HD camcorder vs DSLR - which is better

I notice your a Nikon man - from the reviews I have seen on video sites most people seem to think that Canon produce better video from their DSLR's than Nikon due to the heritage in that area.

Have you had a chance to compare?
 
Yes, generally speaking Nikon's awful. Basically there's 2 cameras to even think about considering for anything vaguely serious when it comes to Nikon and video. The D3s (for a 720p camera, it's ridiculously good, and the noise is a lot more "grain" looking than the obvious digital noise of the Canons and has a live histogram). But, it's 720p, and the D7000 (which would be awesome if not for the fact it ONLY shoots 24fps @ 1080p).

This is one of Joe McNally's early D3s video experiments shortly after he upgraded his pair of D3 bodies.

[youtube]EvWnMb5XRp0[/youtube]

The D7000 is great if all you're interested in is shooting 1080 @ 24fps, but with Technicolor's recent Canon colour profile release, D7000 owners will have some catching up to do to figure out the best colour settings to use to maximise dynamic range. But, the footage from it is beautiful, the rolling shutter issues are minimal (relatively speaking), it'll record for up to 20 minutes at a time (longer than the Canon's 12 minutes), and with the tests I was doing (outdoors in typical British weather) it didn't give us any hassle about overheating. The D7000 also has persistent HDMI output while recording (something you don't get with the Canons until you're at least at 7D level - I'm not sure about the D5100, I haven't had one to test).

The D5100 was looking like it could actually rock Canon's world, but they failed to provide full manual control over ISO & shutter speed while shooting video (come on Nikon, what the hell were you thinking? people buy SLRs specifically for that manual control!). The quality from it's great, and (maybe I'm biased) overall better looking to me than the Canon (but bear in mind this is bleeding edge vs. 2-3 year old commercial technology now).

So, Canon still wins in many respects. Between the D3s, D7000 and D5100 Nikon could produce an outstanding HDSLR that would be better for video than any Canon, imho, but they've failed at every point to put everything into a single body (and they still don't have a body that does 720p @ 60fps that even Canons like the now obsolete 550D can do).

The D300s, D90 and others that only shoot 720p fully auto (or only manual control over the aperture) are useless. You can't get any kind of exposure consistency from shot to shot without some serious pre-planning and messing around each time you hit the shutter, and even then it's mostly luck.

However, for more family type stuff, where you want a DSLR to replace budget camcorder, don't want to have to think about anything, and just want a "do it all for me" point n' shoot video camera, the D5100 is about as close as they get at the moment - it seems they specifically designed it to compete against the low budget camcorders. But again, this is the latest HDSLR tech to hit the shops, so that could change in a few months.

All I want is a Nikon that lets me do 1080p @ 24/25/30fps, 720p @ 24/25/30/50/60fps, has a live histogram, and gives me full manual control over aperture, ISO and shutter speed, and HDMI output while recording. That's not too much to ask considering Canon owners have had that for a good couple of years now. Now, if only Nikon could get all those features in a single body, I'll be happy.

If that's not in the eventual D400 release (I like my crop sensors, closest size to 35mm movie film), then I'll probably stick to my D300s for stills permanently, and start collecting Canons for video until I can afford an FS100 or F3. :)
 
Last edited:
Not read all the posts so may cover whats alread been said. I prefer to keep stills and video cameras seperate as each has a specific job to do. My Movie camera is a Panasonic HDC-SD600 and the stills is a Nikon D300. Each is excellent in its own right and I am sceptical about these hybrid cameras that try and do both jobs. The Panasonic produces to my mind TV quality videos but the 14meg pix still side isn't as good as my Nikon.

When would I recommend the Panasonic? it beats everything hands down when shooting ( in the photographic sense) babies and family stuff and that Nikon for covering everything else.

Realspeed
 
Last edited:
Kaouthia said:
All I want is a Nikon that lets me do 1080p @ 24/25/30fps, 720p @ 24/25/30/50/60fps, has a live histogram, and gives me full manual control over aperture, ISO and shutter speed, and HDMI output while recording. That's not too much to ask considering Canon owners have had that for a good couple of years now. Now, if only Nikon could get all those features in a single body, I'll be happy.

If that's not in the eventual D400 release (I like my crop sensors, closest size to 35mm movie film), then I'll probably stick to my D300s for stills permanently, and start collecting Canons for video until I can afford an FS100 or F3. :)
Click to expand...

This is the reason I nearly got myself a 5dmkii when I decided I needed pro equipment, but the nikon just felt better.

Really hoping the D800/D400 isn't stupidly priced and that its at least caught up with the Canons, however, I can't say I've heard anything about them other than rumours.
 
TheEngineer said:
If you want to capture the kids then a dedicated video camera is by far the best way to go.
Click to expand...

for me, I couldn't disagree with this more.

How would having a camcorder have made these videos of mine better:

[YOUTUBE]mWT7DJ1uwAY[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]GNnHtmuIXX8[/YOUTUBE]

but they are still objects I hear you say, trying filming your kids when they are moving around.

Ok

[YOUTUBE]Ti48A9Gcs4c[/YOUTUBE]

If I still had my panasonic hdc-sd800 to use for filming i'd have had to carry 2 camera's with me and the image quality would have been poorer - what would I have gained?
 
Harvey_nikon said:
...Really hoping the D800/D400 isn't stupidly priced and that its at least caught up with the Canons, however, I can't say I've heard anything about them other than rumours.
Click to expand...

I've given up with nikon, much as I prefer the feel of them and don't like white lenses, they just don't grasp the concept of video and their current strategy regards video is so poor I have no faith that it will be any better in the future.

As I don't want to run a Nikon and a Canon system at the same time and I find I'm mixing my media a lot more now, Canon was the only option much as it pains me to say it- not as painful as departing with my 70-200 mind you:crying:.
 
Dr_O said:
As I don't want to run a Nikon and a Canon system at the same time and I find I'm mixing my media a lot more now, Canon was the only option much as it pains me to say it- not as painful as departing with my 70-200 mind you:crying:.
Click to expand...
I've been thinking about picking up a 550D to tide me over until we see what the D400 brings. If the D400 fails miserably, in line with Nikon's current HD track record, then I'll only be looking at Canon bodies not lenses. I'll still be using my Nikon glass with 'em thanks to the wonderful Novoflex adapter.
 
joescrivens said:
for me, I couldn't disagree with this more.

How would having a camcorder have made these videos of mine better:

[YOUTUBE]mWT7DJ1uwAY[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]GNnHtmuIXX8[/YOUTUBE]

but they are still objects I hear you say, trying filming your kids when they are moving around.

Ok

[YOUTUBE]Ti48A9Gcs4c[/YOUTUBE]

If I still had my panasonic hdc-sd800 to use for filming i'd have had to carry 2 camera's with me and the image quality would have been poorer - what would I have gained?
Click to expand...

Hi Joe

Great videos.

My "issue" is that for the vast majority of people a camcorder will give better results than an SLR. You have clearly taken the time to learn how to use the kit. Most people do not.
 
TheEngineer said:
Hi Joe

Great videos.

My "issue" is that for the vast majority of people a camcorder will give better results than an SLR. You have clearly taken the time to learn how to use the kit. Most people do not.
Click to expand...

well, I think that perhaps the sentiment should be:

dSLRs will be great for video if you take time to learn how to use them properly, if you don't have the time, or inclination then buy a camcorder
 
joescrivens said:
well, I think that perhaps the sentiment should be:

dSLRs will be great for video if you take time to learn how to use them properly, if you don't have the time, or inclination then buy a camcorder
Click to expand...

Which is most people!

Therefore the advice would be in general terms a video camera is better for video! ;)
 
joescrivens said:
dSLRs will be great for video if you take time to learn how to use them properly, if you don't have the time, or inclination then buy a camcorder
Click to expand...

What an interseting thread this has turned out to be.. And I think this statement is correct.
The thread has caused me to think and looked at things I do though and also trawl vimeo and youtube to see practical results. I think that if you do have the inclination to know your equipment though you can get stunning results using both if you know what you are doing. Those shots that can be don e with good (wide ) lens can be amazing with both.
If you are really interested in making short films though there are compelling reasons why either might be better though. If you really want 1080p and high frame rate only a camcorder will do it, if you want filmic dof only a dslr will do it.
In my trawl I found a few comparison shots one of Robert shealey using a 7D and tm900 . I can't embed this for some reson but doubters of either the tm900 or 7d should see results from someone using both side by side :


http://vimeo.com/24852626
http://vimeo.com/24852626http://vimeo.com/24852626
This fella obviously knows his stuff and certainly knows which tool to use for which job. Its worth a peek.

I found a lot of poor results from users of both dslr and camcorder so its not always the equipment to blame.

If you know what bit rate you want, frame rate and manual controls you want, this could affect which is "better " for you. Joe has a DSLR that produces good results of whaat he wants to film. If he wanted to film say killer whales on a boat trip , hand held, the choice might be different.

The biggest reason for me using a dslr and camcorder is I couldn't afford a dslr that could do what I wanted to with the camcorder:crying: (avoid nursing if you want to be rich :D ) I love bird photography where you never seem to have enough reach. I use Olympus as a way of getting 600mm eq focal length. The camcorder shoots 700mm max with little degredation (though some) in quality. How much would a 7d and 700mm lens cost or even with a 400mm lens.!!:D
This brought me to another thought of course with wildlife you should always get closer etc etc but if you see one killer whale but its half a mile away, it may come down to "I got a shot that could have been sharper if it had been closer" with a camcorder or "I got no shot it was too far away " with a dslr.. Like I say this may only apply to me. There was a guy on vimeo in south america who filmed birds with the first canon dslr to have video and they were stunning but hey he was pretty good too:eek:

please lets not forget that filming and photography are fun.:) People get great results with both. If you enjoy it and get what you want it doesn't get better than that:)
al
<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/24852626?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0"></iframe><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/24852626">20110601 Utah and Moab Trip</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user494045">Roger Shealy</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>
 
Last edited:
Kaouthia said:
I've been thinking about picking up a 550D to tide me over until we see what the D400 brings. If the D400 fails miserably, in line with Nikon's current HD track record, then I'll only be looking at Canon bodies not lenses. I'll still be using my Nikon glass with 'em thanks to the wonderful Novoflex adapter.
Click to expand...

That option had crossed my mind but I had ruled it out because of the loss of functionality and the fact that a lot of Nikon lenses don't have an aperture ring.
These Novoflex adapters seem good though- offering the ability to maintain focus at infinity. Looks like they make some other interesting bits of kit too- cheers for that.

I guess for video the loss of functionality is negligible whereas for stills it's much more restrictive. Hadn't really researched it much so I may have been thinking too much from a stills point of view even though the use would be video.
Do you find much of a compromise using the adaptor?
 
Dr_O said:
That option had crossed my mind but I had ruled it out because of the loss of functionality and the fact that a lot of Nikon lenses don't have an aperture ring.
These Novoflex adapters seem good though- offering the ability to maintain focus at infinity. Looks like they make some other interesting bits of kit too- cheers for that.
Click to expand...

The only functionality I'd lose that *might* make some kinda difference is VR, and that's only if I'm going handheld, which I rarely am (and that's only on one lens).

Novoflex do a G version of the EOS/NIK adapter, so it basically adds an aperture ring to those lenses that don't have it. I got the regular version of the adapter, as most of my Nikon glass that I'd be using with it has an aperture ring. I generally tend to use M42 lenses for most of my video work on DSLRs.
 
Kaouthia said:
The only functionality I'd lose that *might* make some kinda difference is VR, and that's only if I'm going handheld, which I rarely am (and that's only on one lens).

Novoflex do a G version of the EOS/NIK adapter, so it basically adds an aperture ring to those lenses that don't have it. I got the regular version of the adapter, as most of my Nikon glass that I'd be using with it has an aperture ring. I generally tend to use M42 lenses for most of my video work on DSLRs.
Click to expand...

Couldn't find that on their website (which could do with some re-engineering itself in my opinion:LOL:) or the pdf but found it on dpreview thanks. Options, options:D
 
This is the one I have and this is the G version.

I didn't purchase from them, but I imagine you might find better prices if you shop around.

These guys have the G version for a little less than Speed Graphic. I've bought audio gear from them before and paid their shop a little visit when I was staying down the road from Elstree Studios a few months ago.
 
surprised that the panasonic GH2 is all but missing from this thread as it can equal if not better the 5D2 on video quality...& yes i know it's not a DSLR
 
Last edited:
britco said:
surprised that the panasonic GH2 is all but missing from this thread as it can equal if not better the 5D2 on video quality...& yes i know it's not a DSLR
Click to expand...

how does it better the quality? it has a smaller sensor and more noise

any fast moving objects apparently make the codec fail too, from what i hear.
 
much less rolling shutter & moire effect on GH2 not quite as good low light as 5D2 granted...and the GH2 auto focus works like a dream you touch what you want to focus on on the lcd & it focuses instantly
i have owned a 5D2 & a panasonic sd700 camcorder so i have comparison videos...the GH2 has it's faults but for the money it's astonishing video quality
 
britco said:
much less rolling shutter & moire effect on GH2 not quite as good low light as 5D2 granted...and the GH2 auto focus works like a dream you touch what you want to focus on on the lcd & it focuses instantly
i have owned a 5D2 & a panasonic sd700 camcorder so i have comparison videos...the GH2 has it's faults but for the money it's astonishing video quality
Click to expand...

rolling shutter and moire effect aren't really about video quality though, and neither is the focus feature - they are more about functionality. You claimed the gh2 to have better video quality than the 5d which puzzled me because of the smaller sensor and not as good performance noise wise.

sounds like its a great camera for video but it just won't have the same dof and image quality as the 5d gets.
 
Last edited:
i agree the 5D2 is a better stills camera by some margin but to say rolling shutter & moire effect aren't about video quality is a bit strange to be honest
 
britco said:
i agree the 5D2 is a better stills camera by some margin but to say rolling shutter & moire effect aren't about video quality is a bit strange to be honest
Click to expand...

Well, it's not. OK, moiré is, but that's going to happen on any sensor where there's line skipping involved.

Rolling shutter is not an issue of quality, merely technique - to a point so is moiré.
 
britco said:
i agree the 5D2 is a better stills camera by some margin but to say rolling shutter & moire effect aren't about video quality is a bit strange to be honest
Click to expand...

yeah exactly what kaothia said.

Video quality is the quality of the image that you get from the sensor - not how moving that camera around effects the rolling shutter or not.

It would be like telling me that the sony dSLRs with video produce better image quality because they have an image stabilizer in the body.

When we're talking about pure quality of image it's all about the sensor. The sensor in the 5d is better than that of the gh1 - whether the gh1 is a better camera for video or not is a different argument - the sum of it's features against the drop in quality could make it so, but to say it has better video quality is incorrect. It doesn't.
 
Last edited:
Hi Joe

I've just purchased the 550D based on the video quality that it can produce for our first baby due end of august.

Your films are great but I wondered what software you are using to stitch the short clips of video together and adding the music? The overall effect is brilliant in the one with the slide

Thanks
Paul
 
Paul, I use final cut pro, but really for the slide clip I could have used any simple movie editing as it was just cuts and fades
 
Thanks Joe

Is there any free software that is worth downloading to do the cuts and fades?

Thanks
Paul
 
clipboard2008 said:
will windows movie maker do all this for me, just found it on the laptop doh!
Click to expand...

I haven't used movie maker for about 10 years but there's no reason it shouldn't.

The only issue will be with the rendering of your files. The dSLR creates a movie file that is not easy to edit, you need to convert it first. Since im using a mac mine is converted to an Apple Pro res codec.

Some windows fan will have to advise you what to do on a windows machine as I am clueless
 
joescrivens said:
Some windows fan will have to advise you what to do on a windows machine as I am clueless
Click to expand...

DNxHD, free (but better than ProRes because it's available for more than one platform ;)) from AVID.
 
joescrivens said:
it's only better if you use more than one platforms, if you stick with one then what's the difference?
Click to expand...

You, or any of your collaborators. And it's better if that "one" platform isn't a Mac. :)
 
Last edited:
Kaouthia said:
You, or any of your collaborators. And it's better if that "one" platform isn't a Mac. :)
Click to expand...

thats what i mean though, if you are the only one using it (i.e. you have no collaborators - like me) then there's no difference

also I would imagine that in the field of video editing there are more users on a mac than other platforms, no evidence to back that up but it's just a hunch
:)
 
joescrivens said:
also I would imagine that in the field of video editing there are more users on a mac than other platforms, no evidence to back that up but it's just a hunch
:)
Click to expand...

Only because Macs support both Adobe CreativeSuite and FCP (and because a lot of people buy into the overpriced hype without having a clue what the benefits of either platform, if any, are).

But with the apparent mess Apple have made of FCP X, and the advantages CS5 has over the former most recent version of FCP, it's not looking like it matters what platform you're on.

I only really know a few people personally who edit solely on Apple machines, and they're the die-hard fanboys that think the sun shines out of Apple's backside, and try to refute any arguments against anything Apple with the phrase "but it's MAGICAL!" ;)

Btw Joe, did I ever tell you how cute you look in your avatar? :D
 
Kaouthia said:
Btw Joe, did I ever tell you how cute you look in your avatar? :D
Click to expand...

I know, I just did my hair, steve loves it even more than his iphone

actually, im thinking of changing it, it's been there for AGES
 
joescrivens said:
I haven't used movie maker for about 10 years but there's no reason it shouldn't.

The only issue will be with the rendering of your files. The dSLR creates a movie file that is not easy to edit, you need to convert it first. Since im using a mac mine is converted to an Apple Pro res codec.

Some windows fan will have to advise you what to do on a windows machine as I am clueless
Click to expand...

Premier Pro CS5 has native DSLR editing. Not that I've done it myself yet.

http://blogs.adobe.com/jlevmedia/2010/04/native_dslr_editing_in_premier.html

Red Giant have a batch transcoder here so you can go make a cup of tea or two while your footage converts if you like.

http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/products/all/magic-bullet-grinder/features/

John
 
As a pro film-maker, I can say with a great deal of conviction that the Canon DSLR range, particularly the 7D and 5D are the best things to happen for people like me in years. As promarily an underwater filmmaker, not only is the quality at least as good, more often better, than cameras that go for £20K, the underwater set up is about a quarter of the price for at least equally as good results.

Awesome pieces of kit.
 
http://vimeo.com/17302746 I cobbled this together from little bits of video shot here and there. I wouldn't have shot anything[/] with a camcorder but my SLR goes everywhere. Sure there is no image stabilisation (I was just playing around - didn't actually think I'd capture anything I wanted to put together) but the quality, look, and feel is miles ahead of any camcorder... more cinematic really!

Shutter roll isn't great on the D90 but gone (to my eyes) on the D7000.

The difference for me is:
Camcorder = Home Movie (think 'You've been framed')
DSLR = Cinematic Movie :).

Personally I'll be chasing my kids round the house with a steadycam DSLR setup and NOT a handycam!
 
Last edited:
Wasn't sure what the cleavage shot was all about, but I liked it. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top