<p>It's a little bit subjective. DSLR footage, straight off the camera, is very crisp and clean. Whereas a PD170 has a bit more of a 'video' look. So first off you'd have to decide what kind of look you wanted to go for. </p>

<p>In most cases you would choose to shoot on a DSLR, simply because the image is more visually appealing. </p>

<p>Pros of DSLR:</p>

<ul>
<li>better looking footage (subjective, although a common view)</li>
<li>can attach a variety of lenses (i.e. fish-eye)</li>
<li>smaller body, more mobility</li>
<li>no need to import footage off a tape, just copy and paste off SD card onto computer</li>
<li>it's cheaper</li>
</ul>

<p>Pros of PD170:</p>

<ul>
<li>don't have to worry about the camera overheating (can shoot as long as the tape and/or batter allow. DSLRs tend to overheat after 10minutes of straight shooting)</li>
<li>larger body. Easier to do handheld with just the body alone</li>
<li>can plug in a microphone directly into the camera. This avoids having to use a clapper before each take and avoids the need of syncing audio and video</li>
</ul>

<p>For me, those are the main points. If you're looking to make a film cheaply, DSLR is the way to go. But don't forget about sound; good sound is integral to a film.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-12-14T04:53:44.407Z
2011-12-14T04:53:44.407Z
Richard
<p>If you were to develop a short film, which one of these two cameras would you use?
In a recent discussion with a friend he was claiming that a camera like the Canon 600d can produce videos of much better quality compared to a Sony PD170. Is he correct? Can somebody show me some evidence to support this (or the opposite)?</p>

<video><dslr><canon>
Canon 600d vs Sony PD170 for video production
Ailef
# Canon 600d vs Sony PD170 for video production

(Asked by: username_0 on 2011-12-13)

If you were to develop a short film, which one of these two cameras would you use?
In a recent discussion with a friend he was claiming that a camera like the Canon 600d can produce videos of much better quality compared to a Sony PD170. Is he correct? Can somebody show me some evidence to support this (or the opposite)?

**Tags:** video, dslr, canon


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2011-12-14. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

It's a little bit subjective. DSLR footage, straight off the camera, is very crisp and clean. Whereas a PD170 has a bit more of a 'video' look. So first off you'd have to decide what kind of look you wanted to go for.

In most cases you would choose to shoot on a DSLR, simply because the image is more visually appealing.

Pros of DSLR:

* better looking footage (subjective, although a common view)
* can attach a variety of lenses (i.e. fish-eye)
* smaller body, more mobility
* no need to import footage off a tape, just copy and paste off SD card onto computer
* it's cheaper

Pros of PD170:

* don't have to worry about the camera overheating (can shoot as long as the tape and/or batter allow. DSLRs tend to overheat after 10minutes of straight shooting)
* larger body. Easier to do handheld with just the body alone
* can plug in a microphone directly into the camera. This avoids having to use a clapper before each take and avoids the need of syncing audio and video

For me, those are the main points. If you're looking to make a film cheaply, DSLR is the way to go. But don't forget about sound; good sound is integral to a film.


---

