DSLR or Camcorder for video/film shooting - Need some recommendations and help.

If you're really trying to go cheap -

T2i is probably a $200 body now. First-gen Canon, not amazing - but some truly beautiful work was done with it. I made some $$ with one.

The Nikon D7000 is actually very nice, and the first Nikon body with the "look" Nikon has now. Lots of jello for motion shots, but that great warm-mids and cool-shadows look with less aliasing and much easier grading for skin than the Canons.

The D7100 ups the video look (and was a big leap for Nikon still quality - just a fantastic camera and a real milestone for Nikon).

The 5300 is a very similar "look" to the 7100, but you get 1080-60, and some say the compression improved. I've edited 5300 and 7100 footage together and to my eye, the same.
 
Michael Carter said:
If you're really trying to go cheap -

T2i is probably a $200 body now. First-gen Canon, not amazing - but some truly beautiful work was done with it. I made some $$ with one.

The Nikon D7000 is actually very nice, and the first Nikon body with the "look" Nikon has now. Lots of jello for motion shots, but that great warm-mids and cool-shadows look with less aliasing and much easier grading for skin than the Canons.

The D7100 ups the video look (and was a big leap for Nikon still quality - just a fantastic camera and a real milestone for Nikon).

The 5300 is a very similar "look" to the 7100, but you get 1080-60, and some say the compression improved. I've edited 5300 and 7100 footage together and to my eye, the same.
Click to expand...

Do you have manual control of aperture while shooting video with the d5300 or the 7100? Some Nikons won't let you do make changes after hitting record. Looking for a B cam to my D750.
 
Michael Carter said:
If you're really trying to go cheap -

T2i is probably a $200 body now. First-gen Canon, not amazing - but some truly beautiful work was done with it. I made some $$ with one.

The Nikon D7000 is actually very nice, and the first Nikon body with the "look" Nikon has now. Lots of jello for motion shots, but that great warm-mids and cool-shadows look with less aliasing and much easier grading for skin than the Canons.

The D7100 ups the video look (and was a big leap for Nikon still quality - just a fantastic camera and a real milestone for Nikon).

The 5300 is a very similar "look" to the 7100, but you get 1080-60, and some say the compression improved. I've edited 5300 and 7100 footage together and to my eye, the same.
Click to expand...


Would you say a d5300 is better than a d7000 for video? How bad is the jello effect for the D7000? Would I be able to make videos of me teaching on a blackboard with a d7000? And perhaps of people in the city?
 
Aperture control on either - I believe that's a no (I only have aperture ring glass for video but pretty sure of this). With aperture ring glass, you just turn the ring (I prefer that anyway).

The 5300 is miles ahead of the 7000 for video - well, a mile & a half at least. The 7000 does have a really pretty look and feel, but the 5300 gives you higher bitrate, better DR, etc. And that 1080-60, which I use often.

But I shot 3 days with three cameras, capturing a 4-set fashion shoot with some b-list celeb girls (**cough-jersey-shore-cough) and used the 7000 as camera #3… almost didn't bring it since I thought of it as a stills camera and decided to rig it up with a 200 2.8. Ws really blown away vs. the canon and panasonic footage - pretty gorgeous.

I never did side-by-side testing between the 7000 and 7100 - I just noticed way less jello when I upgraded. But I've learned to be pretty smooth with a shoulder rig with non-OIS glass.

My preference, in order (unless your really need to shoot 60p a lot):

7100
5300
7000

BUT… I own HDMI monitors, viewfinders, and on-set splitters and big HDTVs to put on stands for clients. And a crane, a slider, and steadicam… so any crazy rig i can dream up, I can see what I'm doing. Without all the HDMI gear, the 5300's articulating screen would be handy, but for me, I don't factor that in.

This was a "jump in the truck with the singer and a makeup artist and go way out in the sticks and shoot a video and have a picnic" project. 7100 and 5300. All the slowmo is 5300 (except one shot I forgot to switch frame rate - you can see it's been slowed down). Singer's sort of my separated-at-birth sister, we didn't really have a plan but just google-earthed some decrepit downtowns and bridges and hit the road.

 
Michael Carter said:
Aperture control on either - I believe that's a no (I only have aperture ring glass for video but pretty sure of this). With aperture ring glass, you just turn the ring (I prefer that anyway).

The 5300 is miles ahead of the 7000 for video - well, a mile & a half at least. The 7000 does have a really pretty look and feel, but the 5300 gives you higher bitrate, better DR, etc. And that 1080-60, which I use often.

But I shot 3 days with three cameras, capturing a 4-set fashion shoot with some b-list celeb girls (**cough-jersey-shore-cough) and used the 7000 as camera #3… almost didn't bring it since I thought of it as a stills camera and decided to rig it up with a 200 2.8. Ws really blown away vs. the canon and panasonic footage - pretty gorgeous.

I never did side-by-side testing between the 7000 and 7100 - I just noticed way less jello when I upgraded. But I've learned to be pretty smooth with a shoulder rig with non-OIS glass.

My preference, in order (unless your really need to shoot 60p a lot):

7100
5300
7000

BUT… I own HDMI monitors, viewfinders, and on-set splitters and big HDTVs to put on stands for clients. And a crane, a slider, and steadicam… so any crazy rig i can dream up, I can see what I'm doing. Without all the HDMI gear, the 5300's articulating screen would be handy, but for me, I don't factor that in.

This was a "jump in the truck with the singer and a makeup artist and go way out in the sticks and shoot a video and have a picnic" project. 7100 and 5300. All the slowmo is 5300 (except one shot I forgot to switch frame rate - you can see it's been slowed down). Singer's sort of my separated-at-birth sister, we didn't really have a plan but just google-earthed some decrepit downtowns and bridges and hit the road.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your recommendation. I really apprectiate it!
Your video looks great dude, and it's nice with the video demonstration regarding the D7100 and d5300. I'll look into the d5300 and factor it into the equation :)
 
Actually I think I might get a used d7000 body and a used D5300 body and then find a lens that is compatible with both. I could get both for the price of One d7100 and then I have a d7000 for photography and travel (extreme weather conditions) and a used d5300 for video and also photography. Then when the d7100 gets cheaper I could upgrade to that? :)
 
That could work.

If you're really low on cash, look for a used Nikkor 35-70 2.8 AF. I've shot a lot of video with that, but in some situations, flare can be terrible. Not cool-star-trek flares, just whiteout. A good hood or a matte box can dial it in though - I used to use my top flag as sort of a "lift the blacks" control with that lens and a matte box. On APS-C, you can stick a pretty deep hood on most FF lenses without vignetting.

A 50 1.8 is a no-brainer… if you need something wider, the AIS (not AI, not Series-E, not AF) 28mm 2.8 is a classic, about $300. Someone called it the "Zeiss-beater". Then there's all the aftermarket wide zooms - the modern designs can be very good.
 
DSLR focuses more on the still photography, camcorders would be better for videomaking. DSLRs are more difficult to focus than a camcorder and lack of enough controlling settings.
 
atwood said:
Nikon 3200/3300/5200/5300/5500 are good choices, and this site have some of the models' comparison
http://thedigitalcamera.net/nikon-d5300-vs-d5500-vs-d7200-comparison-which-one-is-worth-buying/
Click to expand...

Hey there,

This has been an interesting thread for me as I'm looking at getting a Nikon. It's primarily for stills, but I shoot short narrative films from time to time.

Question: Is it worth considering the 5500 over the 5300? Does the jump get anything significant on the stills or video side?

Thanks a ton!

-Adam
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top