Taken the plunge.

Well I did it. I traded in one of my cameras and bought a Canon 550D (T2i in the US) and have shot a bit of video. This is a new world to me! I've grown up with stills cameras and have never really appreciated the vast differences between the two similar but totally separate worlds.

There are areas where there is a lot less latitude in video than still photography. For example, keeping the camera steady. In stills, you can up the shutter speed to compensate for unsteady hands! In video, shaky camera work becomes very apparent when viewed back.

I can get by (just) with my manfrotto tripod, but guess that sometime in the future I will need to think about a purpose built video set of 'sticks'- there is even a new language to learn!

I have purchased four top quality lenses just for video use. Wise advice - you should always go for the best quality glass you can afford. So let me tell you of the great thing about this. The lenses were two primes, a 28mm f2.8 and a 50mm f1.8, and two zooms. A 35 - 70mm f4 and a 75 - 150mm f4.
Cost? Each lens cost less than £30 on ebay.

I hear you shouting "then how can they be top quality?". The answer is that they are Olympus OM Zuico manual lenses used with an adaptor plate. Far from being a disadvantage, in video, manual lenses are exactly what you need.

One more essential to video with a DSLR is an LED screen viewer. When shooting video, the mirror flips up to give 'live view' on the screen. The screen then becomes your only means of focusing - remember, no autofocus.

These viewers, of which there are about four available that I know of, vary in price from about £80 to £500. What they actually are is a magnification lens (usualy about 2 - 3X magnification) mounted on a tube. I made mine out of an old square wide angle lens hood, and a postage stamp loupe - total cost about £6.

One of the greatest shocks to my system was video 'post work'. Once the video is shot, it is transfered to the computer, then run through a program to convert it to a codec that other editing programs can handle. This takes something like 5 to 10 times the length of the clip to complete ie. 1 minutes footage can take between 5 to 10 minutes to transcode.

Next, the clips are imported into the editing program - I use Sony Vegas. I trawled around the web for views on which is the best for beginners who want to take things to a more serious level. Sony Vegas seemed popular and relatively inexpensive (about £70).

Having edited my clips together to form some sort of ultra mini movie - including music (finding royalty free music is another story) - I then had to 'render' the clips to a finished format. In my case this is based on Quicktime. The render process is another very time consuming action. How time consuming depends on the quality of the final video required.

I have only skipped over some of the hurdles I have negotiated so far but am not at all sorry that I took the plunge. By the way, I have had conversations with people who often ask why I didn't get a 'normal' video camera if I wanted to do serious video work. One aquaintance who works in the industry for a national TV company stated that he didn't think DSLRs would be used by the Pros.

I believe that we are at the start of a very real revolution in the video industry where DSLRs will be used more and more not just by the serious amateurs but also by the professional film makers. Don't take my word for it. DSLR cameras - in particular the Canon 5D - are being used by top class film makers. Take a look at the season finale of the TV show 'House' - shot entirely on Canon 5Ds! See the 2 minute teaser on youtube

My first short (very short) clips were shot at Salisbury Cathedral


Let me say that I haven't lost interest in shooting stills but this video bug has really grabbed me - give it a try.....