DOF

[WEPS]

Want to start shooting video. A Nikon shooter, I'm debating between the new D800 and a D7000. The only advantage I see to the D800 is better control over DOF, but I've never shot with a Dx camera before and perhaps with quality lenses I could manage DOF with the smaller sensor.

Anyone have experience with smaller sensors and DIF control?

Thanks

[Ads]

[MTVision]

Want to start shooting video. A Nikon shooter, I'm debating between the new D800 and a D7000. The only advantage I see to the D800 is better control over DOF, but I've never shot with a Dx camera before and perhaps with quality lenses I could manage DOF with the smaller sensor.

Anyone have experience with smaller sensors and DIF control?

Thanks

I don't shoot video but why would you have better "control" over depth of field with the d800?

[Terenas1986]

DOF is about lenses, not the camera. And if I might add: if you wish to shoot video: buy a camcorder! I - by no means - will EVER use a DSLR to record video. It's the stupidest most consumer-fooling thing ever created in Photography-world (IMO). Seriously.. use a camcorder... even an old DV-tape camcorder is better for that. It has video lens and autofocus during video...etcetc... I won't go on. Has more than enough reasons to buy over the DSLR for vid version.

[rexbobcat]

DOF is about lenses, not the camera. And if I might add: if you wish to shoot video: buy a camcorder! I - by no means - will EVER use a DSLR to record video. It's the stupidest most consumer-fooling thing ever created in Photography-world (IMO). Seriously.. use a camcorder... even an old DV-tape camcorder is better for that. It has video lens and autofocus during video...etcetc... I won't go on. Has more than enough reasons to buy over the DSLR for vid version.

Full frame cameras give more control over depth of field than crop cameras. It's not just the lens.

And I guess you're entitled to your opinion but a DSLR when used correctly is a wonderful video tool. It just keeps you from being lazy, which most consumers nowadays are not fond of.

With some technique manual focusing becomes easier and more predictable. Most cinematographers don't use autofocus anyways. They use follow and rack focusing.

For the occasional home movie I would consider getting a cheap camcorder, but if you're serious then a DSLR is the cheapest way to go

[TheKenTurner]

Full frame cameras give more control over depth of field than crop cameras. It's not just the lens.

And I guess you're entitled to your opinion but a DSLR when used correctly is a wonderful video tool. It just keeps you from being lazy, which most consumers nowadays are not fond of.

With some technique manual focusing becomes easier and more predictable. Most cinematographers don't use autofocus anyways. They use follow and rack focusing.

For the occasional home movie I would consider getting a cheap camcorder, but if you're serious then a DSLR is the cheapest way to go

DSLR is by no means the cheapest way to go. You can get a great (Panasonic TM900 or whatever the newest version is) for about $1000. My T3i + lens is about $1200 by itself.

But with that being said, DSLR is still great for videos. You may not see it as much for big productions, but even RED cameras are pretty much a DSLR with a different shape. Also, YouTube is full of DLSR users.

-ken Turner

[o hey tyler]

DOF is about lenses, not the camera. And if I might add: if you wish to shoot video: buy a camcorder! I - by no means - will EVER use a DSLR to record video. It's the stupidest most consumer-fooling thing ever created in Photography-world (IMO).

Yeah, I suppose you're right. Since there haven't been any feature length movies mad with a DSLR EVER AT ALL EVER.

It's just a marketing ploy, really.

[KmH]

By the time the proper accessories are added to a DSLR to make broadcast quality video, the rig costs as much, if not more, than starting with a made for broadcast video, video camera.

The comparison I linked to only compares image sensor performance, and no other camera features. The Nikon D5100 is a grade level below the T3i, so it's no surprise it has functions that are not quite as sophisticated as the T3i. canon chose to concentrate on improving the video performance of their entry-level cameras, while Nikon chose to improve the still photo performance of their entry-level cameras.

Starting with the D7000, Nikon is now catching Canon relative to video performance, and if Nikon surpasses Canon in that regard, like Nikon has already with still camera performance, Canon will then be playing catch up.

Nikon offered the first DSLR that also could do video, the D90. Canon offered the 5D MK II and was blind-sided that the video functionality the 5D MK II had became as desirable as it did. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.

[rexbobcat]

Full frame cameras give more control over depth of field than crop cameras. It's not just the lens.

And I guess you're entitled to your opinion but a DSLR when used correctly is a wonderful video tool. It just keeps you from being lazy, which most consumers nowadays are not fond of.

With some technique manual focusing becomes easier and more predictable. Most cinematographers don't use autofocus anyways. They use follow and rack focusing.

For the occasional home movie I would consider getting a cheap camcorder, but if you're serious then a DSLR is the cheapest way to go

DSLR is by no means the cheapest way to go. You can get a great (Panasonic TM900 or whatever the newest version is) for about $1000. My T3i + lens is about $1200 by itself.

But with that being said, DSLR is still great for videos. You may not see it as much for big productions, but even RED cameras are pretty much a DSLR with a different shape. Also, YouTube is full of DLSR users.

-ken Turner

I know you can get them cheaper like the one you mentioned above, but with a 1/4 size sensor it would be hard to get any decent shallow DoF or cinematic bokeh. I used to have a Canon Vixia HF-S11 that was THE BEST (emphasis) consumer cam that I've ever owned, but unless I was remaking The Blair Witch Project or something I would opt for my 60D before I've look to the Vixia. There's just something about consumer cams that give them a....consumer look...as opposed to a 1/3 3 CMOS or DSLR sized CMOS sensor.

[Markw]

DOF is about lenses, not the camera. And if I might add: if you wish to shoot video: buy a camcorder! I - by no means - will EVER use a DSLR to record video. It's the stupidest most consumer-fooling thing ever created in Photography-world (IMO). Seriously.. use a camcorder... even an old DV-tape camcorder is better for that. It has video lens and autofocus during video...etcetc... I won't go on. Has more than enough reasons to buy over the DSLR for vid version.

Wow. How entirely off-base you are! In the right hands, with the right knowledge, a DSLR can make an incredible video tool! Far better than alot of camcorders if a stylistic approach is what you're looking for. Try reproducing an 85/1.4 @1.4 on a camcorder.

DOF is about lenses, not the camera. And if I might add: if you wish to shoot video: buy a camcorder! I - by no means - will EVER use a DSLR to record video. It's the stupidest most consumer-fooling thing ever created in Photography-world (IMO).

No. DOF is also about the camera. A larger sensor = a shallower DOF per similar image due to decreased working distance + constant aperture and other factors. Have you ever even SEEN a DSLR being used at a professional-level production quality? I'd say not. Incredible productions have been produced via a DSLR. Now, with full exposure control and higher frame rates coming in, and with the D800s uncompressed video out, only greater things are sure to come. This comment sounds to me like one of 2 things. 1) You haven't been around in the photography field for too long. Or; 2) You own a camcorder and use it alot, so you say you'd NEVER use the video function of a DSLR to make up for that insecurity that it could be as good, or better, than your camcorder.

Yeah, I suppose you're right. Since there haven't been any feature length movies mad with a DSLR EVER AT ALL EVER.

It's just a marketing ploy, really.

+1

Mark