Nikon body options (for video?)

CA_

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
283
Reaction score
118
Location
Florida
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
So, there's a closet hobby of mine I haven't shared on this forum yet, but Photography has been somewhat of a stepping stone in a linear progression to what I'm gradually realizing may be my favorite form of media: Film. I'm a musician (a classically trained pianist), so my style tends to be somewhat cinematic; I love story telling through image composition, so film is becoming something I'm gearing up to dive into.


With that being said, I have shot Nikon exclusively (though I've dabbled in Canon and wasn't too impressed). I am considering upgrading my body to something that I can still do my photography, but will produce stellar video.

The absolute best video I've ever seen outside of maybe a $15,000 RED Scarlet, was the GH2 with 4K hack. I was blown away by the footage from that body, and one can be had for less than $700. The downside? The image quality from my D5100 is far far superior to the GH2, however the video from my d5100 although decent, can't touch the GH2, especially at 180/mbs 4k res.

I'm considering a D600 (mainly for photography reasons), but I'm not sure how much different it will be for video vs. the GH2 4k. My other option is the Black Magic Cinema Camera, but that's about $3000 for the body only, not including the rig, SSD, and other things I'll need to even make it work.

I've seen plenty of shoot outs, and it seems the GH2 4k decimates pretty much everything its put against, even the MKII / MK3. But, I'm concerned I'll be taking a hit in quality for still photography..



Thoughts?
 
I personally use a d3100 for video when I want a short DOF feel for b-roll shots. It's great on a tripod and on a dolly system. But using a stabilizer just kills it and you get crazy frame roll.

That being said I always rely on purpose built video cameras for crucial shots.
 
I have lots of friends in the video production business and none of them would think of using Nikon.

One of the many problems with your D600 for video is the lack of aperture control while recording. If Video is your thing... i would suggest a Canon 5d mkII (or mrkIII if you can afford it). Nikon may be catching up with Canon in the video DSLR field, but it still has a way to go.

Don't get locked into the Nikon vs. Canon war... The Canon 5d mrkII is a great camera even for pictures :)
 
One of the many problems with your D600 for video is the lack of aperture control while recording.

Not sure how other people shoot but I know I will certainly set the aperture before each shot and then adjust accordingly.
 
I have lots of friends in the video production business and none of them would think of using Nikon.

One of the many problems with your D600 for video is the lack of aperture control while recording. If Video is your thing... i would suggest a Canon 5d mkII (or mrkIII if you can afford it). Nikon may be catching up with Canon in the video DSLR field, but it still has a way to go.

Don't get locked into the Nikon vs. Canon war... The Canon 5d mrkII is a great camera even for pictures :)

True, but the video from a Lumix GH2 is hands down far superior to the MrkII/MrkIII in nearly every aspect (especially in low light detail and noise level), especially when the GH2 is cranked to 4k 180/mbs. But the GH2 is mediocre for anything else.. =/
 
From what I understand, Nikon also uses an "inferior" video codec to the Canons. I do agree that the Lumix has the Canon 5D Mark II beat with its video, but with the Mark III's use of true downsampling (instead of line skipping), the issue of moire is dramatically better than either the 5D Mark II or the 6D. I disagree though that the GH2 is better at higher ISO/low light than the 5DIII.

If you compare the ISO level of a hacked GH2 at 12,800 to 12,800 on a 5D Mark III (or probably even the D600), I'm almost certain the GH2 will perform worse simply because it wasn't designed to go that high and because of its comparative sensor size. Now the GH3 on the other hand...I have no clue about how much of an upgrade it is.

If you TRULY want to get into film on a budget (yeah, "on a budget" lol, then maybe look at the Blackmagic Cinema camera? It costs as much as a Nikon D800, but it's cinema quality compared to that of DSLRs is astounding.

It does have SEVERAL quirks though, so unless you are willing to invest quite a bit of effort into your filmmaking, the Blackmagic would probably be more trouble than its worth.

[video=vimeo;49875510]http://vimeo.com/49875510[/video]
 
Hi CA_ - I come from a DSLR background (Nikon D50, then a Canon T2i). I sold the T2i and moved over to the Panasonic GH2 because I wanted the best quality video - then to the GH3 because I wanted the best quality stills and video.

The $1299.99 Panasonic GH3 may be the dual purpose "hybrid" camera you're looking for. It does a great job as a still camera - and produces stunning video images as well. Unhacked, its resolution matches the hacked GH2's (and it has 1080/60p, a headphone jack and a robust magnesium water resistant body - features the GH2 lacks).

Here are the stills people are producing with this camera: Flickr: The Panasonic GH3 Pool

And here is a new narrative short shot in 2.5 days by small group of filmmakers in the Netherlands:

[video=vimeo;59543338]http://vimeo.com/59543338[/video]

Not bad for a $1300 camera ;)

Hope this is helpful and good luck with your decision!

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution
 
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Here is a great video from Jon Bryant in the UK showing how easy it is to adapt Nikon lenses to the GH3 with an inexpensive adapter like this one. The Nikkors produce clean, crisp video with the GH3:

vimeo.com/57520007 (you'll have to cut and paste into your browser, this video can't be embedded).
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Don't know why you don't want a Canon. A T2i with Magic lantern will be MUCH better than any Nikon DSLR for video.
 
Ken - I sold my T2i because it wasn't suited for video either - 12 minute clip length limit, a viewfinder and autofocus that stopped working when I switched to video, susceptibility to moire. Magic Lantern doesn't fix any of that. I bought the GH2 and GH3 because they don't have these limitations.

It was a darned good looking camera, though ;)

View attachment 36617

Cheers,

Bill
 
Last edited:
CA_ - you may be interested in this - according to UK-based Andrew Reid at eoshd.com, the brand new $797 Nikon D5200 (in stock) is better at high ISO and less susceptible to moire than the $1300 GH3 (back ordered) and all of the Sony and Canon large sensor cameras except the 5D Mark III:

[video=vimeo;59832019]http://vimeo.com/59832019[/video]

The D5200 also outputs uncompressed 4:2:2 over HDMI for external recording, while the GH3's output is only 4:2:0.

That said, the D5200:

- lacks a headphone jack;
- has a maximum bit rate of 24mbps;
- lacks 1080/60p;
- is limited to 30 minutes of continuous video recording and
- has an optical viewfinder that goes blank in video mode.

Perhaps Nikon will keep the moire-free video and add a headphone jack with the D7100? If so. Nikon could become a worthy competitor to the GH3 at the ~$1000 price point.

Cheers,

Bill
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Ken - I sold my T2i because it wasn't suited for video either - 12 minute clip length limit, a viewfinder and autofocus that stopped working when I switched to video, susceptibility to moire. Magic Lantern doesn't fix any of that. I bought the GH2 and GH3 because they don't have these limitations.

Cheers,

Bill

All of your problems relate to every DSLR as far as I'm aware. I can understand someone needing more than 12 minutes, but DSLRs just aren't made for that (even Though magic lantern DOES fix it). Why would you want a viewfinder and autofocus for video? The viewfinder would just make your video shakes, and the autofocus would just be crap compared to pro camcorders even though manual focus is better.

-Ken Turner
 
All of your problems relate to every DSLR as far as I'm aware. I can understand someone needing more than 12 minutes, but DSLRs just aren't made for that (even Though magic lantern DOES fix it). Why would you want a viewfinder and autofocus for video? The viewfinder would just make your video shakes, and the autofocus would just be crap compared to pro camcorders even though manual focus is better.

-Ken Turner

Hi Ken - Some of us use these cameras for both stills and video at events (e.g., school plays, weddings) where Magic Lantern's 1 second dropout is not acceptable and camcorders don't give us the still image quality we want. Personally, I need a camera that can record for more than 12, 20, or even 30 minutes.

The Panasonic GH1, GH2 and GH3 cameras are in fact, "made for that".

On viewfinders, some of us want them because we've tried to shoot in sunlight with the LCD and couldn't see the screen. With the viewfinder on the GH1/2/3 cameras, I can hold the camera up to my eye in bright sunlight without the need to invest in an expensive loupe, external EVF or monitor - and I can steady the camera with the photographer's standard "eye against the eyepiece, elbows against the body" stance - rather than holding the camera out in front of my face to see the LCD and praying that the camera's stabilization works.

Some of us also want autofocus (and so do some Canon shooters, judging by T4i sales), because we don't want to twist a focus ring to keep sports, kids and pets in focus. I did that back in the 70's, before autofocus was widely available, and it was no fun.

So...after selling the T2i, I refuse to buy any so-called "video-capable" camera that actually becomes less capable when I switch to video :)

Best,

Bill
 
All of your problems relate to every DSLR as far as I'm aware. I can understand someone needing more than 12 minutes, but DSLRs just aren't made for that (even Though magic lantern DOES fix it). Why would you want a viewfinder and autofocus for video? The viewfinder would just make your video shakes, and the autofocus would just be crap compared to pro camcorders even though manual focus is better.

-Ken Turner

Hi Ken - Some of us use these cameras for both stills and video at events (e.g., school plays, weddings) where Magic Lantern's 1 second dropout is not acceptable and camcorders don't give us the still image quality we want. Personally, I need a camera that can record for more than 12, 20, or even 30 minutes.

The Panasonic GH1, GH2 and GH3 cameras are in fact, "made for that".

On viewfinders, some of us want them because we've tried to shoot in sunlight with the LCD and couldn't see the screen. With the viewfinder on the GH1/2/3 cameras, I can hold the camera up to my eye in bright sunlight without the need to invest in an expensive loupe, external EVF or monitor - and I can steady the camera with the photographer's standard "eye against the eyepiece, elbows against the body" stance - rather than holding the camera out in front of my face to see the LCD and praying that the camera's stabilization works.

Some of us also want autofocus (and so do some Canon shooters, judging by T4i sales), because we don't want to twist a focus ring to keep sports, kids and pets in focus. I did that back in the 70's, before autofocus was widely available, and it was no fun.

So...after selling the T2i, I refuse to buy any so-called "video-capable" camera that actually becomes less capable when I switch to video :)

Best,

Bill

Those are good points. I guess Canon cameras are more made for cinematography and quick cuts as apposed to longer events and sports
 
Those are good points. I guess Canon cameras are more made for cinematography and quick cuts as apposed to longer events and sports

I think you're right, Ken. Pros and amateurs alike are making great movies and music videos with Canons. But as a "home movie" and event shooter, they're too frustrating for me.

Perhaps Nikon will keep the moire-free video and add a headphone jack with the D7100? If so. Nikon could become a worthy competitor to the GH3 at the ~$1000 price point.

Looks like Nikon listened to me on the headphone jack :) We'll have to see about the moire.

CA_ if you can live with a blank viewfinder in video mode, no wi-fi, a fixed LCD and 30 minute maximum clip length, you may want to wait to see sample video from the new Nikon D7100 before you make a decision. They're not available until March, but you probably won't be able to find a GH3 in stock until then, either. And the Nikon costs $100 less.

Cheers,

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top