anyone tried a 500D for video?

[postcardcv]

I've recently been looking for a cheapish digital camcorder but have been very disapointed in the quality of them. So now I've started looking at the Canon 500D, I know that it won't be much crack for grabbing quick films of my kids but it does look interesting for wildlife. The thought of having the ability to take video through my 500 f4 and my macro lens really does appeal. I've read all about how good the 5D mkII is for video but there's no way I'm spending that much on one. So does anyone know how the 500D compares?

[Chris Galvin]

Pete,

try this link http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/index.htm and look for the video of his Finnish trip on You Tube

[Chris Galvin]

He also has a blog of his experiences with the 500D here http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_eos_500d_tests_review.htm

[Nikon Kid]

He also has a blog of his experiences with the 500D here http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_eos_500d_tests_review.htm

I would say thats pretty acceptable, them bears have small eyes.
Perhaps maybe wait for the 60d/7d that is sure to have video and
maybe better quality, sell/trade you 40d in and you wont have lost much.

[AC/DC]

http://www.vimeo.com/4808621.

Quite a few other 500d vids on there if you search.

[postcardcv]

I would say thats pretty acceptable, them bears have small eyes.
Perhaps maybe wait for the 60d/7d that is sure to have video and
maybe better quality, sell/trade you 40d in and you wont have lost much.

I'd agree that it does look nice, I've been looking at a fair bit of video footage from the 500D on the web and it does look nice. Sure it's not at the same level as the 5D mkII but it's stil impressive especially as it's about a quarter the price. No doubt the 60D will have video when it comes out but I wouldn't be surprised if the video is similar to the 500D rather than the 5D mkII.

[Robert L Jarvis]

It strikes me that to get anywhere one would need a 500 or greater to get good video. I do not think that using a 400 or less will produce worthwhile results unless the subject is quire large.

Pete you say a good camcorder would be too expensive. I disagree if you look around you can get HD versions, Sony and Panasonic for a lot less than a 500D. Not only that but many HDD version come with huge amounts of giabytes far more than any memory card. It comes back to advice that you often give but seem to have overlooked. get down to a good camera shop and have a look and a go.

[postcardcv]

Pete you say a good camcorder would be too expensive. I disagree if you look around you can get HD versions, Sony and Panasonic for a lot less than a 500D. Not only that but many HDD version come with huge amounts of giabytes far more than any memory card. It comes back to advice that you often give but seem to have overlooked. get down to a good camera shop and have a look and a go.

I have tried, honest ;) the problem I've found is that I can try the HD camcorders and see what they're like to use but what I then struggle with is seeing the results. Either the footage is on the HDD or on the occassion that I got some on a memory card it was a format that I couldn't read... I need to go back and get them to play the footage back there and then so I can see what it's like, viewing it back on the LCD doesn't really help. I have been looking at a couple of HD camcorders, it seems that £400 is the lowest starting price for a decent one, so yes they are cheaper than a 500D but the 500D on the 500 f4 could be nice for birds. I think that for birds and other wildlife (insects with a macro) the 500D is the better choice but for filming my kids a dedicated camcorder would be better.

[Robert L Jarvis]

Pete it is easy to download to a computer where you can view and edit, you have to take the jump and buy. You can also replay it through a TV using the red,white and yellow tripartite cable. I am still not convinced about using the 500D for video even with a 500 lens, small birds will still be just that, small birds. If you look at the video specs again pay special attention to frame rate for the best quality, when you get into that it reveals IMo the compromises. A camcorder will come with upto 25x optical zoom far ahead of a 500!

You have to take your choice and pay your money.

When you have purchased your 500D and find it does not fulfill your needs, PM me and I will make you a good offer!!

Robert

[postcardcv]

Pete it is easy to download to a computer where you can view and edit, you have to take the jump and buy. You can also replay it through a TV using the red,white and yellow tripartite cable. I am still not convinced about using the 500D for video even with a 500 lens, small birds will still be just that, small birds. If you look at the video specs again pay special attention to frame rate for the best quality, when you get into that it reveals IMo the compromises. A camcorder will come with upto 25x optical zoom far ahead of a 500!

I've yet to find a HD camcorder at this sort of price range with a big zoom range, they seem to mainly have 10x optical zooms (going to ~500mm eqivialent at the long end) though there is a Panasonic that#s 16x and goes to ~700mm eqivilent. So in terms of reach the 500D would offer me more are I could use with with the 500mm lens and a 1.4x or 2x tc. However I've only tried a 500D breifly and the AF in video mode seemed poor/slow, using MF seemed easy enough. I think it would be fine for shooting birds (though perhaps not birds in flight) but not so good for getting footage of my kids running around. I am sure that the video function in DSLRs will improve greatly over the next few years/models, with an increased frame rate and significantly better AF.

From all I've read I think that the 500D would be a better option for birds (though not as good as the 5D mkII), but a dedicated camcorder would be better for family use (I've been looking at the Sony CX105E and the Panasonic SD20)...

[Robert L Jarvis]

Hi Pete

I have a Sony SR52E HDD which although not HD still gives good quality and has a 25x optical zoom!!. I think at times too much is made of equipment having to be HD. So if you can relax on that requirement you may find something that will fit your needs.

Robert

[postcardcv]

I have a Sony SR52E HDD which although not HD still gives good quality and has a 25x optical zoom!!. I think at times too much is made of equipment having to be HD. So if you can relax on that requirement you may find something that will fit your needs.

I've tested a number of standard camcorders and none of them can even match the video quality that I get out of my Canon compact camera let alone my old Sony Hi8. Unless I can get a decent quality that at least matches that of using tape then I just won't bother. If there's one thing that I won't compromise on it's image quality, I'd far rather give up reach than IQ. I tested both the Panasonic and the Sony yesterday and was very impressed with the Sony... I doubt I'll resist for too long though I will try a standard def Sony first just to make sure.