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

[Seize the Light]

I'm new here so first of all, Hello!

I am looking to buy a camera (as well as lighting and lenses, buy I'll save that for another thread).

I have some experience with a compact camera, but I'm looking to get into photography seriously, as in a profession. At first I was positive I was going to get a Canon or, maybe, Nikon (because that's what nearly all my favorite photographers on Flickr use and because I know these brands have a long history). But upon closer inspection, I'm beginning to have second thoughts. But let me start with what I want the camera to do:

1. Obviously, it needs to take professional quality pictures, good enough for magazines and also for fine art prints (I'm interested in doing a lot of "art", non-commercial portraits). For commercial work, I'm mostly interested in food and outdoor pet, child, fashion photography.

2. I want a camera that has fantastic low-light capabilities. I love natural, low light photography, and I am tired of having my crummy compact camera tell me "you don't have enough light" and suffering from ugly unacceptable noise when I go above ISO 400.

3. I want to make short films and music videos (I don't have the budget to buy a still camera AND a camcorder). Again, I need the best quality a still camera can give me. But for now, my videos will be seen mostly on websites like YouTube; it's not like they're gonna be projected on an IMAX 3D screen any time soon.

............ So within my price range, I was originally looking at cameras like the Nikon D90 and the Canon 70D, mostly because I've seen some very professional short films made with them. Maybe the Rebel cameras. But I have to admit, the amount of options in these brands alone is overwhelming, especially for someone who has a limited understanding of all the jargon.

However, when I went on YouTube and looked up tutorials on these cameras, to see what they were like in action, I was pretty much appalled at the design on these professional DSLRs. It seems like Canon and Nikon's theory is that professionals want a lot of options, and I can understand that, but it seems like their solution is to clutter the camera with more buttons than fleas in a dog's ear. And then when you get into the digital screen menu area, nothing is clearly designated and it is all very confusing (even the people making the tutorial videos were frequently pressing the wrong options and saying "Oops, sorry" all the time. One person with experience with DSLRs had to confess that he had trouble figuring out how to focus!).

Please understand I'm not trying to trash talk any of these models. I have never even tried one myself, so I am merely making assumptions from observation. But the point is that I think I would prefer something more basic/simple in terms of design. I love to fidget with options in post-production (Photoshop, After Effects), but when I'm on the street shooting and I don't want to miss that shot, less is better!

This got me looking at the Fuji X cameras, which seem to be a simplified "retro" reaction against the complexity of DSLRs. But I'm nervous because, based on the fact that I don't see those cameras being used on Flickr nearly as much as Canon and Nikon, nor have I found as of yet any professional, creative movies done with them to prove their worth in video (feel free to prove me wrong!). Ultimately, it is image/video quality that is more important than design.

Are the Nikons and Canons actually easy to use once you get the hang of it? Do the Fuji cameras have the power I need? Are there any other cameras you would suggest me looking into?

Thank you!

 

[KmH]

It is how you control lighting, subject matter, and composition that makes professional quality photographs - regardless what camera you use.
You have to learn how to do photography/videography if you want to consistently produce professional quality photographs.
Photography is not rocket science.
Photography is both art and science at the same time.
The science part address many technical aspects the photographer needs to know how to control or account for.
Depth-of-field, inverse square law, family of angles, field-of-view, triad of exposure adjustments, f-stops, T-stops, and more.

Shooting video requires constant lighting while stills are usually best made using flash. So to shoot both stills and video you will likely want 2 separate lighting systems.

Anything is easy to use 'once you get the hang of it'.

What is your budget for a camera and lighting?
$500 - Nikon D3300 (new) entry-level grade
$1000 - Nikon D7200 (used) prosumer grade
$1750 - Nikon D3s (used) professional grade
$6000 - Nikon D4s (new)

I think Nikon has a variety of advantages over Canon.

 

[goodguy]

Good low light performance ?
Get only Full Frame camera.
Cameras that can give you good stills and videos ?
Nikon D750 or Canon 5D III

Another option is get the Sony A7R II which is about to come out soon to the market.

If you want good low light performance then APS-C cameras like the Canon 70D or Fuji X-T1 will never be as good as full frame cameras.
Dont get me wrong they do well in low light just not as good as full frame.

Fuji X-T1 is an excelent picture maker but not recommended for video.
Canon 70D is an excellent video maker and can produce good pictures but its dynamic range is limited compared to Nikon cameras.
If you want to stick with crop sensor cameras then another option is Nikon D5500, excellent camera, is better in stills compared to the 70D but is slightly less effective in video when compared to the 70D, still an excellent video camera in its own right.

Another option is Sony A6000 which is very affordable and good camera but again its a crop sensor camera so it will not have the low light performance of the full frame.

Good luck.

 

[jaomul]

As said above, controlling and understanding light is most important.

I am not sure that the sensor size thing is quite as important as above mentioned. Sure it does effect quality but if you are controlling light as said it shouldn't be to much of an issue.

Without goung to much into specs, a micro 4/3rds/ and aps-c or fullframe camera will be a massive step up in quality over a cheap compact camera. You say iso 400 is ugly, not so much an issue with an interchangeable lens camera with a sensor 20 times the size of a 100 dollar point and shoot. There are plusses and minusses to all formats.

Canon at the moment have better video focussing in most of there dslr range than nikon. Canon also can mostly change aperture in live view, only really expensive nikons can.

I would recommend neither if video is really a big deal. The mirrorless cameras from panasonic and Sony do a much better integrated video function than a dslr does.

The a6000 mentioned above is probably a good all rounder, however a panasonic gh4 is panasonics micro 4/3rds camera hailed for its video ability. It is a m4/3rds sensor so ultimately its image quality will be slightly inferior to a camera with a bigger sensor, but pros are using these m4/3 for video and imagery, weddings being often done now with such set ups, so they are good enough for both with the right knowledge.

As for complicated buttons, this is a misconception. The more buttons there are the easier it is to change a function without menu diving. You can still set up a complicated camera in a simpler mode

 

[Seize the Light]

It is how you control lighting, subject matter, and composition that makes professional quality photographs - regardless what camera you use.
You have to learn how to do photography/videography if you want to consistently produce professional quality photographs.
Photography is not rocket science.
Photography is both art and science at the same time.
The science part address many technical aspects the photographer needs to know how to control or account for.
Depth-of-field, inverse square law, family of angles, field-of-view, triad of exposure adjustments, f-stops, T-stops, and more.

Shooting video requires constant lighting while stills are usually best made using flash. So to shoot both stills and video you will likely want 2 separate lighting systems.

Anything is easy to use 'once you get the hang of it'.

What is your budget for a camera and lighting?
$500 - Nikon D3300 (new) entry-level grade
$1000 - Nikon D7200 (used) prosumer grade
$1750 - Nikon D3s (used) professional grade
$6000 - Nikon D4s (new)

I think Nikon has a variety of advantages over Canon.

Thank you so much for the budget camera breakdown suggestion (I'm more in the D7200 range budgetwise) and for the explanation regarding lighting (a topic I was saving for another thread, but it's great you went ahead and touched upon it).

Just to clarify, I have studied Photography academically and do understand depth-of-field and etc. My mastery of/experience in it all is admittedly limited and the only DSLR I have ever owned was a Nikon film camera from way back before the digital revolution, but I am well read on the subject and have some experience in commercial work.

Thanks again!

 

[Seize the Light]

I think Nikon has a variety of advantages over Canon.

Oh, and thanks for the fun video! I've watched many of that guy's videos/reviews, but hadn't seen this one yet.

 

[Seize the Light]

Good low light performance ?
Get only Full Frame camera.
Cameras that can give you good stills and videos ?
Nikon D750 or Canon 5D III

Another option is get the Sony A7R II which is about to come out soon to the market.

If you want good low light performance then APS-C cameras like the Canon 70D or Fuji X-T1 will never be as good as full frame cameras.
Dont get me wrong they do well in low light just not as good as full frame.

Fuji X-T1 is an excelent picture maker but not recommended for video.
Canon 70D is an excellent video maker and can produce good pictures but its dynamic range is limited compared to Nikon cameras.
If you want to stick with crop sensor cameras then another option is Nikon D5500, excellent camera, is better in stills compared to the 70D but is slightly less effective in video when compared to the 70D, still an excellent video camera in its own right.

Another option is Sony A6000 which is very affordable and good camera but again its a crop sensor camera so it will not have the low light performance of the full frame.

Good luck.

So that's one vote against Fuji for video. And the Nikon D5500, I'll look into that!

 

[Seize the Light]

As said above, controlling and understanding light is most important.



Canon at the moment have better video focussing in most of there dslr range than nikon. Canon also can mostly change aperture in live view, only really expensive nikons can.

I would recommend neither if video is really a big deal. The mirrorless cameras from panasonic and Sony do a much better integrated video function than a dslr does.

Can you explain a bit more why the Canon and Nikon are not as good for video? I'm very new to the video world. Tell me a bit about what the Panasonic and Sony can do with video that the others cannot, and how those limitations will affect me. Thank you!

 

[The_Traveler]

Others have given you some answers, let me give you a bit of background.

When people used film, many decisions were made up front by the film choice; you chose look, dynamic range, color rendition and, most important, speed.
Before the shoot, one could decide on filters to be used.
During the shooting one had to choose only shutter speed and aperture.
Afterwards film went to the darkroom where other decisions were made about development and printing.
Often that was moot because the film went to a film lab.

Now all of these decisions and more are considered at the time of taking the shot.
Thus newer cameras are infinitely more complex.

What you are saying is that you want a camera that will fulfill all of your requirements but at the same time be simple and, judging from the cameras you looked at, inexpensive.
The idea camera would be something like this image below.

The reality is that, if you want to make pictures, someone has to make all the decisions - and that's you.
Your requirements require complexity - and decisions - and those have to be made on the camera and that takes complexity of design - and thus costs money.

You say you want to get "into photography seriously, as in a profession." and yet you clearly know little about it now.
You may actually not be good enough to compete in today's photo world.
Photography is an expensive hobby and an even more expensive profession.
Before you get into it 'seriously' you might investigate it at a low level with an inexpensive camera that fulfils basic requirements.
See if you like it, see if you actually can do it, before you make a list of must-have features and expect that camera manufacturers understand what you specifically want.

 

[jaomul]

As said above, controlling and understanding light is most important.



Canon at the moment have better video focussing in most of there dslr range than nikon. Canon also can mostly change aperture in live view, only really expensive nikons can.

I would recommend neither if video is really a big deal. The mirrorless cameras from panasonic and Sony do a much better integrated video function than a dslr does.

Can you explain a bit more why the Canon and Nikon are not as good for video? I'm very new to the video world. Tell me a bit about what the Panasonic and Sony can do with video that the others cannot, and how those limitations will affect me. Thank you!

Just because i say it, doesn't make me right. Others opinions vary. DSLRs were originally just for stills. Video mode is a bolted on extra. In order for dslrs to do video it has to move its mirror out of the way. It then uses a different type of autofocus to af for video than its primary autofocus for stills. Canon has added to this in recent years and done quite a good job.

Interchangeable lens cameras without a moving mirror does not have to move a mirror out of the way to record video and generally uses similar af as it uses for stills. This combined with improvements in tech make them usually better for video than dslrs. On the flip side dslrs generally track and focus on moving objects better (sports/wildlife). These are not set in stone but give a general idea of why some systems are better at some jobs than others

 

[table1349]

IMDb Movies Filmed with Canon and Nikon DSLR Cameras - a list by montanafilmmaker

 

[Seize the Light]

You say you want to get "into photography seriously, as in a profession." and yet you clearly know little about it now.
You may actually not be good enough to compete in today's photo world.
Photography is an expensive hobby and an even more expensive profession.
Before you get into it 'seriously' you might investigate it at a low level with an inexpensive camera that fulfils basic requirements.
See if you like it, see if you actually can do it, before you make a list of must-have features and expect that camera manufacturers understand what you specifically want.


View attachment 106057

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).

The history of photography, all the way back to the camera obscura, is actually a passion of mine. I understand the difference between film cameras and digital cameras, all too well; and the simple issues of aperture, shutter speed, etc., do not intimidate me in the least. All I said was that the design of the Canon and Nikon professional cameras seem cumbersome, from what I have observed from youtube tutorial videos. I understand professional photographers need all those options, but, from what I can see, the way these brands go about it is a lot less intuitive than I would expect from something so expensive in this day and age (for example, the fact that with one professional Nikon model I saw you need to hold down a button with one finger in order to change the aperture with another - it's ergonomically ridiculous; or the fact that the LCD screen menus of these fancy models still look like the computer screen of a 1981 IBM PC). Technology is constantly changing. I predict that in the future these cameras will look like bulky dinosaurs (i.e. the mirrorless revolution) and that the future of cameras will look a lot more like our modern smartphones in terms of screen menus. So I'm just asking if some brand is already moving in that obvious direction.

 

[astroNikon]

It depends upon how much you spend.
As you spend more to get a more full featured dslr model you don't have to push a button
On my Nikon (d7x000 and higher) you rotate a wheel to change Aperture
rotate another wheel to change Shutter
but push a button rotate one wheel to change ISO in full manual

The lower Nikon d5x00 and lower is more consumer friendly who are not looking for those features and you have to do more menu diving.

some models of Canon have touchscreens.

dslrs have many more features of which a smartphone can't emulate. Thus have deep menus and features. A Point & Shot camera is very useful and simple, but as you want more control you have to go up to a better camera that has more dials, menus and/or buttons in order to get to those features.

You have to balance out at what price, features and simplicity you want.

 

[SCraig]

The Nikon D90 is not a "Professional Grade" body. I have one and while it is a very good camera body it is 1) Several years old and there have been huge leaps in image quality since it was released; and 2) Was at best an enthusiast-level camera in its day and far from "Professional Grade".

Additionally, if "one professional Nikon model" you were looking at requires the user to "hold down a button with one finger in order to change the aperture with another" then you weren't looking at a professional-grade body. The professional-grade Nikon bodies are normally (but not always) defined by single-digit nomenclature (i.e. D3, D4, etc.)

 

[The_Traveler]

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.