What DSLR to purchase with a twist....

J

Justin Phillips

New member
I have been a professional photographer for several years... I had a studio and because of the economy I had to shut it down and take an IT job. My investment in equipment for photography was the Sony A900 and the A700 and Sony's collection of Zeiss lenses. Now video has always been my passion but photography paid the bills. Now that I am back working I want a camera that can also do video. As much as I would love to keep my investments in in my Sony Zeiss glass the A55 is just not a video option due to its overheating and other quality issues.

(Sorry for the intro) anyway I want a dual purpose camera, I have been leaning towards the GH2 but am concerned about the micro 4/3's as a photography device if I do get any pro work such as weddings. So I am curious what people think of the GH2 as a camera... Yes I have been reading up on the photography forums too. Or should I look at a D7000 or a 7D instead to get really good in both categories. I just want to be able to go back and forth and have a strong tool in both, and the 5d is out due to its price along with all the video accessories I will be purchasing.

Not trying to act like I want people to make my decision for me, I am doing a lot of research but I want to ask a direct question from both the video and photography to find a strong dual tool. I am not against Micro 4/3's in any way I just don't want to to compromise in either category...to the best of my ability given the budget of selling most of my sony gear.
 
I think the best for BOTH is the Nikon D7000. I'm sure people will disagree, but the D7000 is a great stills camera and the video looks promising and it costs less than the 7D. My answer is centered around your need for the photo capability. The GH2 is capable, yes, but the Nikon is a KNOCKOUT for dynamic range/high iso/ergonomics/optical VF/speed.
Now if you're doing a lot more video than photos - GH2 all the way.
 
Justin Phillips said:
I just don't want to to compromise in either category
Click to expand...
The no-compromise video-still camera has yet to be made, and may never be. You have to make the tough decision before considering cameras. The D7000 at 1080p can only shoot at 24fps, which for video is a total deal breaker, and in any case a better model/price comparison is with the Canon 60D.
 
Well I do have a prime and zoom left for a Nikon when I ran D200's, that could help. What do people feel is better in the video world between the D7000 and 7D?
 
Rainer said:
The no-compromise video-still camera has yet to be made, and may never be. You have to make the tough decision before considering cameras. The D7000 at 1080p can only shoot at 24fps, which for video is a total deal breaker, and in any case a better model/price comparison is with the Canon 60D.
Click to expand...

No 108024P is not a total deal breaker. 24p is where MANY people CHOOSE to shoot....I agree with the no-compromise still-video camera not existing.
 
A lot of people do shoot 24p for video but the ability to shoot 30 is nice... You have given me some things to think about though.....
 
Justin Phillips said:
Well I do have a prime and zoom left for a Nikon when I ran D200's, that could help. What do people feel is better in the video world between the D7000 and 7D?
Click to expand...

Most would say the Canon's are better with video, but they've improved faster. The D90/D300s were heavily compromised and it took Nikon until very recently with the D7000 to make a marked improvement. I think it's a wash personally, depending on which look you prefer (I really like the Nikon color personally) and if you NEED 1080 30p as Rainer said earlier the d7000 does not have it. I think 1080 24p is perfectly fine...just my opinion though.
 
interesting position youre in.

i was in the opposite position. i needed a double-duty device. but my use was more video than stills, so i went with the GH2. i havent really battle-tested its stills capabilities. but ive shot a few stills with it. it does some interedting things, and i like it. but i dont think i love it. not so far. and not like i generally love the stills from a canon or nikon.

i used to be a die hard nikon fan-boy. and most recently had a d200 rig that i really enjoyed. but i started to play with a variety of canons that various friends and colleagues had. and i found myself preferring the canons still pic look to that of the nikons...

i was about to pull the trigger on a 7D a few weeks ago. until i started reading about all the moire/aliasing issues they have in video mode. there is a LOT of heated debate about how prevalent, how severe and how avoidable that is. but i decided for me, id rather take the hit at the stills level than video.

since your needs are the opposite. a 7D may be the ticket.
though, id say the best test is hands-on. if you can justify the few hundred bucks, rent each one and see how they work for you:
http://www.lensrentals.com/for-nikon

here is another review article i found helpful:
http://philipbloom.net/2010/12/07/whichdslr/
 
I have and use the 7d and the t2i. They are good cameras but they compromise the IQ in video by introducing Moire and aliasing artifacts. As still camera's they make beautiful images, plus the 7d is weather proofed so you can take it out in the wild. If you can live with the artifacts and are willing to work around the issue then the canon's are great cameras.

For almost all our low budget video work we use a combination of the gh13, gh2, and Af100. Their IQ in video is superb and can be easily matched cross platform. The gh13 and gh2 are the most versitile camera platforms that I have ever used. They are small, can take almost any lens ever made, and are essentially a pro-camcorder shoved into a tiny body (the gh2 more than the gh13). But on the stills front it isn't as great as the canons and nikons.

I agree with wgzn, go out and rent the cameras and see which one you like. Most Best Buy's have the canon's out on display so you could just take a memory card with you and shoot a couple tests indoors. If it were me I would get the GH2, hands down.
 
what about the NEX-VG10... It accepts E mount lenses and supports auto focus. A tad expensive @ $2k.
 
I have a 7D and GH1. When I do stills for weddings, it's the 7D. The GH1 is too slow, shot to shot speed is just too slow for weddings. I do shoot some videos with both cameras, the GH1 works great when the light is good. When the light drops low, I go to the 7D ( I don't have the 20/1.7 or 25/0.95 for the GH1) since my widest and fastest glass are all EOS mount. Unfortunately, except for a couple of fast primes, there aren't any f2.8 zooms for m4/3 - there's a lovely f2 zoom by Olympus but it's not very wide, expensive and heavy.
 
Same background as the OP (well, I never sold my studio, but did add video).

THE MAIN FACTORS TO CONSIDER:

For video - do you like the canon, panny, or Nikon "look". You can rent them. Try them. It really comes down to that if ya ask me. Choosing a DSLR for video is sort of like choosing the film you'll shoot with.

For stills - I agree that Nikon rules (I have Nikon and canon). But they're very close, and many (like me) prefer Nikon's ergonomics and menu system.

But the #1 thing in a still camera? TWO FREAKIN' CONTROL KNOBS. One for aperture and one for shutter. (You're a pro, right? Had a studio? How much auto setting will you use? I shoot manual 99% of the time, aperture priority the rest. I look around the frame and decide if I am going to agree with the meter or not. Often I don't. So, no T2i or Nikon with just one knob). The rest (IMHO) is just minor details. Pick the look ya like for video. Get a camera with professional controls for stills. Nikon and Canon will give you top-shelf pro still results - I assume the GH will deliver equal stills as well.

Nikon for video? No slowmo at 60p (even the Canon's aliased-to-hell 60p at 720 makes some pretty slow motion). (Just don't try to key it - that noise is GREEN, man!).

Micro 4/3? Is it still tough to get a really wide image on that sensor at 2.8? It is for the D7000, T2i, etc., but I'm guessing it's easier than a GH. I've got no Panasonic experience (I do dig my HMC 150, but that's another story...) I'd say, get a 7D unless Panny can meet these needs and deliver the image you want.
 
...I was a studio/location stills photographer for 10+ years ( Sinar 4x5 / 8x10, Mamiya RZ, Nikon 35mm film cameras using Speedotron Blackline flash packs ), and I've been shooting video professionally for about 5 years now. ( small scale corporate and gov work )

For still photo work I think it's a toss up between Canon and Nikon. Both make amazing DSLR bodies and lenses. ( Canon may have the edge when it comes to weather-sealing, but I've never found any direct comparisons on this )

Last September I bought a Canon 60D ( mainly to shoot shallow DOF video interviews ) and then at the beginning of December I bough a Panasonic GH-2, with the idea that I would keep one and sell the other. Within the first week it was obvious to me that the GH-2 is a much better video camera. ( I sold the 60D last month )

Here are the three main issues that I have when shooting video with the current crop of Canon DSLRs:

1- Low resolution : The image recorded is soft ( lower resolution ) compared to what the 1080 HD format can record.

Stu Maschwitz article on the Low Resolution Image that Canon DSLRs Record

The GH-2 does a better job of down-scaling to 2 Mpixel, recording a sharper and more detailed image.

2- Moire : The Canon DSLRs will display moire under certain conditions, while the GH-2 shows almost none. Shooting patterned-clothing, shingled roofs, brick-walls, chain-link fences, venetian blinds, screen-doors or windows, all may display the tell-tale moire "rainbows" depending on the lens used and the angle of the camera to the subject.

Forrest Burger : Canon 60D vs Panasonic GH-2 Moire Test : Watch this In Full-Screen Mode

3- Aliasing : All cameras will record aliasing when there is too much detail for the image format to record, but the lower resolution of the Canon DSLR video image will display more aliasing or "stair-stepping" when shooting diagonal or long sloping curved shapes.

Alister Chapman: Canon T2i, First Impressions, Initial Tests

Personally, I hate the build quality of the GH-2 body ( it's small, feels fragile, and sometimes difficult to pick up without hitting one of the controls ) and would gladly have paid another $500-600 for body built like a Canon or Nikon camera. I also hate that there are not many fast lenses with AF and IS, and hope that the situation changes later this year.

Down the road, I might get back into Canon if the 5D MK3 turns out to be a full-frame version of the GH-2. That would truly be the best of both worlds. ( awesome stills and video camera )
 
Personally, I hate the build quality of the GH-2 body ( it's small, feels fragile, and sometimes difficult to pick up without hitting one of the controls ) and would gladly have paid another $500-600 for body built like a Canon or Nikon camera.
Click to expand...
+100!
ok, maybe i wouldn't use the word "hate" but "ridiculously, strongly dislike"

i dont see why (other than materials cost and weight) that panasonic chose the smaller "consumerish" footprint of the GH2 relative to a bulkier build like the 7D.
i think that contributes to the hesitation of many people to choose a GH2...
 
Last edited:
The only problem with the NEX-VG10 is that it's a dedicated camcorder (the photography features are there, but I wouldn't want to do a paid gig with one... and I think the OP wants more of a DSLR-type system), and doesn't do 24p. Just 60i is full HD... That's pretty much the only deal-breaker there for me..

wgzn said:
i think that contributes to the hesitation of many people to choose a GH2...
Click to expand...
Yep! If they had a bigger body, I would hesitate less over buying aspect. The 4/3 sensor is another drawback...
 
Last edited:
wgzn said:
+100!
ok, maybe i wouldn't use the word "hate" but "ridiculously, strongly dislike"

i dont see why (other than materials cost and weight) that panasonic chose the smaller "consumerish" footprint of the GH2 relative to a bulkier build like the 7D.
i think that contributes to the hesitation of many people to choose a GH2...
Click to expand...

The reason why is this - the market for small cams is blowing up fast (unfortunately for some of us...I like the bigger cameras as well) Look at the success of the NEX series for evidence of the viability of these small large sensor cams.
 
I owned most of em. As a pure video capture box it's the GH2 hands down above all of the canons. There is no question as to the image quality.

Gh2's biggest drawback is the cheap build quality. M4/3 has plenty of wide angle options and is growing by the week. You can get plenty wide on the gh2. I'd say you have more options in general with the gh2. Basically when you say 2x crop factor compared to 1.6 it's psychologically a big difference, but in actual practice not that much different.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
The reason why is this - the market for small cams is blowing up fast (unfortunately for some of us...I like the bigger cameras as well)
Click to expand...

Indeed, the micro cams are tiny things - but I'm thinking of getting one for my wife. A full-manual SLR in a travel/purse size looks nice to me. My biggest worry (she's a serious cook and facebooks a lot of dinners & recipes) would be steaming-hot plate of asian grilled fish - "where's the camera"... "umm, honey, it's on my rails... let me just pull this matte box & FF off..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top