What camera should I buy for filming good quality videos for YouTube?
August 21, 2015 9:28 AM Subscribe
I have an option to buy a used Canon 60D for about $500 CAN, no lenses included. I also see on BH Photo the option to buy the Canon 70D refurbished for about $800 USD. I want a good quality camera to film sit-down videos and sometimes vlogs. Can I get away with using the 60D and will it be good quality?
The other option is to get the much-lauded Canon G7X and use it for sit down and vlog videos and it will be lighter and more portable, but with less quality. BONUS: if I get a Canon, which basic all-around lens should I invest in?
The other option is to get the much-lauded Canon G7X and use it for sit down and vlog videos and it will be lighter and more portable, but with less quality. BONUS: if I get a Canon, which basic all-around lens should I invest in?
dpreview says the 70D offers some significant improvements in autofocus in live view and movie mode over the 60D. How much that matters depends a lot on what kinds of things you're filming. Unless you buy the very expensive cinema-targeted lenses, you may be better off avoiding refocusing while filming anyway; the still photography lenses are noisier to focus, and exhibit "breathing" where changing focus also has a slight but noticeable zoom effect.
For something like vlogging, I think what you really want is a large depth of field, and a fairly wide angle lens, so you never have to change focus or move the camera, and you don't have to put the camera 15' away. Since you're avoiding refocusing then maybe the advantage of the 70D isn't as important. But actually big depth of field and wide angle lenses are both significantly easier to make with a smaller sensor, so though I'm in general a big fan of SLRs I don't think this application is really playing to their strengths. Maybe you'd get better and cheaper results with a web-cam type device, plus the workflow would be easier since the videos would already be on your computer. I'm not really sure what "sit-down videos" means, but it sounds similar.
posted by aubilenon at 10:32 AM on August 21, 2015
For something like vlogging, I think what you really want is a large depth of field, and a fairly wide angle lens, so you never have to change focus or move the camera, and you don't have to put the camera 15' away. Since you're avoiding refocusing then maybe the advantage of the 70D isn't as important. But actually big depth of field and wide angle lenses are both significantly easier to make with a smaller sensor, so though I'm in general a big fan of SLRs I don't think this application is really playing to their strengths. Maybe you'd get better and cheaper results with a web-cam type device, plus the workflow would be easier since the videos would already be on your computer. I'm not really sure what "sit-down videos" means, but it sounds similar.
posted by aubilenon at 10:32 AM on August 21, 2015
Best answer: Most YouTubers/daily vloggers I follow use the Canon G7X, which is a point and shoot but still very high quality and really pricey. It has a flip up screen so you can see yourself. They also use Canon S120, which is an easy point and shoot that is more affordable. I don't think you need a Canon 60D just for video. That seems to over-complicate things. You don't say what kind of videos, but if it's vlogging and you're really serious about making YouTube videos, it seems the vloggers who do use giant cameras like a 70D still need a smaller backup that is more portable. I'd start with the portable one that can be used in all situations.
posted by AppleTurnover at 11:28 AM on August 21, 2015
posted by AppleTurnover at 11:28 AM on August 21, 2015
I got a 60D because I wanted to use my zoom lens from a 40D. It's very easy to simply set everything to manual and shoot video that's impressively clear. I've been meaning to install the Magic Lantern software to get greater control over image compression, dynamic range, and so forth but I haven't done it yet. It is a possibility that heavily influenced my choice, though.
posted by cleroy at 11:36 AM on August 21, 2015
posted by cleroy at 11:36 AM on August 21, 2015
It may be worth watching this Casey Neistat vlog where he discusses his gear.
posted by AppleTurnover at 11:49 AM on August 21, 2015
posted by AppleTurnover at 11:49 AM on August 21, 2015
Best answer: See Marques Brownlee's review of the rx100 mkII including his discussion of using it for youtube video. Then go buy a cheapo used rx100 mkII.
It should be, i dunno, $350? Then buy a zoom h1, or h4 for $80-180 or so depending on the mode/condition, new/used, etc. You should get out the door for $500 or less.
The diminishing returns point past that rapidly approaches. The rx100 is an epically good video camera, in addition to just being a great camera. It's in fact so good that it still basically has no competition and the newer versions are basically just sony doing donuts past the finish line and adding stuff you don't need like 4k support. It pretty much destroys any dedicated video camera you could get in that price range unless you got a really kickass deal or found a clueless craigslister or pawn shop.
It's also a great photo camera, as i mentioned. You can buy a good DSLR, but then you have to buy good lenses. As far as value for money goes, this gets you an awful lot of the way there.
If you can't resist buying a canon, the best bang/buck lens i ever owned in all my years of owning digital cameras was a used one of these. Oh my god it's so good. The canon version is really, really overpriced and i could never really track down the actual difference. It costs a lot closer to the 24-70L and just... isn't that good. And while the tamron isn't better, it's so cheap and is sharp enough to go head to head with a lot of cheapo primes.
The trick is, a lens like that + a $6-800 canon body is starting to get into Serious Money since you're rolling past 1k. And at that point, i always start asking myself am i double, triple, whatever the moneys performance of the $400(or whatever) solution?
The answer is usually no, and here it definitely is. You can make professional looking videos with something like an rx100. Lighting, and shit, understanding lighting and how to light things or position yourself(or the objects you want in the shot, or the set, or whatever) is way more important than how good your camera is after you graduate from having an actually junky camera that's holding you back.
It's a lot like having a fast car or motorcycle. It takes a lot less than you think to have a machine that's more capable than you can actually get out of it. What you really probably want is a mid-grade camera and some more time on the track, so to speak, not a badass one in hopes that it in and of itself will make you "go fast"*.
On that point, maybe spend some money or even just time on lighting? I recently had to do an Important Skype Interview in the only good spot in my house which was like a cave. I spent a bunch of time with different color temps of cheapo LED bulbs and thrift store task lights and in the end the shot looked like a freaking TV news studio with my face perfectly lit. Like, time magazine cover lit. The camera i was using was a hunk of junk 720p webcam. It looked better than a lot of the video i've gotten out of my NEX-6 with a nice lens on it. If i ever take a photography course, i'm going to seek out one that's mostly about lighting and using light.
Lighting, yo. I'm telling you.
*and to be clear, i'm not saying i think you're following that train of thought, i'm just throwing it out there.
posted by emptythought at 3:19 AM on August 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
It should be, i dunno, $350? Then buy a zoom h1, or h4 for $80-180 or so depending on the mode/condition, new/used, etc. You should get out the door for $500 or less.
The diminishing returns point past that rapidly approaches. The rx100 is an epically good video camera, in addition to just being a great camera. It's in fact so good that it still basically has no competition and the newer versions are basically just sony doing donuts past the finish line and adding stuff you don't need like 4k support. It pretty much destroys any dedicated video camera you could get in that price range unless you got a really kickass deal or found a clueless craigslister or pawn shop.
It's also a great photo camera, as i mentioned. You can buy a good DSLR, but then you have to buy good lenses. As far as value for money goes, this gets you an awful lot of the way there.
If you can't resist buying a canon, the best bang/buck lens i ever owned in all my years of owning digital cameras was a used one of these. Oh my god it's so good. The canon version is really, really overpriced and i could never really track down the actual difference. It costs a lot closer to the 24-70L and just... isn't that good. And while the tamron isn't better, it's so cheap and is sharp enough to go head to head with a lot of cheapo primes.
The trick is, a lens like that + a $6-800 canon body is starting to get into Serious Money since you're rolling past 1k. And at that point, i always start asking myself am i double, triple, whatever the moneys performance of the $400(or whatever) solution?
The answer is usually no, and here it definitely is. You can make professional looking videos with something like an rx100. Lighting, and shit, understanding lighting and how to light things or position yourself(or the objects you want in the shot, or the set, or whatever) is way more important than how good your camera is after you graduate from having an actually junky camera that's holding you back.
It's a lot like having a fast car or motorcycle. It takes a lot less than you think to have a machine that's more capable than you can actually get out of it. What you really probably want is a mid-grade camera and some more time on the track, so to speak, not a badass one in hopes that it in and of itself will make you "go fast"*.
On that point, maybe spend some money or even just time on lighting? I recently had to do an Important Skype Interview in the only good spot in my house which was like a cave. I spent a bunch of time with different color temps of cheapo LED bulbs and thrift store task lights and in the end the shot looked like a freaking TV news studio with my face perfectly lit. Like, time magazine cover lit. The camera i was using was a hunk of junk 720p webcam. It looked better than a lot of the video i've gotten out of my NEX-6 with a nice lens on it. If i ever take a photography course, i'm going to seek out one that's mostly about lighting and using light.
Lighting, yo. I'm telling you.
*and to be clear, i'm not saying i think you're following that train of thought, i'm just throwing it out there.
posted by emptythought at 3:19 AM on August 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by valmonster at 9:31 AM on August 21, 2015