Nikon VDSLR, which one to choose?

[deltoidjohn]

I don't agree. A DSLR is a picture and video-taking instrument. It should serve both functions well. If you are using the GH camera exclusively for video, then buy a Panasonic camcorder.

Um, I think you are entirely missing the point of why DSLR video is so popular, particularly among DVXusers. There's nothing in the camcorder world for under $6000 that offers anything even close to the large sensor and interchaneable lens advantages of a DSLR/mirrorless stills camera. Prior to the AF100 (which only came about due to the HD-DSLR's) the closest thing was RED which costs $20,000.

In any case, nobody was suggesting that these cameras should perform better at video than they should at stills (in fact, the opposite should be true). Rather, he was saying that this particular forum is video focused, and hence any comments regarding still photography performance of any given camera, DSLR or not, should be carefully prefaced to ensure the correct message is conveyed.

 

[Bikergeek]

Um, I think you are entirely missing the point of why DSLR video is so popular, particularly among DVXusers. There's nothing in the camcorder world for under $6000 that offers anything even close to the large sensor and interchaneable lens advantages of a DSLR/mirrorless stills camera. Prior to the AF100 (which only came about due to the HD-DSLR's) the closest thing was RED which costs $20,000.

In any case, nobody was suggesting that these cameras should perform better at video than they should at stills (in fact, the opposite should be true). Rather, he was saying that this particular forum is video focused, and hence any comments regarding still photography performance of any given camera, DSLR or not, should be carefully prefaced to ensure the correct message is conveyed.

My statements regarding picture-taking were correct. The Nikon takes better pictures than a Panny GH2. It is asinine for a Panny GH2 owner to troll in the Nikon forum berating Nikon owners for their bad camera choice. The Nikon forum is for Nikon owners and interested parties to share reasonable information about Nikon equipment.

I am very familiar with the virtues of a DSLR. I bought the Nikon D90 (the first video DSLR) the day it was released in the USA. I have used for picture-taking and video-making: the Nikon D90, multiple Olympus E-P (pen digital cameras), the Panny GH1 (hacked GH13), and the Nikon D5100. I have also auditioned/tested the Nikon D7000, the GH2, and the Canon 60D.

Although I am not a prolific poster, I have been a member of dvxuser since I bought the D90.

 

[zeke]

Ihartvideo sounds like the same guy over on Cinema5D trolling non Panasonic forums. Encouraging people to sell their gear and go Panasonic.
It is valid to want a DSLR that does both great stills and acceptable video. People use them for both, even if this is a video centric forum. The Nikons are far better stills cameras then the GH2, and with proper setup, nearly as good in video. If you can really get manual control of the video on the D5100, then it's a great choice, no matter what the price.
Are there options to record from the live view hdmi port in HD?

 

[iHartVideo]

Encouraging people to sell their gear and go Panasonic.

OP hasn't bought anything, he's still deciding. I'm not at all similar to the "troll".

It is valid to want a DSLR that does both great stills and acceptable video. People use them for both, even if this is a video centric forum. The Nikons are far better stills cameras then the GH2, and with proper setup, nearly as good in video. If you can really get manual control of the video on the D5100, then it's a great choice, no matter what the price.
Are there options to record from the live view hdmi port in HD?

It is valid, correct. However since this is a video forum shouldn't we focus on the video aspect? If people want advice on the photo aspect then there are far, far better places to go. People come here to seek the subject matter experts regarding video.

As a semi-pro photographer (you can see my stuff at ihartphotos.com) I can accurately say that the GH2 is a great photo camera. It has limitations, particularly in burst mode... but not everyone cares about burst (like me for instance). BTW I also have a Nikon D300s and a D80 and D50 before that so I am quite familiar with the comparative photo abilities.

 

[Bikergeek]

Ihartvideo sounds like the same guy over on Cinema5D trolling non Panasonic forums. Encouraging people to sell their gear and go Panasonic.
It is valid to want a DSLR that does both great stills and acceptable video. People use them for both, even if this is a video centric forum. The Nikons are far better stills cameras then the GH2, and with proper setup, nearly as good in video. If you can really get manual control of the video on the D5100, then it's a great choice, no matter what the price.
Are there options to record from the live view hdmi port in HD?

Unfortunately, the HDMI feed replaces Live View (when connected) and shuts off during recording. The output includes the menu information and isn't clean anyway.

 

[ICD Films]

" I can accurately say that the GH2 is a great photo camera." Compared to what, your compact camera? Get real... any DSLR Nikon or Canon blows it away. I'm using my GH2 for taking like auction pics for ebay... not wearing out my Canons for random stuff like that. Yeah, GH2 works for that. And probably for any other compact camera user. Not comparable to any DSLR in the same price range (or lower).

You have a slighest serious interest in photography you stay away from Panasonic. Yeah, they're getting better, but if you're expecting some great photos of those crammed 16 megapix onto that tiny surface, then you're apparently neither interested in nice bokeh or decent noise levels. I'm not a photographer, but I would be plain stupid to preach about GH2 being a great stills camera; either that or a fanboy.

 

[Spectra]

I can accurately say that the GH2 is a great photo camera. It has limitations, particularly in burst mode... but not everyone cares about burst (like me for instance).

I can accurately say you are wrong.

The GH series cameras aren't even in the same ballpark for still photography or even time lapse shooting.

As a complete photographic system they fall way short of the mark set by Canon, Nikon and Sony. Try using a GH2 for sports photography or event work and you will soon realise the severe limitations they impose. I just find the GH1 I own gets in the way of creating an image whereas my Nikon D700 is an extension of my minds eye and is VASTLY superior for still work.

I also don't consider any of the VDSLR's to be great video cameras. They have terrible ergonomics, lack decent audio facilities and ultimately the picture quality has certain deficiencies (moire and resolution characteristics for example) when compared with dedicated video cameras.

Panasonics Micro 4/3 system is the best of a bad bunch in terms of video but they are not so completely superior to Nikons cameras as you have suggested.

 

[capitanfracassa]

If you have a full set of old AI-S Nikon primes, as I do, you are probably better off with a canon. A 550D with ML would be so much easier to work with for any film style work, where autofocus and in camera measuring doesn't matter that much.

If you also want some ability to shoot run and gun, a Tamron 17-55/2.8 can be around 300-400 bucks, and I bet you won't see any difference relative to high end Nikon glass. On the other hand, if your primary goal is to use autofocus zoom lense, some people do it with VDSLRs, but some other people question their sanity. Your call. You should ask yourself why you want a DSLR rather than a similarly priced HS900 for example.

 

[ydgmdlu]

If you are using the GH camera exclusively for video, then buy a Panasonic camcorder.

Regarding dvxuser forum etiquette, why are you trolling in the Nikon Forum telling Nikon owners that their cameras suck and to buy a Panasonic GH2.

So telling GH users that they're wasting their time and should buy camcorders instead is NOT trolling (considering that we are in the DSLR subsection of the site), but suggesting that the GH2 is a better choice for video than any Nikon IS trolling? Let's be fair here. You sound like you're taking things a bit personally. No one was actually "telling Nikon owners that their cameras suck and to buy a GH2."

You don't have to hack anything to properly expose movies on the D5100.

Well, you can "properly expose movies" on any photo camera that records video; the auto-exposure takes care of that. I think that he misspoke, and you've made an equivocal point. The more accurate term is "work-around," and the point about the D5100 (and Nikon DSLRs in general) is that they are far less functionally capable in the video department than Canon and Panasonic alternatives (an objection point, not a subjective opinion) and require tedious means to get the desired results.

Truth be told, I've always preferred Nikon's video images over Canon's and Panasonic's. But for me, that isn't worth the severe limitations of Nikon DSLRs. The real ultimate point is that if one absolutely must have the "Nikon look," then the limitations will not be deal-breakers. For everyone else, then there are objectively better alternatives. The same goes for other things. For video, DSLRs have severe limitations compared to even consumer-grade camcorders, but to many, the large sensor is a must-have. RED cameras might deserve their massive following, but they sure are a pain to use compared to prosumer camcorders that cost a small fraction of RED's prices.

 

[Bikergeek]

So telling GH users that they're wasting their time and should buy camcorders instead is NOT trolling (considering that we are in the DSLR subsection of the site), but suggesting that the GH2 is a better choice for video than any Nikon IS trolling? Let's be fair here. You sound like you're taking things a bit personally. No one was actually "telling Nikon owners that their cameras suck and to buy a GH2."


Well, you can "properly expose movies" on any photo camera that records video; the auto-exposure takes care of that. I think that he misspoke, and you've made an equivocal point. The more accurate term is "work-around," and the point about the D5100 (and Nikon DSLRs in general) is that they are far less functionally capable in the video department than Canon and Panasonic alternatives (an objection point, not a subjective opinion) and require tedious means to get the desired results.

Truth be told, I've always preferred Nikon's video images over Canon's and Panasonic's. But for me, that isn't worth the severe limitations of Nikon DSLRs. The real ultimate point is that if one absolutely must have the "Nikon look," then the limitations will not be deal-breakers. For everyone else, then there are objectively better alternatives. The same goes for other things. For video, DSLRs have severe limitations compared to even consumer-grade camcorders, but to many, the large sensor is a must-have. RED cameras might deserve their massive following, but they sure are a pain to use compared to prosumer camcorders that cost a small fraction of RED's prices.

If you look at the title of this thread and the question that was posed by a potential Nikon owner, the responses reinforce my comments. A potential Nikon owner was asking other Nikon owners in the Nikon forum which Nikon DSLR to buy. Amidst the Nikon advice, there are multiple posts from Panasonic and Canon owners stating that Nikon DSLR's are bad for video and to buy a GH2 or to buy an EOS.

As the saying goes, opinions are like a__holes and everybody's got one.

This is the "Nikon" forum. It is not a general, open DSLR forum which exists elsewhere on this website. Nikon contributors would politely ask non-Nikon persons to stop disrupting every thread in this forum with their anti-Nikon diatribes. If you look closely at the Panny GH forum or the Canon EOS forum, you won't find Nikon owners disrupting advice threads with anti-Canon/Panny diatribes or pro-Nikon statements.

Regarding the specific complaints against Nikon DSLR, I would simply respond by saying that not every VDSLR owner needs or wants extensive manual control for video-making. Not every VDSLR owner is going to purchase manual, prime lenses for making movies. Even a primitive VDSLR like the D90 (the original VDSLR) can produce nice looking video's as is evidenced by the thousands on Vimeo and YouTube. The latest generation of Nikon such as the D7000 and D5100 are even better. Are they perfect? No, they are not. But Nikon owners like me are willing to work with the camera's issues because the Nikon's have a great sensor, excellent white balance, and a wide latitude.

 

[Efexone]

dee seven thousand

 

[deltoidjohn]

" I can accurately say that the GH2 is a great photo camera." Compared to what, your compact camera? Get real...

Um... yes, compared to a compact camera. Or are you saying that compact cameras are completely useless and serve no purpose whatsoever for any form of photography? The GH2 is a great photo camera. No, it is not on par with the D3s for speed and lowlight, or the D3x for resolution, or the D700 for unhindered professional reliability, etc etc. But not everybody needs FF DOF, 23mp, 11fps, 12 stops of DR, etc. Alot of people just want a step up from their compact camera which gives them more creative control and better IQ but without sacrificing the useful features they have become accustomed to, such as small size, face detection, touch screens, live view, etc. For those people, the GH2 is a great camera. No amount of Nikon/Canon fanboy criticism can overcome that fact.

I can accurately say you are wrong.

The GH series cameras aren't even in the same ballpark for still photography or even time lapse shooting.

As a complete photographic system they fall way short of the mark set by Canon, Nikon and Sony. Try using a GH2 for sports photography or event work and you will soon realise the severe limitations they impose. I just find the GH1 I own gets in the way of creating an image whereas my Nikon D700 is an extension of my minds eye and is VASTLY superior for still work.

"I can accurately say you are wrong.

The Nikon and Canon DSLR cameras aren't even in the same ballpark for casual photography or even family snapshots.

As a convenient and practical photographic system they fall way short of the mark set by Panasonic. Try using a D700 on a night out on the town or in a secure area such as an airport, or in a silent place such as a ballet performance and you will soon realise the severe limitations they impose. I just find the D700 I own gets in the way whereas my GH1 goes everywhere with me and is VASTLY superior for casual still photography."


As you can see, it is a matter of perspective and opinion. Perhaps you should take the original posters comments for what they were - an acknowledgement that he finds the GH2 perfectly fine for the still photos he is taking - rather than trying to slam him.

 

[deltoidjohn]

Oh and to the OP, out of those cameras listed in your original question, only the D7000 is worth considering if you wan't to shoot any serious video.

 

[Spectra]

I can accurately say you are wrong.

The Nikon and Canon DSLR cameras aren't even in the same ballpark for casual photography or even family snapshots.

As a convenient and practical photographic system they fall way short of the mark set by Panasonic. Try using a D700 on a night out on the town or in a secure area such as an airport, or in a silent place such as a ballet performance and you will soon realise the severe limitations they impose. I just find the D700 I own gets in the way whereas my GH1 goes everywhere with me and is VASTLY superior for casual still photography."


As you can see, it is a matter of perspective and opinion. Perhaps you should take the original posters comments for what they were - an acknowledgement that he finds the GH2 perfectly fine for the still photos he is taking - rather than trying to slam him.

I can accurately say I own both camera systems - can you?

If I wanted to do "casual still photography" like you suggest I still wouldn't use my Panasonic GH1....a compact or even an iPhone would suffice for the duties you described.

I have used my D700 in an airport and on a night out on the town and would choose it EVERY SINGLE TIME over any GH series camera ever made. The GH cameras are reasonably good for video duties and in certain other areas they are less than adequate. Overall the Nikon as a video and still photographic SYSTEM is superior for most tasks.

And the OP of this thread was actually asking for advise on what NIKON camera to choose and got advise to look at another brand....did you miss that bit?

 

[deltoidjohn]

If I wanted to do "casual still photography" like you suggest I still wouldn't use my Panasonic GH1....a compact or even an iPhone would suffice for the duties you described.

Perhaps I should've added a smiley... as the humour of my comment was obviously lost on you. Now that you've responded the way you have though...

So in your opinion there is no place in the world for a mirrorless interchangeable lens systems? And now you're saying the quality of an iphone camera is good enough to compare to a GH2?

Yes, I have owned the GH1 and worked regularly with the D700 at the company I work for.

I am well aware of the original posters question (see the post above yours) but one member offered a valid suggestion which several other irate (fanboy?) users have slammed him for. Now, fair enough if everybody had said, "thanks for the suggestion, it's a great video camera but I think the OP would only consider a Nikon," but they didn't, they chose to enter a pissing contest with comments such as "I would be plain stupid to preach about GH2 being a great stills camera." and "if you're expecting some great photos of those crammed 16 megapix onto that tiny surface, then you're apparently neither interested in nice bokeh or decent noise levels"

It is a great stills camera! Sure, most DSLR's outdo it in terms of performance, but that certainly doesn't mean the Panasonic cameras can't take exceptionally good photos. Certainly good enough for the large share of the market that Panasonic has taken over, anyway.

 

[v3rlon]

I would say if you are mostly wanting a video camera avoid DSLRS at all cost. Start adding up the cost to get them to work like a video camera. Where is the XLR jack on any DSLR? I buy Nikon because I like to take pictures with Nikon and have a bunch of lenses and flashes. The D7000 looks pretty good, so do some of the Canons. I will wait and see what the D400 or D800 does with video, but more than likely my DVX100b will be replaced with a traditional video camera.

Of course, that assumes you actually want ot USE the on camera audio, which would seem unlikely for a music video.


A separate audio recorder (with XLR inputs) would seem a likely candidate, with the on camera audio simply used as a scratch track. Since the OP might do well to choose this route even on a comparably priced video camera if using location audio at all (as oppsed to just using the the studio song), I would not factor that into the decision.

The larger sensor on the Nikon has the artistic advantages over the 4/3 system on the GH1 (and the Canon, but you'd really be splitting hairs at that difference).