Need Camera with Video (that is both Simple yet Professional)

I know an immense amount about automobiles from their beginning through today. Not just thier history but their internal workings. Built a few hot rods in my time as well. That doesn't mean you will see me at Watkins Glen this weekend driving in the NASCAR Cup race.

Camera's don't produce "Professional Images." Photographers do. More than one well know photographer in the last few years has done entire showings using either a basic throw away 35mm film camera or a simple, cheap P&S.

A "Basic simple camera" wouldn't do video. Video in a DSLR is just another one of those "cluttered options." But some people want those cluttered options so the manufacturers try to please as many as they can.

What you appear to be looking for is a custom camera with only the options you want. Not going to happen.

Your best bet is to research what is currently being used, I supplied you one link to start, then go look at those cameras that interest you. Seeing is believing.
 
Skip Nikon if you want to shoot video. Try as they might they are still far behind.

I'd start with a 70d, cheap but in skilled hands still very capable. Features like true autofocus, tilting screen, and a touch screen for selecting where you want to focus make it a great choice for beginners.

Also buy some good EF glass. The good thing about canon glass is that they were designed so that all the moving parts are in the lens and controlled by the body, Nikon glass has the focus motor in the camera body. This allows canon glass to be mounted to quite a few "big boy" cameras (RED, Blackmagic and Sony with an adapter) so when you upgrade you can keep your glass.
 
A tremendous amount of what makes footage look "professional" is often done in post.
 
A tremendous amount of what makes footage look "professional" is often done in post.

Eh, depends. Its just like photos, you can add all the bells and whistles in post but a **** photo won't improve.
 
Lightning is huge, I have a shoot coming up that will involve about 7 lights for just one interview session.

It takes a lot of effort to make a shot look professional.
 
I was more thinking location. But yeah, it starts with light and like everything it takes planning. Post production is part of that.

I didn't mean to suggest a "fix it in post" attitude.
 
I've always used separate cameras for video and photo. Did video for a while, but now 100% photos and prefer to have someone else do video. As for the cluttered camera bodies - the more buttons, dials and levers to make instant adjustments the better.

On product reviews: often these reviews of product are done by people that just picked up the new camera and want to put out something quick while there is a lot of interest in that new item. For that reason I can understand why they can be thrown off on how to make some adjustment that is done in a way that is different from what they are more familiar with.

With the budget noted then maybe the 7d and install magic lantern and pick up the 50mm f/1.8 lens. A lot of stuff has moved ahead of that, but it is still a decent starting point.
 
... The good thing about canon glass is that they were designed so that all the moving parts are in the lens and controlled by the body, Nikon glass has the focus motor in the camera body. This allows canon glass to be mounted to quite a few "big boy" cameras (RED, Blackmagic and Sony with an adapter) so when you upgrade you can keep your glass.
I'm not to up on Canon nor all the technical details. But Nikon's modern AF-S lenses have the focus motor in the lens body.

If you talk about the older Nikon AF/AF-D lenses then yes they require a focus motor in the body, which is great for backward compatibility and using older less expensive lenses (found on nikon d7x00 and FF cameras). The Nikon d5x00 and lower bodies do not have a focus motor in the body and require the lens to have all the features built-in.

Canon has a history of changing the mounts - last changed in 1987 (and 1976, 1971, 1964, 1959) , whereas Nikon has kept the same mount for a very long time since 1959ish, so you have an evolutionary selection of manual focus lenses (AI/AI-S), screw drive focus lenses (AF/AF-D) and the modern (Canon-like) built-in motor AF-S and aperture control G lenses. Every mount change renders the older lenses useless on newer bodies. Nikon is a bit more supportive of older lenses.
 
... The good thing about canon glass is that they were designed so that all the moving parts are in the lens and controlled by the body, Nikon glass has the focus motor in the camera body. This allows canon glass to be mounted to quite a few "big boy" cameras (RED, Blackmagic and Sony with an adapter) so when you upgrade you can keep your glass.
I'm not to up on Canon nor all the technical details. But Nikon's modern AF-S lenses have the focus motor in the lens body.

If you talk about the older Nikon AF/AF-D lenses then yes they require a focus motor in the body, which is great for backward compatibility and using older less expensive lenses (found on nikon d7x00 and FF cameras). The Nikon d5x00 and lower bodies do not have a focus motor in the body and require the lens to have all the features built-in.

Canon has a history of changing the mounts - last changed in 1987 (and 1976, 1971, 1964, 1959) , whereas Nikon has kept the same mount for a very long time since 1959ish, so you have an evolutionary selection of manual focus lenses (AI/AI-S), screw drive focus lenses (AF/AF-D) and the modern (Canon-like) built-in motor AF-S and aperture control G lenses. Every mount change renders the older lenses useless on newer bodies. Nikon is a bit more supportive of older lenses.

I am aware. ;) I think it's hurt them in the video world tho. Nobody makes Nikon mount video units.
 
Thank you everyone who replied. So I finally had the opportunity to at least take a look at the camera options at Best Buy. Through my extensive research online, I was at first interested in the Nikon D5300; from what I understand it has some amazing specs in a small, inexpensive body - though I'm not entirely clear on it's limitations in terms of image quality compared to a full frame....... But when I actually got to the store, I was far more impressed by the full frame Canon EOS 6D, a little on the high end for my budget range but known for its excellent low light capabilities. It seems like the closer to Pro one goes, the less clutter there is in the button layout (what you need to take the shot and little else). Still, I'm not 100% pleased with the layout or menu of any of them. It all looks very dated to me; a great lack of innovation and creativity in terms of design.
 
I do not mean if you meant to be rude, but some of your comments sounded like that. Always be careful on forums what you write, especially to people whose work you have never seen (I did not post any of my work because I was not looking for opinions on it). The question of going into photography professionally is something I've thought a lot about. It has not been an easy decision. What you say about it being very expensive is perfectly true. But I am confident in my talents and, moreover, I know professional photographers who make good money and yet have, in my opinion, zero talent artistically speaking (by which I am not saying that it is easy to make money in photography).

I'm always careful to say exactly what I think.
Probably 50% of the new photographers who come here are enormously confident in their own talents.
Your faith in yourself doesn't have too much to do with actual talent and actual talent doesn't have great deal to do with eventual success.

I think we maybe got off on the wrong foot. It was not my intention. I understand that you are simply trying to advise me not to make a bad career decision, and I appreciate that.
 
I think we maybe got off on the wrong foot. It was not my intention. I understand that you are simply trying to advise me not to make a bad career decision, and I appreciate that.

Ok, well my two cents worth:

If your looking for something simple/basic in the DSLR realm, something in the Nikon D3200/D3300 range is probably a good start.

If you want something with more advanced controls, D7100/D7200. You can still use the "scene" modes or Aperture or Shutter priority and Auto ISO and let the camera do most the heavy lifting, if you so desire, but it will give you something to grow into and allow you better control once you do get used to the basic control systems.

If video is more important than still images, Canon does have some slightly better features for video, however if stills/lowlight is more important Nikon has the better sensors and dynamic range for images.

Best lowlight performance would be full frame, but they are a lot more expensive not only for the body but for the lenses. So sounds like maybe your best compromise would be a good APS-C sensor DSLR and a decent external flash.

Ultimately of course your skills will determine how good the end results are far more than your camera choice, the higher end cameras simply make certain things easier.
 
Just bought a Canon EOS M for this very reason. It is great in low light, 18mp and takes really nice videos. Plus it has an external mic plug so you are not limited to the camera's internal microphone (which, incidentally, sounds pretty good). It was the cheapest option on a list of cameras that were competent with video.
 
Just bought a Canon EOS M for this very reason. It is great in low light, 18mp and takes really nice videos. Plus it has an external mic plug so you are not limited to the camera's internal microphone (which, incidentally, sounds pretty good). It was the cheapest option on a list of cameras that were competent with video.

I guess you and I have very different definitions of "great in low light".
 
I do think you're being unrealistic about the economic viability of photography/video as a profession. You can go to any site that discusses photography and see pages of photographers complaining about how lousy the field is now. As for a camera, since you don't want to make an expensive mistake, why not rent some of the cameras you are interested in? You can get a much better idea of their capabilities and see how comfortable they are for you. It's an added expense, but it's better than buying something you end up disliking.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top