Having a hard time choosing... D5100 or 550D?

K

klm

New member
Hi everyone,
I'm a Dutch DSLR video shooter & photographer. Just sold my 5D Mk2 for various reasons, mainly looking for a cheaper multicam setup and adding a 3CMOS video camera for shots in which I don't need the short DOF.

I had decided to go for a Nikon D7000 and hope for 25fps updates/hacks, but when I visited the shop and picked it up I realised I really don't like the way it feels in my hand (for photography).
Since the D300s still does MJPEG I went out and bought an older D300 for photography. Decided to wait for a newer update (D400?) before I have movie in my photo-DSLR again (the handling and autofocus of the D300 is fantastic by the way.. really feel the Canon 7D is about 3 or 4 years late).

But... of course I also need a DSLR for my videos, have decided to buy one first and add the two others I need when the first one proves itself. Right now I am being teared apart choosing between the Nikon D5100 and Canon 550D.

Pros for the D5100:
- expect low-light capabilities to be about a stop better then the 550D (they are when photographing);
- since the D7000 seems to be hackable, the D5100 probably is too;
- possible to use as a backup for the D300 when photographing, low-light capabilities are even better than D300;
- Use of my Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 AF-S is possible;

Pros for the 550D:
- manual control;
- manual control (yes, twice :P);
- Magic Lantern (therefore possible to push the bitrate a little);
- CineStyle;

Apart from the fact that the 550D is a few dollars cheaper (not really interesting imho), did I miss something here?
 
Don't bother with the D5100 for video. It's a complete non-contender in my opinion. If you want to get a Nikon get the D7000.

The 550D is much better for video. Not only can you actually have manual control in video mode, but you also have 60p, proper WYSIWYG live preivew, and the ability to use Magic Lantern.

If you can afford a few new lenses as well or if you don't mind using adaptors on your current lenses, then Canon is without a doubt the better option for video.
 
Okay, that's a clear answer... the D5100 doesn't support WYSIWYG liveview? It sets its own diaphragm/shutterspeed even though you set it different or something then?

I would be able to afford some extra lenses, but have a few M42 and Leica R lenses in my suitcase so will be adapting anyway.
Only thing that's a bit problematic is I really like my Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8, it handles perfect for video where I might need the zoom (really smooth zoom and focus), but it's impossible to set the diaphragm, since it's a G-type lens.
 
Well, I know the D7000 doesn't give you a true live preview - it gives you a "live-view-optimised" preview, and then once you hit record it switches to the settings you choose. So it makes it hard to eyeball your exposure before you start recording.

I don't know if the D5100 does the same. I'd assume so seeing as not only the Nikon D7000 but also the Pentax DSLR's (which, like the D5100, only offer aperture control and leave the rest up to the camera) operate this way. I could be mistaken though - maybe the fact that the camera has control over almost everything means that the live-preview and the recording settings it chooses will match up closely most of the time.
 
Get the 550D; don't even consider the Nikon. I've never worked with the D5100; but I have with the D7000. Nikon can still not hold a candle to canon when it comes to video. I worked on a documentary shoot recently where everything had to be captured in 48 hours. We had a lot of shooting working on this at once and lots of different kinds of camera's because it's what we could get. This was interested for me as the camera production supervisor/editor because I got to see how well they all handled in the field vs. how the footage compares. When taking into account some differences in lens quality, anything shot on the canon's were untouchable by comparison. Especially when it came to comparing the footage for editing. The canon footage was much easier to work with, looked a lot better right out of the camera. Handled high ISO grain a lot better and had much nicer/softer blur on anything out of focus. Take the 550D. You won't regret it.
 
videofan said:
As far as I know, the Nikon d5100 is 3 generations newer technology.
It means that more accurate colour is hilarious, with the d3100 being able to see 3x as many colours as the 550d can see.
Click to expand...

3 Generations? I don't know where you got that number from. It is maybe a generation newer than the 550D, but that doesn't mean it's better.

By the time the video is compressed into the 4:2:0 H.264 stream there is no difference between the amount of colours each camera can see or replicate. Yes, the colours will be different but that is based on the different processing each camera uses and comes down to personal opinion as to which colour style you prefer more.
 
I'm a decades - long Nikon guy, far back as the 8008 and N90. But it's a 550d for video for me.

The lens adapter is a no-brainer if you own Nikon glass (well, at least with AF and manual lenses with an aperture ring, i don't own any DX lenses). I use a cavision rail setup, a D|Focus FF, an indian matte box and the Cavision loupe with the camera mount. The entire rails setup was maybe $6-700 (not including the 4x4 filters I've built up) and it's dynamite.

With the 550, you can set exposure just like you're used to, fully manual. ISO, shutter & aperture. I don't much like the camera for stills, I still can't figure out how to change settings on it without jacking around... the D90 and D7000 are a breeze (I feel the D90 is Nikon's ultimate user interface setup, between the dedicated buttons, control wheels and menu system). Also, the 550 is very unreliable with studio strobes - none of my triggering gear works well with it, stuff I've used for 15 years that still works fine with the D7000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top