue for modern sensors, and my camera would more likely be killed off due to obsolescence) I'd rather have the shots I would have missed had I been fumbling for the "other" camera. If you're so worried about damage, do what I do and have a spare that you can use while you wait for the repair or a replacement on the first. Otherwise, if your camera breaks, recycle it and buy a new one. It's just a camera.</p>