Canon or Nikon for filmmaking?

[Halnex]

My friend owns a Canon 5D mark II and he told me that if I want to make it into filmmaking, I'd better go with Canon instead of Nikon.

My original plan was to get a Nikon D610 FF. so now I'm lost between getting Nikon D610 or switching to Canon 6D.

But then my friend showed me Canon's dedicated cinema lenses and the fact that nothing of equivalence exists for Nikon is a shame.

He then went on to say that Nikon D810 (36MP) is bad for video because it's 36MP. I have no idea why he said that as my experience in video is zilch to null.

Your explanation is greatly appreciated.

 

[Waldo32487]

From what I understand, Canon is more "tuned" for video whereas Nikon has slightly sharper pictures.
Now I'm sure someone who knows more about it than I do can give exact reasons, however just by looking at the dial on the canon vs nikon, Canons have a video "setting" whereas for nikon you have to put it on live view and use the record button....

just my .02

 

[runnah]

Canon hands down is the best for video. I shoot with my mkIII all the time and it blows most sub $5k camera out of the water.

Nikon isn't really designed for video.

 

[Microbois]

From what I remember back when I was looking at the 5DMkII, Canon's video codec is natively much more robust because it records at 35 or 50mb/sec in the camera, so it will hold up much better to color grading or any other filtering effect you want to apply (green screen comes to mind). Nikon video codec is about half of that and highly compressed at 24 or 25 mb/sec, and will fall apart very quickly under little filtering work. So, camera alone for camera alone, Canon's has a much better and usable codec than Nikon, hands down.

I'm the owner of a Nikon D610, and you do have a workaround with Nikon's camera (D610, D750 and D810) if you connect them to an external recorder from their HDMI port. You will then record uncompressed video with specs that far exceeds those of the in-camera native format of the 5DMkII or 5DMkIII, and it will be of broadcast quality. Unfortunately, this bulky external recorder will cost you extra money, as well as the other accessories related to that recorder (batteries, wires, holders, etc.). That being said, the Canon's can also be connected to an external monitor and from that point, it comes out pretty much the same. If others want to chime in, especially on the video menu system on the Canon that may have more configurable settings than the Nikon, be my guest.

I think before making a final decision between Nikon or Canon, you should try them both, look at their full ecosystem of lenses and accessories, and assess your needs. Most likely there will be a better fit with one brand over the other. Only you can be the judge of that. Oh, if you want professional results, you will also have to buy an external sound recorder since those in DSLRs aren't great.

Hope this helps,

Benoit

 

[DaveEP]

Canon hands down is the best for video. I shoot with my mkIII all the time and it blows most sub $5k camera out of the water.

Nikon isn't really designed for video.

I've shot with both Canon & Nikon and if I had to choose between the two it would depend a lot on what I was shooting. Straight out of camera the Nikon was sharper but didn't do so well at high ISO. I sold all my Nikon gear a while back.

The Canon 5D2 was a great camera but not great in low light (shot with two of them) and had lots of alias and moiré problems. The 5D3 fixed the majority of alias/moiré problems by blurring the image so much it looks horrible and needs sharpening in post. Even then it's not great.

Right now I have various video options, including the Canon 5D3, the Canon C100 and also the Panasonic GH4. If we're in a really high dynamic range situation I'll opt for the C100 in C-Log mode, but in 99% of the situations I'll pick the GH4 because it's video quality blows the 5D3 and C100 away.

While you can shoot raw on the 5D3 using magic lantern hacks, it's not standard, it's not supported by Canon, the cards can be flakey from time to time and the workflow is horrible. It's certainly not what I'd even consider using for the vast majority or real (paid) shoots.

So, while you may be focussed on either Canon or Nikon (and both will do the job), at least take a look at the GH4 before making a final decision. Glass for micro four thirds now covers everything I ever want to shoot, from f0.95 / f1.2 / f1.4 glass for your shallow DOF ad focal lengths all the way from 7mm (14mm FF) through to 300mm (600mm FF) options.

Remember, full frame can give you a 'shallower' DOF (which hobbyists seem to crave right now), but it's not so easy to shoot with (and requires expensive glass) and is NOT the Hollywood look everyone thinks it is. None of the big Hollywood cameras are full-frame (Alexa, Red etc).

 

[Microbois]

Remember, full frame can give you a 'shallower' DOF (which hobbyists seem to crave right now), but it's not so easy to shoot with (and requires expensive glass) and is NOT the Hollywood look everyone thinks it is. None of the big Hollywood cameras are full-frame (Alexa, Red etc).

The film look is mostly related to the shallow depth of field we got from the 35mm film cameras Hollywood used to use for shooting movies. If your digital camera has a full frame sensor, you can get the exact same look. Of course, there's a little more to the Hollywood film look though. You'll need some good lighting and lenses, some filtering work, and maybe an anamorphic lens to make it more dramatic. That being said, nothing will replace the knowledge and experience required to put all this together and create that film look.

While the OP is just interested in the Nikon D610 or the Canon 5D Mark III for their video capabilities, if he's going to shoot a lot of videos, he's better off looking for better cameras than those. DaveEP nailed it by suggesting the GH4, or even other "real" video cameras. I've shot a few videos with my Nikon D610 so far, and it's a lot of hard work, not to say that it's not fun at all. I would never use my D610 if it was my day job. DSLR are great for B-roll, or just to cover another angle of a scene, but shooting with them exclusively is not really serious.

 

[DaveEP]

The film look is mostly related to the shallow depth of field we got from the 35mm film cameras Hollywood used to use for shooting movies.

Interestingly, Hollywood never did shoot 35mm 'full frame', it was more like 35mm 'half frame' because the film ran vertically rather than horizontally and there were up to two frames in the space of the normal 35mm full frame. It was Leica (IIRC) that took that film (because it was relatively cheap) and turned it sideways and used it for photography, somewhere around 1913.

There were several variations depending on what scheme the studio was using at the time, 3 perf, 4 perf etc (perf being the number of perforations per frame) as well as anamorphic etc.

Typical hollywood frame size (for 35mm) was around 18mm X 24mm and not the 24mm x 36mm of full frame stills cameras so was effectively a 'crop' and the DOF was never quite as 'shallow' as the current full frame cameras can produce.

Sorry to get side tracked there

 

[Microbois]

That's true, I totally forgot about that "detail". lol. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[qleak]

If you're specifically looking for video why not get a video camera like blackmagic design. It will torch both nikon and canon just because it's what it's designed to do. You can get them with an EF mount if you want

 

[scoop2622]

Canon

 

[Ballistics]

There's no 2 ways about it, Canon. I shoot with my Nikon D800, and I wish I bought a Canon just because I've been using it for video so much.

 

[Ballistics]

But if you don't have anything and are looking to do only video, the canon XA20 looks like an awesome camera.

 

[runnah]

Canon hands down is the best for video. I shoot with my mkIII all the time and it blows most sub $5k camera out of the water.

Nikon isn't really designed for video.

I've shot with both Canon & Nikon and if I had to choose between the two it would depend a lot on what I was shooting. Straight out of camera the Nikon was sharper but didn't do so well at high ISO. I sold all my Nikon gear a while back.

The Canon 5D2 was a great camera but not great in low light (shot with two of them) and had lots of alias and moiré problems. The 5D3 fixed the majority of alias/moiré problems by blurring the image so much it looks horrible and needs sharpening in post. Even then it's not great.

Right now I have various video options, including the Canon 5D3, the Canon C100 and also the Panasonic GH4. If we're in a really high dynamic range situation I'll opt for the C100 in C-Log mode, but in 99% of the situations I'll pick the GH4 because it's video quality blows the 5D3 and C100 away.

While you can shoot raw on the 5D3 using magic lantern hacks, it's not standard, it's not supported by Canon, the cards can be flakey from time to time and the workflow is horrible. It's certainly not what I'd even consider using for the vast majority or real (paid) shoots.

So, while you may be focussed on either Canon or Nikon (and both will do the job), at least take a look at the GH4 before making a final decision. Glass for micro four thirds now covers everything I ever want to shoot, from f0.95 / f1.2 / f1.4 glass for your shallow DOF ad focal lengths all the way from 7mm (14mm FF) through to 300mm (600mm FF) options.

Remember, full frame can give you a 'shallower' DOF (which hobbyists seem to crave right now), but it's not so easy to shoot with (and requires expensive glass) and is NOT the Hollywood look everyone thinks it is. None of the big Hollywood cameras are full-frame (Alexa, Red etc).

While I agree with some of your points I think the biggest issue is price. A 5d mkIII with some nice glass will yield you results that are 99% "there" when compared to a lot of high end cameras. The sharpness is something that I have never had issues with. Using photo specific lenses make focusing harder as the adjustments are so fine that focus is easily missed. Using cine lenses makes it much easier.

Back to the price. Cameras like the canon, Sony and Panasonic are fantastic value for money. The price gap between say a 5d mkIII and full on "movie" cameras is staggering. So much so that you could easily buy 3 5d bodies for the cost of one Red "starter" pack. So really unless you want to drop 20-30k on an entry level "Hollywood" cameras a dslr (or canon c100-300) is the best option.

As for what brand to buy...well Canon and Sony have both had a well versed history and development of video technology. Nikon has not.

P.s a rumor I heard, which I hope is not true, is that canon is planning on dropping video capabilities in thier next round of pro dslrs to try to push people towards their "C" series.

 

[Ballistics]

Canon 5DIII Plus 1 L lens will put you over $5k.

 

[DaveEP]

P.s a rumor I heard, which I hope is not true, is that canon is planning on dropping video capabilities in thier next round of pro dslrs to try to push people towards their "C" series.

Dropping video is not going to happen, but at the same time the only improvement you can expect is the AF system, which even then is not great. I have it on the C100 and it's not smooth unless you buy the specific (non L consumer) lenses.

Canon built themselves a reputation for video with the 5D2 because while not perfect, it was the best there was out there at the time. The only other camera that could shoot movies was the Nikon D90, but even then it was only 720p and had lots of other problems. Even Canon were surprised by how popular the 5D2 was for video, given it only did 30p and had to add other frame rates later.

Most people assume the 5D3 must be better, but Canon simply took a relatively sharp image that suffered from moiré and aliasing and blurred it (or didn't sharpen) to hide those problems. The 5D3 was better at high ISO, but that's about it. The image was not as good straight out of camera for anything but higher ISO.

The Nikon D800 was always going to be a disappointment for video based on being 36MP. That's not good for a 2MP video image because the CPU just can't scale that much info quickly enough. Therefore it has to use line skipping. However, it didn't blur the image like Canon did, so straight out of camera the D800 was sharper. I did side by side comparisons three times before selling my D800. The problem the D800 has high ISO noise. Around 2500-3200 it becomes almost unusable for video and also a magenta cast crept in from 3200 upwards. They may have fixed that in later firmware. The D800 was about on par with the 5D2. Nikon aren't serious about video, it's only there because everyone else has it. Olympus are in the same boat but 5 miles behind (still only 30p).

The Canon C series are designed to do the job and do it very well. But they are expensive. They have 4K video specific sensors though this is down scaled to1080p for both the C100 and C300 products. This results in a stunning image when sat next to a DSLR. Shooting the C100 and 5D3 side by side make the 5D3 look like you're shooting through the bottom of a bottle instead of L glass.

Both Sony and Panasonic have mirror less (DSLR like) products that beat both Canon and Nikon in terms of outright quality of image and are heavily invested in getting video features in to a small body. Micro-four-thirds glass is sharper than most full frame glass as well as being cheaper. The only thing you lose is super high ISO and equivalent shallow DOF at any given aperture / distance, but a good DOP knows how to work around that because they've been doing it in the film making industry forever.

The native Sony glass is still building, but it will get there in time. The other advantage of the Sony mount is the ability to use everyone else's glass too.

Folks, if you all want to head blindly in to the Canon system I have a very little used 5D3 for sale (UK).