Digital photography

Would it absolutely have to shoot 1920x1080? Frame rate important to you?

If you're just going on a bit of hearsay, maybe investigate the significantly cheaper other offerings from Canon first - 550D, 60D, 7D or Nikon - D90, D7000 etc. This is assuming you, for some explicit reason, need a DSLR capable of shooting video.

If you don't. Get a dedicated video camera.

But as far as video resolution and quality are concerned, are they more or less the same on the 60D as with the 5DM2? Is it just the depth of field which is different?

Also TBH if you are shooting for youtube then consider a Lumix G3 or GF2. They do 1080 (though in AVCHD) and are cheap and you can buy adapters to put old lenses on them.

In answer to your earlier question - probably 2 grand including lens.

But as far as video resolution and quality are concerned, are they more or less the same on the 60D as with the 5DM2? Is it just the depth of field which is different?

Without getting to complicated yes. Once you output at 1920 x 1080 it doesn't matter how big the chip you shot it on was. Is purely aesthetic (and i think the 60D still looks pretty good).

What do you plan on shooting?

I shoot quite a lot of different projects, along what could probably be described as artistic lines, i.e, trying to use various techniques to get really unusual or interesting shots. Think unusual music videos. For this sort of thing, the very shallow depth of field would be a useful tool which I have not really had up until now. I'd also like the opportunity to make some money taking on some commissions part time for various more 'boring' stuff, and have something which will look impressive to a client in terms of clarity, and, to be horribly subjective, 'cinematic.' I have been offered work I have refused in the past because I didn't want to be let down with poor kit. I wouldn't like to get a 60D then have a go on a 5DM2 and think, 'bugger.'

Try try em both and look on vimeo for samples of different cameras work. What I would say though is if you are on a budget then get a 60D (or even 550D) which is cheaper but spend money on a decent zoom and a fast prime or 2 then when/if you start to get work then you can upgrade the body to a Mk2 but the main thing is to have nice lenses. No use crippling yourself financially on something which you may not require.

for £500 a day you can hire me, 5dII 24-70, 70-210, 24,45,90, tilt and shifts macbookpro+fcp+24in eizo.
you will have to sort your own sound guy though :-)

The 60D and 7D have smaller chips which may not give quite as much depth of field
cough more depth of field

The 60D and 7D have smaller chips which will give you a deeper depth of field :)

That sound shit too!

Oh you know what i mean!

7d is o.k and does 50fps at 1080, prefer to shoot with the 5dII though if overcranking not needed

7D only does 720p @ 50fps (not 1080p).

But as far as video resolution and quality are concerned, are they more or less the same on the 60D as with the 5DM2? Is it just the depth of field which is different?

My 5DmkII and 550D produce reasonably similar footage, the depth of field issue is not as important as people make out as the 550D can produce a very shallow depth of field, certainly as much as you might want for film (moving images) - a fast f/1.2 lens on a longish focal length on a 550D will give you a ridiculously shallow depth of field.

Without getting to complicated yes. Once you output at 1920 x 1080 it doesn't matter how big the chip you shot it on was. Is purely aesthetic (and i think the 60D still looks pretty good).

What do you plan on shooting?

Well that's not quite true (see my post above) - the chip size effects not just depth of field but also low light capability and noise.

A couple of mine from San Fran... Taken on a Ricoh GR1s


I have a crappy photo blog thing here: http://andyfuckingellis.blogspot.com/

I would say though not to get hung up on the technology and resolution side of things and just get out and shoot things! Having spent most the summer on $200 million film with computer controlled 3D rigs and 5K red epics in which every shot was a ball ache to set up and the results where pretty lousy it makes you wish for the simple life....

I would say though not to get hung up on the technology and resolution side of things and just get out and shoot things!

My advice:

Get very hung up on the technology, obsessive even, ask as many questions as you can think of - then when all that is resolved get the camera that's best for you and go out and shoot stuff.

A couple of mine from San Fran... Taken on a Ricoh GR1s


I have a crappy photo blog thing here: http://andyfuckingellis.blogspot.com/

nice photos, makes me want a gr1 even more. wrong thread though?

Oh you know what i mean!
Yeah :) I'm not usually pedantic but there is so much misinformation about depth of field on the internet it pays to be careful with wording. In some quarters, shallow dof is so highly prized the very meaning of the term has been warped to the point where "dof" means "shallow dof" so more dof = less dof. It's quite dumb.

GR1s is non-digital... so definitely not the wrong thread.

this is the non-film thread :)

The title should be changed to just Digital Photography. Or Digital Photography of Digit.

This was from the London Open polo tournament. Taken on a Nikon D7000 with a very cheap 50-200 zoom.

More here

Will, those look almost like you know what you're doing. Almost.