I own a 50d, but need video.

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>Have you seen the difference between the 7D and a just a DV or DVD camcorder? WOW. After shooting with my 7D, I sold all of my video gear. For videoing kids and normal stuff, an external mic is not needed. Just the DOF is worth the jump. I also don't shoot video more than 5 min anyway so the limited length is not an issue for me. Rent a 5D mark II or a 7D and try it out and you too will be selling all of your video equipment. None of us can tell you what you need to do, rent a Mark II and try it for a week. v/r Buffdr </p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>What I do is stick a wide prime on the camera and it covers most depths especially stepped down, every thing is in focus. The resolution on it is much better than most if not all $1,000 camcorders, one can easily crop the video and have very decent images.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>I totally agree with JDM, concentrate on (caring) for the mother and the baby. And I want to add that "not all fathers want to shoot their baby" (I mean video)</p>

<p>But since you already have the 50D, you may shoot them anyway. I would prefer a good still picture much more than a video. The image quality of any video is no where near a picture from your 50D. It's not like your baby is playing the world cup 2010, with a good still picture (portrait) you can catch a much better memory of him/her</p>

[daniel_capan]

<p>I was about to ask a similar question. I too am looking at buying a T2i or 7D mostly because of their HD video capabilities. I currently own a Rebel XT and either of the 2 above would be an upgrade. I was leaning toward the 7D but after reading Bob Atkin's review I'm not sure if the 7D is worth the extra $ for me.<br>

<br />In response to the previous comment, initially I also thought that shooting stills will be enough for my newborn daughter( 11 months now). I even bought some lighting equipment and set up a small studio in my basement. However, now that she's grown I want to film her as well. Some memories can't be recorded as stills and I find the Ipod nano's video quality poor (the only video recording device in the house). I do enjoy the photographs I have taken during the 11 months but I also enjoy the small videos (2-3 min max). I just wish they were of a much better quality.</p>

[andylynn]

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>There's a big difference between what you can do with a crew to run the camera and what you can do on your own. As Hollywood crews have been doing for decades, crews running DSLRs plan the shots in advance with focus spots marked off and cues for when to pull the focus, and there's a member of the crew whose job is just to focus the camera. A regular person in a candid setting can't work like that, and you don't want your entire attention on the camera anyway.</p>

<p>Just get some small camcorder, like the one-hand ones with the flip out screen made by companies like Samsung - if it takes two hands, you don't have the other one free to help with baby stuff - or a simple, inexpensive P&S camera with video.</p>

[teresa_atkinson]

<p>I vote for getting a camcorder. I was in your boat and bought a T2I to go with my 50D for video....even though I already had a nice, but inexpensive high definition camcorder (Canon HF200). While I can produce very high quality video with the T2I -- better than the camcorder when it's good -- a great deal of the time my shots are out of focus. Look at the super-duper examples of SLR video, and you'll see. The in-focus subjects are relatively stagnant. Any extreme movement and the focus becomes pretty awful at times. If you view the House episode that was filmed entirely with a 5D, you'll see they cut the video in wierd places, probably because of out-of-focus issues.</p>

<p>Canon DSLR's don't have continuous autofocus yet. I believe the only DSLR that does is the Panasonic G2 (although I could be wrong).</p>

<p>I think that people who believe that DSLRs lacking <strong>continuous </strong>autofocus are as good for shooting kids as a high definition camcorder have never used a great hi-def camcorder for shooting kids. </p>

<p>If you buy an SLR for video, you'll constantly have to work around its issues. The video you get will be hit or miss at least early on in the game until you figure out how to focus really, really fast and constantly -- manually. You can only shoot video in live view mode. Sunlight will make viewing the LCD for focusing very difficult, which will further increase the difficulty in manually focusing (unless you spend another couple hundred dollars for a loupe). </p>

<p>If, instead you get a camcorder, the form factor is designed for video (tilt LCD, etc), continuous autofocus exists, the video quality is amazing, and you'll be able to focus your attention on the kid rather than on working around the limitations of the camera. Oh and it will be small. Mine weighs 14 ounces. I pack mine with my 50D and still feel I'm traveling light.</p>

<p>As I've said my husband and I have the Canon HF200. We went for the low-end, figuring that instead of getting the very best camcorder we could and paying a premium, we'd rather pay a little now for a good camcorder, and then pay a little later on for even better technology than exists in the best consumer camcorders today. But there are certainly better camcorders out there than ours, even though I feel ours is exceptional. </p>

<p>You tube has examples from many of the camcorders.</p>

<p>So another vote for camcorder.</p>