Any used camera suggestions for under $400 for YouTube?

[srgkonev]

Hi guys, can you drop some used camera suggestions to shoot YouTube talking head videos at home, ideally for under $400?

And also maybe some cheap lens (used are ok as well) that would work.

would really appreciate! 

Just wanna start my blog without any big investments 

cheers

[newfoundmass]

Honestly your phone is more than good enough for this. Get one of the budget wireless mics that connects to your phone and you're good to go. 

Invest in a camera once you know whether you enjoy and are committed to it. 

[kye]

For the talking-head stuff, almost any camera will be good enough if given enough light, so I'd suggest you concentrate on getting 1) enough light so your camera is at its native ISO, and 2) lighting that is flattering and creates depth and contrast in the image.

There are lots of videos on YT that show this, and the before/afters show what is possible.  You don't need expensive lights either, there is tonnes of info on home DIY hacks using lamps and cheap shower screens as diffusers, etc.

The standard approach is 3 Point Lighting, like this:

This video is a good primer and talks about how to use (or avoid) existing light sources like natural light and ceiling lights etc.

Other videos that might be useful:

This video is longer but starts with a complete setup, so acoustics etc too.

Cameras get all the attention, but in the real world are some of the least important parts of the whole setup.

You're lucky in that you're building something indoors for one specific use in an environment you control and (hopefully) doesn't have to be portable and easy/quick to setup and pack away.  With a bit of effort you should be able to get a great setup that works really well and doesn't cost much at all.

[srgkonev]

thanks guys! Really appreciate the answers! Yeah, I'll probably will focus on getting mic and lighting setups firsts 

[newfoundmass]

4 hours ago, srgkonev said:

thanks guys! Really appreciate the answers! Yeah, I'll probably will focus on getting mic and lighting setups firsts 

These days the camera is the least imporant thing, since we all own phones that shoot very good video with the right lighting.

Something like this might be useful, to help you frame yourself so you can use your main cameras instead of the selfie camera on your phone.

https://www.smallrig.com/Wireless-Video-Monitor-for-Phone-Vlog-Kit-4851.html?skuId=1902205216988602369&utm_source=google&utm_medium=shopping&utm_campaign={us_roasl}&utm_content&utm_term=1902205216988602369&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=22986129310&gbraid=0AAAAA9ksdxlR0rKJm8KPUZEfnds4FA25H&gclid=CjwKCAjwidXQBhAZEiwA4egw6IMJP7OXRfSob5wBL8w-tVSe1oUTWPIYilNm1fLnTWsIBMzdbzi5RRoCELoQAvD_BwE

 

[fuzzynormal]

I bought a used Em10iii over 5 years ago for $300 and haven't stopped using it since.  Nice 4K video and you can put good vintage lenses on it for next to nuthin'.  Yes, concentrate on lighting and getting a good mic (I use a Tascam DR10L) but do know there are a lot of good affordable cameras out there too.  I also have 2 old GH4's in the cabinet.  They're cheap as well.

[newfoundmass]

Yeah, honestly anything that has come out in the last 10 or so years is more than good enough for YouTube. Even if it shoots 1080p, if you edit and export in 4K it will look great.

My nephew has started a small little vlog with my old GH3. That's a 14 year old camera with really good 1080p and it looks great still. He likes using a "real" camera, so that's why he uses it over his iPhone, but he could definitely get away with using just his phone.

[fuzzynormal]

1 hour ago, newfoundmass said:

Even if it shoots 1080p

I contend that the old GX7 looks better than a GH5. 

[kye]

8 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

Yeah, honestly anything that has come out in the last 10 or so years is more than good enough for YouTube. Even if it shoots 1080p, if you edit and export in 4K it will look great.

My nephew has started a small little vlog with my old GH3. That's a 14 year old camera with really good 1080p and it looks great still. He likes using a "real" camera, so that's why he uses it over his iPhone, but he could definitely get away with using just his phone.

To add to the above, Matti Haapoja (perhaps the king of pixel peeping "cinematic" YT) uploaded a bunch of videos that were edited in 1080p (and upscaled to 4K for export) and he tracked all the comments and not a single person commented that the videos looked different or whatever.

In a blind real-world test literally not one of the pixel-peeping techno-fetishist pedants could tell.

Of course you'd still want a good 1080p image, some 1080p cameras were better than others.

The added bonus of this approach is you only need 25% of the computing power to edit it.  Or if you go with h264 instead of h265 then it's even less!

[newfoundmass]

3 hours ago, kye said:

To add to the above, Matti Haapoja (perhaps the king of pixel peeping "cinematic" YT) uploaded a bunch of videos that were edited in 1080p (and upscaled to 4K for export) and he tracked all the comments and not a single person commented that the videos looked different or whatever.

In a blind real-world test literally not one of the pixel-peeping techno-fetishist pedants could tell.

Of course you'd still want a good 1080p image, some 1080p cameras were better than others.

The added bonus of this approach is you only need 25% of the computing power to edit it.  Or if you go with h264 instead of h265 then it's even less!

4K is nice, but I still insist that most of us aren't watching on screens big enough to really get the full benefit of it. I can see very little difference on my 55-inch 4K TV between 1080p and 4K, except on YouTube, but that's because of the significant bitrate bump YouTube's 4K has over its 1080p. That's another reason to upload in 4K instead of 1080p even if you film in 1080p.

When watching Blu-rays, though, the difference is almost non-existent unless you literally walk right up to the TV and are a few inches away from it.

Now imagine how little difference there is when watching on your phone or a tablet!

[kye]

11 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

I contend that the old GX7 looks better than a GH5. 

Just thinking more about this, in a studio setup where everything is controlled the 'weaknesses' of older cameras often cease to be important or even relevant.  

IBIS doesn't matter, DR is irrelevant as you can just adjust lighting, size and weight don't matter, AF doesn't matter (and isn't desirable as the last thing you want is it focusing on your hands and the background whenever you move around), etc etc.

[kye]

Just now, newfoundmass said:

4K is nice, but I still insist that most of us aren't watching on screens big enough to really get the full benefit of it. I can see very little difference on my 55-inch 4K TV between 1080p and 4K, except on YouTube, but that's because of the significant bitrate bump YouTube's 4K has over its 1080p. That's another reason to upload in 4K instead of 1080p even if you film in 1080p.

When watching Blu-rays, though, the difference is almost non-existent unless you literally walk right up to the TV and are a few inches away from it.

Now imagine how little difference there is when watching on your phone or a tablet!

100%.

......and if you switch the question from "is it visible" to "is it important for the content of the video" the answer gets even clearer!