Photography + video: Do i need 2 seperate cameras? d7000 + panasonic g6.

C

christian0710

Member
Hi,
I'm in a bit of a conundrum: I want to practice photography and wanted to get a nikon d7000 because it suits my needs for that purpose. However I also want to shoot great quality educational videos (drawing on blackboard). I know a panasonic G6 will suit my needs with respect to indoor semi-low light video quality but also for outdoor video.
I will be taking 1-2 hours of video every day, and so this would for sure wear/deteriorate my d7000 faster that I'd like.
I could save up and buy a panasonic g6 + a nikon d7000 , then use one for video and the other for photography however they don't use the same lenses which means i'd have to spend more money on seperate lenses so my question is this:
​
Are there any nikon (or canon - I might get a 60d for instead of the nikon for photography) cameras that somewhat match the panasonic g6 with respect to the video - A nikon/canon camera only designed for video and to a good price?
 
* Video doesn't deteriorate your camera at all. The mechanical shutter is not used for video, if that's what's worrying you.
* If you can go for the D7100, it's both a great stills camera and a pretty good video camera. The D7200 is even better for stills, no idea yet about the video side.
 
Samuel H said:
* Video doesn't deteriorate your camera at all. The mechanical shutter is not used for video, if that's what's worrying you.
* If you can go for the D7100, it's both a great stills camera and a pretty good video camera. The D7200 is even better for stills, no idea yet about the video side.
Click to expand...

Hi and Thank you for the feedback. I might go for a d7100 but don't you think using it for an hour every day for filming can cause some overheating issues which might deteriorate it faster than if i just used it for photography?
 
I believe it's perfectly fine. First-gen DSLRs had overheating issues, new ones don't. Investigate the matter, if you're worried, but if I had to go on an assumption, it would be that it's not a problem.
 
No of course not video does NOT harm your DSLR in ANY way.

To give you an idea, I have a t2i, a plastic low-end DSLR. I have shot THOUSANDS of HOURS on that camera for video, in absolute worst weather on the globe, under sunlight in the middle east (51° C weather), and I've never had a single issue or deterioration of the camera shootimf these consecutive 5 years shooting 7-8 hours daily. It stil works like brand new. In fact, doing photographyis more harmful because each camera has a maximum shutter count (100,000 for example) and after these amount of photos the shutter dies, needs to be replaced.

Anyway, with a professionally built camera like the D7000 series, don't even think about it, not even for a milli second, these are bricks of machines,

2-The D7000 will shoot your educational films very well, it shoots great video, the only problem it will have is moire and aliasing when shooting wide outdoor landscapes and fine detail, this is where the camera shows a bit of softness and aliasing issues. The G6 does not and is a bit sharper, but doesn't work as well in lowlight, has lower DR, and is a separate camera in your bag. The D7100 fixes the D7000 softness & moire issues, it's as a better video camera and image than the g6.

3-Advice: go for the D7000 alone and shoot both your stills and video on it, don't even think about the quality deterioration. If aliasing and moire on wide outdoor detailed shots/landscapes, get the D7100 and use it for both video and stills.

My 1st DP owns the D7100 so it's a camera I used for months, and the camera is an absolute monester for both video and stills, the images are just fantastic and the body is a brick, extremely well built. The D7000 he had before it was similar but just had the aliasing and moire issues. Look up the D7000 vs D7100 improvements to see if it's worth adding the extra. Anyhow, both will do video + stills very well.
 
The only other caveat with the d7000 or 7100 is the 20 minute continuous recording limit on video. As long as you can stop and restart before 20 minutes are up you'll be fine. Other then that no reason not to use the same camera for both your needs.
 
christian0710 said:
Thank you so much for the help guys. I really appreciate it. I'll look into the difference between the D7000 and D7100 :)
Click to expand...

Owned both and used for extensive stills and video projects for national clients. The 7100 was a real milestone for Nikon still-wise. The removal of the OLP filter is huge. Video is superb for a DSLR.

Clean HDMI out and, hell yeah: you can set white balance without jumping through 20 hoops. Point and click on a card, done.

The 7000 - nice video, beats the same-era Canons by a mile. No orangey-skin, and it was the beginning of what I think of as "cool shadows/warm mids and highs" that gives Nikon sort of a 3D look.

But the 7100 - really (to me as a constant user) was sort of a "quietly epic" upgrade. Worth whatever premium you'd pay over a used 7000; and (from what I've read) there's nothing added to the 7200 that's worth considering it over the 7100 for many still and video uses. Maybe sports shooters could use the advances in AF?

Keep in mind, 70% of video is audio. If you really want talking-head stuff to be good, no DSLR audio capture is going to sound as good as a dedicated recorder with an XLR mic.
 
I'm tempted to ask

What are the pros and cons for

Nikon d7000 vs d71000 vs d5300 in terms of vide? The goal is to do approximately one hour of education videos every day + practice outdoor photography and amature cinematic video outdoor and indoor.

So far i understand that pros for d7000 series is "Weather sealed" and that the d7000 seems to capture objects in motion worse than d7100
 
Well, in addition to the post just above yours:

D7000: nice video image and color. I don't think it has 60p at all - at least not at 1080. Some moire/aliasing. Really pretty severe jello when handheld. Very good stills camera. Has the AF drive screw for non motorized lenses. No articulating screen. "Dirty" HDMI. Wired remote jack for trigger and focus (aftermarket remotes are $10 and can be extended to use on cranes and rigs). More "pro-sized" body, especially with battery grip. Many aftermarket grips available. Has a problem with grips coming loose enough to turn the camera on and off, a piece of cork or rubber will solve this.

D7100: about as good as 1080 DSLR gets, though some of that opinion is subjective. Really pretty footage and color, decent DR. Crazy-sharp stills. Easy white balancing. Dual card slots (you can only record video to one slot though). 60p at 720 only. Has the AF drive screw for non motorized lenses. No articulating screen. Clean HDMI. Wired remote jack for trigger and focus (aftermarket remotes are $10 and can be extended to use on cranes and rigs). More "pro-sized" body, especially with battery grip. Many aftermarket grips available. No issues with grip tightness.

An absolute best-buy for a stills camera. Won all the "vs. 70D" shootouts as I recall.

D5300: I feel the video image is the same as 7100 after doing one project with both bodies, some say it's technically better. 1080 60P, looks great transcoded to 24 for slowmo. Assume similar stills to the 7100, I believe no optical filter. One card slot. No AF drive screw so your choice of older AF lenses for stills is limited. Articulating screen, clean HDMI. Smaller "consumer" body. No wired jack, only wireless remote available.

None of the three allow you to change aperture with non-ring glass in live view (far as I know, all my video glass has rings).

AF for video - couldn't tell you. I do use it to set initial focus on a crane and steadicam and it's very handy for that. The 5300 is a problem if you have non-aperture ring lenses and want to use AF for stills or video.
 
Why don't you consider to buy a samsung NX1?
I use it for both video and stills for stock. I think that nothing beats this little beast price and quality wise.
Plus, it shoots h265 4K so it's much more future proof. The quality of video is so good that sometimes I take 8MP framegrabs and send them to stock agencies...and they accept them!
 
I just sold my D800E and have read the 5300 is actually better for video. You might want to read echoed.com's review of the 5300. http://www.eoshd.com/2014/02/nikon-d5300-review/

He has a passage where he talks about how the Nikon upgrade path actually gets worse for video as you spend more:

You could upgrade from the D5300 to the D7100 but for no gain in video quality. In fact you LOSE video features. Gone would be 1080/60p and the articulated screen. You could upgrade yet again to the full frame D610, lose the same features again and actually have a step backwards in image quality – horrible shot-breaking moire and aliasing plagues that camera for no good reason. You could upgrade yet again to the D800 and have the same ugly patterns all over your broken images and worse low light performance, still no 1080/60p or articulated screen or any extra major video features. The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera is $999 with a 10bit 4:2:2 ProRes codec, crisp detail and 13 stops of dynamic range. The D5300 does have a better screen than the Pocket Camera, which is articulated and it does have an APS-C sensor, 1080/60p in addition to the film frame rate of 24p and 25p, so it’s not all bad… Until you realise it’s going to be obsolete in a few months when cinema standard 4K arrives at consumer prices with the GH4.
 
The D800 had some issues, but AFAIK the D810 solved them. I think it's the best Nikon camera for video, possibly tied with the D750.
 
I would recommend the Nikon D7100 for a person on a budget who will do photography seriously and wants good video quality too.

I use the D5200 professionally which has identical image quality to the D7100, and I have ZERO over heating issues with it. (It gets a little warm in the hand, but never becomes an issue)
The D7100 would be the same, totally fine.

And the D7100 goes for a great price these days, incredible value for a stills camera.

If you have a bigger budget, spend it on nice lenses such as the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8

If you have an even bigger budget than that, get the Nikon D750 which is quite simply the best all round DSLR from any manufacturer.

But I would seriously look at mirrorless cameras too: Samsung NX1, Panasonic GX7 /GH4, Sony A7s / A6000
 
IronFilm said:
I would recommend the Nikon D7100 for a person on a budget who will do photography seriously and wants good video quality too.

I use the D5200 professionally which has identical image quality to the D7100, and I have ZERO over heating issues with it. (It gets a little warm in the hand, but never becomes an issue)
The D7100 would be the same, totally fine.

And the D7100 goes for a great price these days, incredible value for a stills camera.

If you have a bigger budget, spend it on nice lenses such as the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8

If you have an even bigger budget than that, get the Nikon D750 which is quite simply the best all round DSLR from any manufacturer.

But I would seriously look at mirrorless cameras too: Samsung NX1, Panasonic GX7 /GH4, Sony A7s / A6000
Click to expand...


Thank you very much for the recommendation. I did end up buying the D5300, so I'll stick with it for now.
Quick question: I see the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is DC format. What effect with that have if my d5300 is DX format?

Kind regards,
Christian Fischer
 
The Sigma 18-35mm is an APS-C lens (DX format or whatever each company calls it), this means it doesn't work with Fullframe cameras (or FX).

So the 18-35mm is perfect for a D5300, T6s, Eos M, D7100, NX1, and all cameras with a sensor size of APS-C (DX)

It's a wonderfull lens as is brightness but the range is very limited for an all-purpose lens.

I'd get an 18-105mm on the D5300, plus a fast prime like a 50mm f1.8 or 35mm f/1.8 for beauty shallow dof shots, this option is much less money than an 18-35mm which is very limited in range, has no VR and can't be used as an only one lens.
 
The 18-35 f/1.8 is a really, really good lens, a lot better than the 18-105. It does have a very limited range, but if it fits your needs and you can afford it, I doubt you'll find a better deal (unless you go for three primes instead of a zoom, and even then I'd have to see exactly which primes, and at what price).
 
Three paths for combining them at the higher end (as if you just need amateur level stills, simply get a GH4 and be done with it. The stills are pretty good. This advice is just if you're aiming to work in pro jobs in both areas):
Nikon D7100: top notch stills (Nikon's best APS-C camera, and Nikon is *VERY* well supported in the photography world after all. Such as third party lenses or flashes) plus good 1080 video (same sensor as in the excellent D5200: http://www.eoshd.com/2013/02/nikon-d5200-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii/ )
Samsung NX1: even better stills (arguably) but less well supported (you'll struggle with finding third party lenses or flashes, or renting anything extra for it vs a Nikon) but with top notch 4K video (and 120fps FHD, and more)
Sony A7s + Sony A7r: you get a top notch 1080p video camera (that can do 4K too, at the extra expense of an external recorder) and a very high resolution stills camera which you can share lenses between the two with no fuss. Downside is this is by far the most expensive option of the three.

Edit: gah... Really should've read the second page before replying! lol (saw I'd already replied to this thread...)
 
Samuel H said:
The 18-35 f/1.8 is a really, really good lens, a lot better than the 18-105. It does have a very limited range, but if it fits your needs and you can afford it, I doubt you'll find a better deal (unless you go for three primes instead of a zoom, and even then I'd have to see exactly which primes, and at what price).
Click to expand...


I agree the Simga 18-35mm f/1.8 is a must have lens if you can afford it. Though I don't believe three primes can replace it, and certainly not cheaper! As after all, what 18mm f/1.8 prime is there on the market with Nikon F mount? Sadly it doesn't exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top