I just don't think that the video is good enough. I looked for some vids, they were really neat views but the autofocus was laggy and the frames were jut to slow, quite a lot of blur. I don't get camera depending on their video. It's a pretty good cam so don't let the video put you of
I would NEVER use AF in a video I cared about. That is of absolutely no concern to me. I don't need the camera for a beautiful camera. I was doing just fine with my IRD60. I know the optical qualities of the camera as a camera. This or the D3200 are both perfectly fine for my IR needs. It's not my main use camera, so it doesn't need all the bells and whistles of my
D800. I just need a camera capable of producing great photos with my pro-grade glass. Either of these will do a fine job.
The frame rate is 100% dependent on what setting you choose. Most likely, the people making the videos are not setting the camera to Manual and changing the actual exposure and shutter speed in the camera, just focusing on the frame rate of the video. This will lead to some really nasty video.
I agree 100% with Josh. The day photographers start buying dSLR's because of their video capabilities is the day we all need to put down our cameras. As for the slow frame rate, that is completely irrelevant. Cinematic movies that cost millions of dollars, shot with equipment that cost as much as a porsche are shot at 24 frames per second.
Please note the comment above. I'm not specifically buying the camera for only taking video. I need an upgraded infrared camera. But, I know both camera's capabilities when it comes to photos. I have a production I'd like to make with my D800. But, I'm going to need an IR camera that can shoot good video, trying to match my D800 as much as possible.
Mark's been around the photography block a time or two already, folks--I think he KNOWS not to be a DSLR strictly for its video ability, under normal circumstances. That's not what he's talking about. He's already GOT a DSLR that will blow the lens blades off the D3200--he's just interested in whether it's worth getting the D3200 to convert to an infrared instead of converting the D3100 he already has.
Mark: I've never used either. Heck, I just used the video on my D5100 for the very first time two days ago, and I've had it for almost a year now.
Is there somewhere you could get your hands on the D3200 locally to test it out? Or somewhere you could rent one from for a week? Because if I were, and wanted it for such a specific use, I wouldn't really want to rely on others' results. It may just be that the kind of people who are buying the D3200 tend to be the kind of people who don't know how to take video.
Thanks for that! Yeah, like I said above, I know what I'm getting into as far as photos go. Either and both are perfectly good for my photo IR needs. Both, in good hands, can produce great photos. Shoot, I was using a D60 before. Surely either of these would work at very least as good as that. I may just have to run around and try one for myself, like you said.
I'm a little new to IR. In fact I just started researching it to determine what cameras are best suited for conversion.
I get the impression in my research so far that newer sensors are much worse candidates for IR conversion due to the better quality IR filters in these sensors. It can be done, but the exposure times are far longer in say my D90 as opposed to a D50 to get suitable IR exposures. If your're shooting landscapes, this will get you much more motion blur from leaf movement etc.
I just noticed that Thom Hogan list the G11 "in his bag" converted for IR. The G11 or G12 are cheaper than the D3200 and also do video if that's important.
Of course, if you're looking to do IR video in Nikon DSLR body, then you are stuck with a newer sensor and it's potential IR conversion issues.
Like I said, new to IR so anyone set me straight if I have any of this wrong.
None of this has anything to do with getting the camera converted for IR-only use. When you convert a camera for IR-only use, the company will remove the IR-cut filter and replace it with a different filter for the specific nanometer cut-off limit of your choice. You will still be able to see out of the viewfinder, you will still get the same exposure times as with a regular camera (some of the higher nanometer cutoffs, 830nm and above, lose about 1/3 stop). I've went the IR filter-route before, and there is NO WAY I'd go back. The exposure times were 20-30 seconds in broad daylight with my D300s. With my converted D60, everything was just as it was with my normal cameras.
Thanks everyone!
Mark
