HD vs SD for wildlife filming
 

I know that this topic has been discussed before, but I haven't found any recent discussions and since the market and industry have changed drastically since those previous threads I thought it was time for an updated report.

What cameras do people use to film wildlife?

Is the XL2 still a good camera to buy or is HD necessary?

And what about cheaper HD cameras like the XHA1 with teleconverters? Anyone have experience here?

What about DSLRs? 5D Mark II? 7D? (I know it's not out yet, but any thoughts?)

(I myself am looking to buy a camera to improve my filming skills and build up some sequences to add to my reel so that I can send these to producers. I am not trying to sell the footage so again, is HD necessary? Should I save up to buy a XLH1 even though it will mean I won't be spending time shooting for some time? Is an SD camera still good for reels or anything else?)

If it's just to build up a reel then SD is fine of course.
Problem is that if you shoot some unique behaviour while doing it and only have it on SD that'd be a tragedy!
XL-1 was the workhouse of semi-pro wildlife filming for ages and a good little machine it is too (apart from crap manual focus on lens!)
Even the XL-H1 is a bit behind the times now, with HDV recording and no slow motion capability.
All depends on budget and what you want to do with the results.
Steve

Thanks for the response Steve.

So what other HD camcorders are good for wildlife?

Are there other HD camcorders with interchangeable lenses besides the XLH1 that are suited for wildlife work?

Many that I have seen from Panasonic, Sony, and JVC look big and bulky and seem to be suited more for broadcast work. Then again I am not completely familiar with the market so what else is out there?

The XL2 is perfect for wildlife filming and if you are producing DVDs from the resulting footage you cannot really get any better. A fabulous video camera with a host of lens options and still a very viable camcorder for professional use today.

I'd steer clear of the DSLR options for now. They are all in their early stages of development and I feel it is better to wait until the video options are improved.

The XHA1 is a good option for HDV delivery (or Blue-ray), although I would steer you towards the XL-H1/XL-H1s/H1a cameras that offer a wider selection of lens options - which can be vital for nature filming.

My advice would be to buy the XL2 now (either new or a mint-condition from Ebay or DVinfo advert section) so as to learn as much as you can, and when you have saved enough money for the XL-H1 (or updated XL-H2) then sell the XL2 and use that money towards extras such as mics/lenses etc.

(Thanks Tony. I'm leaning toward the XL2 but am still curious what others are using. Anyone know if you can add polls to these threads?)

What are the best HD formats other than HDV?

And are there camcorders with these formats with interchangeable lenses? For less than $5000?

Well I wouldn't go quite that far! As I mentioned the lens is awful for focussing and the viewfinder is not great either. Doesn't do progressive properly, no slow motion options, dynamic range not great. But at the price it's a decent choice.
The JVC HM700 looks interesting, and a lot of people are using the EX3 (nice pics, but rolling shutter I'm not keen on).
Also look at the Convergent Designs Nanoflash. Combined with a lot of the cheaper camcorder (like XL-H1) it gives far superior recording.
Steve

Perfect...well, yes, for the price. Yes, of course it could have improvements, but then so could most camcorders.
If Jonathan has the money to purchase a full Red kit with lenses, then OK, but reading between the lines I don't think that he has a lot of cash to chuck at the dealers.

I've rarely found problems focussing the Canon 20X, 3X and 6X lenses. The Canon 16X MF also offers nicer manual focussing, but often the AF and especially IS can be a positive help in certain situations.
To be able to use other lenses such as the huge range of superb Nikkors or Canon L FD lenses is also a big plus in my opinion. And the recording options using on-board or XLR mics plus radio mics, plus various extra in-camera settings make both the XL2 & XL-H1 cameras the best options within that price band.

Are there limitations on the types of lenses you can use with an XL2? I know you need adapters, but what adapters are available? And do the lenses need to have the electronics for auto-focus, etc? Or can you use fully manual 35mm still lenses?

You can pretty much stick anything on the XL cameras with a simple metal ring adapter, but Nikons are favourite, or Canon AF lenses with the XL adapter. The XL adapter is the only way you can keep AF. Unlike Tony though I've never ever used AF on a video or film camera, can't possibly see a situation where it'd be any use, so I'd go for the mechanical and MF route by sticking some Nikons on there. Search for adapters on this forum, Mike Tapa, Steve Shaovlar and Les Bosher can all do them.
Steve

Great. Thanks Steve.

I'm still wondering, what cameras are others using for wildlife? Are there any standards? I've read, for instance in Piers Warren's book, that the XL2 was/is such a standard, but are there HD cameras people like besides the XLH1? And do wildlife filmmakers even use this camera?

The standard wildlife camcorder in the BBC and other high end wildlife series (Planet Earth etc.) for the last few years has been the Panasonic Varicam, now the HPX2700 Varicam (P2 version). This has really been the only choice due to the need for slow motion (it films to 60 fps). The others, like Sony F900, HDW750 etc., only do 25fps, but with higher resolution.
At the lower end the XL-H1 was the first interchangeable lens small/inexpensive HD camcorder, as the XL-1 was the first SD one. Since then though there has been the Sony Z7, EX3 and now the JVC HM700. The latter 2 do slow motion, and have a better codec.
Some people use the RED camera but it's got major problems for wildlife use.
And that's about it - high end Varicam, middle ground XL-H1 or EX3, Standard Def XL-1.
Steve

Or 35mm if you can afford it!
Oh, and if we've got lots of money the Phantom HD is gorgeous!
Steve

Yes, both the XL2 & H1 have and are still being used by many professional wildlife cameramen/women. For wildlife I mainly use the Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 ED-IF and Nikkor 600mm ED-IF lenses via a Les Bosher XL-Nikon mount adapter.

Some people use the JVC GY-HD and some the Sony Z1, and still others use the much more expensive Sony options with top-grade Canon or Fujinon pro lenses.

Here is the main Canon site link to view Pieter Huisman using the XL-H1

Canon Professional Network - Pieter Huisman: Wild and Free

Take a look at Wildeye to check some of the cameras that wildlife cameramen are using:

Wildeye - Wildlife Film and TV training

For your requirements, I think you would enjoy the 7D the most, if you can get long enough glass. 60p, excellent low light, and an expensive look (when your not seeing jello or aliasing). It's manual focus, but has a very nice LCD.
You can use old nikon glass, or contax. Even with legs and head you could do a kit for $5K. And be able to resell it for $4K.
In the next few years the video oligopoly won't hold together and video electronic costs will come down. Stuff that should be expensive will remain expensive - like glass. But the Japanese won't be able to hold high price points and dribble out minor improvements on electronics.
A 4K camera just isn't a big deal to make anymore.
For paid jobs today people need to use the right tool available today. But you don't.
If you can get the reach you need with the 7D , shooting file based on a big sensor is closer to what you will be doing in the future.

Thanks again Tony and Steve for all the great information, and Don, I am waiting for a bit more 7D footage to show up online, but I am definitely considering it. I feel much better informed at this point, so thanks for your responses.

Jonathan,

A problem with the 7D is that you can't get as much focal length with it as you can with the XL2, XLH1 or other camcorders with interchangeable lens systems.
The 7D with 600mm lens and 1.4x extender is about 1,300mm and with a 2x extender about 1,900mm but if you put a 300mm lens with no extender on an XL2 or XLH1 you get about 2,100mm, and its much cheaper. Just something to consider.

Caleb

Just a question about lenses:

I'm still not quite sold on the idea of a DSLR for video, but I'm considering it along with other cameras like the XL2. Anyway I'm just wondering if I could indeed purchase relatively cheap lenses and get good results.

With a 7D, do you think this type of lens quality would be sufficient, for example?

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8
Canon 70-300mm f/4-f/5.6

Is f/4-f/5.6 too slow to get good quality images in low-light/medium-light situations, such as in a forest, at sunset, etc?

Also, I have read that for a basic wildlife film setup a good lens kit would include something like a 75mm lens, a 120-300mm zoom, and a 600mm lens. Any ideas?

What focal lengths would I need to achieve (after crop factor) in order to match the magnification of the 20x zoom on the XL2?

Jonathan,

I'm afraid I can't answer the top three questions because I don't have any experience with any of that. The only thing I have used is my XL2 for about a month with the 20x lens, but I plan on getting the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS lens in the near future. I can answer the 4th question. The standard 20x lens is about 840mm, so you need a 500mm lens on the 7D to match that. Sorry I could not be more helpful.

By the way, Welcome to DVI! :)

Depending on what sort of wildlife you want to shoot, the 20x on the XL-2 is pretty short. Focal length aound 300mm is pretty decent.
In Super 16 and now 2/3" realms wildlife users have always tended to go for about 600mm as the regular long end, which in 35mm terms equates to about 1500mm. The 300 on the XL-2 would equal about 2000mm.
Don't expect the quality of the cheaper zooms to be anywhere near as good as the more pricey options on a small chip camra though.
Steve

Unless the 7D can offer longer video clips of 12-minutes without stopping, then I'd advise you to wait a bit longer until that problem is overcome before you part with your money on a DSLR.
In wildlife filming there is often periods where you need to film the subject for long periods waiting for something special to happen. Most camcorders offer at least 1-hour continuous filming at full resolution.
There is also the added problem of recording serious quality stereo sound using DSLRs, but you'll find that almost all the camcorders so far mentioned offer very good options to obtain high quality sound recording and footage for long uninterrupted periods.

Are you just referring to the differences in speed between cheaper and more expensive lenses? Besides not being as bright due to this, what other quality issues might I face with more inexpensive lenses?

So to compare the XL2 to the 7D:

Assuming I want to achieve the FOV equivalent to between 1000-2000mm on 35mm, I would need:

XL2 ($2500-$3000) + 300mm EF lens (times 7.8x crop factor; $700-$1000) = 2340mm
total $3200-$4000

7D ($1700) + Canon 2x II extender ($300) + 300mm EF lens (times 1.6x crop factor; $700-$1000) = 960mm
total $2700-$3000

I think this is all right, but I am wondering, would 1000mm be good enough on the 7D?

The reason I am considering the 7D is because, although there are obvious disadvantages and limitations to using a DSLR for videography, it will always be a great still camera as well, and because it is top of the line I believe I would have an easier time and fetch a higher price if I did decide to sell it in order to purchase something more expensive later. Whereas the XL2 seems to be a great camera and good choice for wildlife, I would be buying it knowing that I probably could not make any money from the footage and would simply be able to use it to update my reel. I would buy the 7D as a still camera, and use it's video function for a few years while I save up enough to buy a HD solid-state camcorder or some other more expensive camera. It is appealing because of the multiple frame rates and full HD resolution.

So I guess one question is, do I need that extra reach (2000mm vs 1000mm)? And are DSLRs really that bad for my situation, supplying me with an intermediate camera that would still potentially yield professional-quality salable footage? I just hate to buy an XL2 knowing that it's an old piece of equipment that I will need to fully replace, and probably won't be able to make much of my money back by re-selling.

Whether or not you need the reach depends on what you'll be filming. If you're doing birds (especially small ones) you never seem to have enough focal length (unless they're tame). Same may be true of lions and bears unless you want to walk right up to them!
As I said, the benchmark for general wildlife has always been around 600mm (in Super 16 days the Canon 300 with 2x converter and the Canon 150-600 were the standard lenses), and that's a good guideline I think, so on the XL-2 a 300mm would be about right.
With the cheaper lenses you not only lose light but also the quality of the glass used is inferior, so for instance a Sigma 400mm f5.6 would not be even on the same planet as a Canon 400mm f2.8 for quality, but then it does cost about a tenth of the price.
The diffference in lens quality seems particularly important when using 35mm lenses on small chip video cameras, probably because the small chips need lenses to resolve vastly more detail as the pixels are so small, and the high quality stills lenses can just about cope with it but the cheap ones fall well short.
All this is much more important in HD cameras than SD though, so again for showreel use on an SD camera the cheaper lenses may be adequate. If you do have to go for cheaper lenses another idea would be to go for primes rather than zooms, less flexible I know but definitely will give better image.
Steve

Thanks Steve. I'm a bit confused though. When you say 600mm, do you mean after considering the crop factor, in other words "35mm equivalent?" What type of 300mm lens are you suggesting for the XL2? An EF lens where the full 7.8x crop factor would apply, and if so am I wrong in calculating that this would result in a "35mm equivalent" FOV of more than 2000mm?

I mean 600mm actual focal length, so on a 2/3" Varicam etc., this would equate to about 1600mm, so on an XL-2 which is 1/3" you'd need half that, ie 300mm. There is a trend today towards using slightly longer focal lengths in fact (instead of fieldcraft some might say!), with 800 and 1000mm (HJ18x28 and HJ40x10) focal lengths being used quite a bit, so for that you'd want a 400 or 500mm on the XL-2. Once you get over 300 on the XL-2 though you'll have to start being really careful about shake, and your tripod weight will need to increase.
Steve

Steve's remark about the need for heavy good quality tripod legs and heads is VERY important when using the longer telephoto lenses (where even the slightest breeze or tremble can ruin footage)...and of course a large dose of special handling techniques for added measure.

Ok, so basically I wouldn't be able to achieve this magnification on a 7D DSLR without spending a tremendous amount of money on a huge heavy lens? Just for the sake of comparison, does anyone see a way to make the DSLR setup work using Steve's suggestions about focal length?

Most of your wildlife will be filmed at equivalent magnification of 300mm-600mm on a 35mm SLR.
The extreme magnifications of those same lenses on a 7X mag camcorder such as the XL2/XL-H1 or approx 2X mag on partial frame sensor DSLR such as the Canon 7D and Nikon D300s will allow you to get very close to your subject, but loss of image quality from heatwave ripples, tremor and other distance-related factors will mean that filming at those magnifications becomes only a smaller part of your main work.

To be honest, I think it maybe wiser for you to test a few DSLR & camcorder plus lens options before you actually buy. Also try not to forget all the added costs involved of extra photo equipment, computer and hardware needed other than a basic camera body and lens kit - because often it can add substantially to your initial outlay.

Ok, so if there are affordable lens options for both the XL2 and 7D, I guess I'll just have to keep considering the pros and cons of both and see what happens in the market in the coming months. It seems like for me there are benefits to both setups. Thanks again for all the advice. You have all been quite helpful.

For what it's worth, I've owned many XL2s over the years and still keep one for professional use.
The coming months will be active in the DSLR arena for the launch of new cameras. Non of the recent DSLRs have impressed me so far (and is why I still use Nikon F5 & Nikonos RS systems a lot for my digital images via scans), although I may buy the new Nikon D700x(s) and Nikon D4 full frame bodies for dual stills/video back-up work when they are released (due in November 2009 & 2010 respectively).

What are the options for selling SD wildlife footage or using it professionally?

Not much and declining I'd say!
Steve

Although HD is the future, SD is still 'now'.
The majority of worldwide programs are still broadcast in SD and so if your footage is good enough and of sufficient interest you'll be able to sell your work, as long as you push your work and manage to get the right contacts or coverage.

The best option of all is to sell your work in completed professionally edited form on a DVD. These can be sold in shops and distributed worldwide by good distributors or by the best means of all, via the world wide net.

HD in Blue-ray form is still a tiny and more expensive section of the DVD market, and SD-DVDs are still the vast majority of all sales in UK, Europe, USA and across the globe.

Not only is SD still the largest market, but the costs of working, editing and producing DVDs etc, is far lower when working from and originating in, SD.

Yes, HD/HDV will be the mainstream in some years to come, but today and for quite a few years yet, SD will be a viable format...and even if you work in HDV you will generally be down converting most of the time when you eventually show or sell your work to the media and public.

But few would start with SD today. Actually, no one would start with SD today. I can build an HD editing computer for $800 + monitor + storage. Disk storage starts at about $70/TB.

As far a FL - 7D + 1.4TC + 400 5.6 is 900mm ish


The 7D has several more stop of sensitivity compared to 1/3 sensors, so at 1/48 shutter you wont run out of light. But it better be on good support.
The great stuff is usually from blinds, remote control cameras, and other ways to get close. Shooting at 1500mm, unless it's a small animal, is shooting through a lot of air. Unless you get something really special, the long shots will need to compete with a guy who shot from 30 feet away.

I see you studied biology. I think you need to use your brain rather than 1000mm + FL. Also think about doing time lapse. It's about interesting critters and places. Instead of just shooting, pick a passion.

All of the 70-200 2.4 or f4 lenses are good. Sigma is fine on a 7D or 5DII. On a smaller sensor I would go with Canon. The older Canon 80-200 2.8 is fine too. Old Canon FD mount glass does not work on Canon eos (EF mount)

For a head I usually use the Gitzo 1380 with up to a Canon 500/4. But people here can give you better support suggestions. One place to save is aluminum legs.

Well I suppose there are all sorts of markets but certainly I've not shot a single thing in SD for at least 5 years. I wouldn't advise anyone to buy any SD gear if it's for broadcast.
Steve

The 12 minute limit for the 7D pretty much eliminates the possibility of speeding up footage for time lapse. Or will the 7D offer actual time lapse options?

Anyway, I have a showreel with a bunch of footage including a few time lapse shots. You can check it out here if you'd like: Jonathan Betz Showreel (updated summer 2009) on Vimeo

I've spoken with a few producers and after these conversations I have one goal for now: shoot nice behavioral sequences using narrative techniques. Shots of a fox, shots of a woodchuck looking disturbed, shots of a fox chasing a woodchuck, shots of the woodchuck escaping into a hole. This type of thing. I need to show that I can tell a story by getting a bunch of shots that can work as a sequence when edited together. As far as I know this is the best way to get work in this industry: more mammals and better mini-story sequences. But then this seems like it will only help me get contract jobs as an assistant or cameraman.

Anyone have suggestions about other ways to break into the industry or things I should be doing to get my foot in the door? For instance, is it realistic to think that I could produce a film myself in SD and distribute the DVDs without help from distributors?

Johnathan,
I have been in your shoes. Good luck. You would be really fortunate to find a client interested in SD today, the reason being that their own customers all want HD, whether its for broadcast, commercials, or just art. They are not going to buy your SD. If you are doing small subjects at distance, you can't possibly do better than an XL-something with 35 mm lenses and an adapter. The XL-2 is reasonably priced, and might be good for you to learn on with a 70-300mm lens (560-2700 mm on the camcorder). You can always resell the camcorder, recoup about half of your price and buy an XLH-1 to use with the same 9or better) lenses in HD. The economic advantage of these cameras running on tape compared to the still cameras with video functions recording on a chip is huge...and then there's the audio.

Again, thanks Steve! I've got a lot to think about.

That's some real good footage you got there, nicely edited together, but I would have left out the rain in the town. I like the pans in the beginning, would you mind telling me exactly how you got those.

Thanks,

Caleb

I've just bought yet another XL2 this week (yikes, says my HD head), and I wouldn't have bought it if I didn't think that I could quickly recoup the costs - far cheaper and more worthwhile than buying another XL-H1s at three times the cost to capture the same subject on tape that would need to be down-converted anyway. I rarely do things without a great deal of thought and calculating my costs against profits.

When a subject becomes a business rather than a hobby, it is vital to produce a continuous stream of money to cover overheads and make a profit big enough to live off. Chris Hurd makes a very valid point when he mentions that if you are a professional and purchase professional video equipment, then it is vital that the costs of buying that equipment is quickly and easily recouped...if not, then it is not a trade but a hobby.

Jonathan, no matter if you choose SD/HDV/HD, there is one piece of advice I can offer – and that is to try to widen your scope if possible outside of wildlife, or if wildlife/nature is your only goal then try to specialise in a subject and work very hard to obtain footage that is rarely seen.

Shooting popular subjects such as foxes & badgers, or even more popular subjects such as bears, wildcats, dolphins etc, takes you to a far wider audience, than say insects or small mammals, but there are many more cameramen shooting that same subject worldwide, and often with far more money and resources than you have...so unless it is incredible footage, or rare/violent (such as bear attacking a human) it will not stand a chance to be sold to TV companies – and also difficult to sell high volumes as DVD or BlueRay.

Earning money from wildlife films is not easy, and earning a long-term living doing it is even tougher. There are very few who can earn a decent yearly wage from it and the majority who set out to make it their goal in life fall quickly at the wayside and rarely even cover costs of all that expensive equipment. Some of BBC's top wildlife film-makers have had an extremely tough time making ends meet during the past few years – and years of HD captured footage is left unseen by the intended audience.

Filming wildlife & nature is only a part of what I do, and to make decent money this footage has to be combined with more specialist subjects such as adventure fishing & travel - and then streamlined to appeal to a targeted audience.
I do the same with my stills photography and books. I've lived off their worldwide sales for the past three decades...but it has never been easy, and I'll never be rich by it, although my life is certainly rich in wonderful memories...and I'm extremely happy.

I can read between the lines that Jonathan is keen and hungry enough to try and fulfil his goal in life...and I'm sure that if he works hard enough - no matter which tools of the trade he decides to use - he'll turn those dreams into reality.

Here's my spoon into the soup. There's right or wrong answers so take the liberty to express my best understanding. I would advice to forget SD equipment. Although one is producing SD material, still, a HDV, D7, and all other cameras with 4:2:0 color space give quite a lot of head space when downrezzing to SD. This means, one may easily stabilize imaes and crop when needed. The result, at least 4:2:2 color space, is still better than what one gets from any DV format SD camera --which results in 4:2:0 SD material. In addition, later on a unique D7 or HDV footage can be embedded into a genuine HD master tape. It won't be too distractive, especially so, if the contents is unique. Finally, new cameras tend have more dynamics than old ones, and for this reason I would advice to go for something like D7. Dynamics is one of the best friends of wildlife shooters.