Can't decide on a DSLR for interior videos!

[fuzzybabybunny]

I'm going to be shooting real estate videography and I can't decide on a DSLR.

When I just shot photos, I used a 9 shot HDR bracket with my Nikon D300s.

Now I'm finding that the D300s has really crappy video and no community or 3rd party support of video enthusiasts like Canon does.

Canon has Magic Lantern and Cinestyle available to get as much dynamic range as possible from a scene, something that is very important for my line of work because:

1. Exteriors could be bright mixed with heavy shadows from trees.
2. Interiors have open windows that blow out heavily.

I just don't know which DSLR to get!

5DMKII is too expensive. 7D? 60D? T3i? T2i? What about the D7000?

Also, since there's 3rd party firmware available, is there firmware that expands the range and number of brackets that can be shot? 3 brackets at 2EV is so low. Can I get 9 brackets at 1EV, or 5 brackets at 2EV?

 

[Kaido]

I love Nikon, but I switched to Canon due to the video quality. I have a T2i and really enjoy it - I use it primarily for video. imo it's not really worth getting the 7D if you're going to be using it a lot for video, because you can get most of the same stuff in the T2i for half the price. Currently not a fan of any of the Nikons for video.

If you don't mind manual mode, you can get a Nikkor to EOS adapter for your Tokina. I have several that I use on both modern lenses and vintage Nikkor lenses and they work great, if you don't mind doing things manually.

 

[Cattykit]

Have you ever encountered aliasing, moire, and false color problems when shooting with D300s? I'm asking because for the type of work you do, I think that would be a predominant issue. Also, is it important to get good detail? If so, forget about all the Canon, Nikon, Sony, and whatever brands except Panasonic GH1,2.

Currently, GH1, 2 is the only camera that does not have such issues thanks to its down-sampling algorithm instead of line-skipping (Instead of only using certain pixel rows to make 1080p=2mp video, it uses all the pixels to capture image then resize to 2mp.) So, it doesn't have those aliasing, moire, and false color problems while offering true 1080p resolution and detail.

But, it's not so great for DR and you can't get the DR which CineStyle offers on Canon cameras.

On the side note, All the current Nikon cameras have Live-view problems. When in manual mode which you'll want to use when shooting video, live-view does not simulate actual exposure. Its bitrate is not decent but for real estate videography, I don't think it matters.

 

[Cattykit]

BTW, unless you want something right now, I advise you wait. We're now in a transition period from vdslr 1.0 to vdslr 2.0. Panasonic GH2 is already there so if you don't mind FourThirds format and its rather poor photographic quality, it is the best vdslr-dslt-evil in the market you can get now (but then again, if DR is what you're after, Canon+Cinestyle is the best.)

In my case, I'm waiting for upcoming Sony cameras. As of now, Sony offers the worst video but it looks like things are going to change with A77 and Nex7. As a 5d mk2 user, if Sony stick with line-skipping method, there's no point of going A77. It wouldn't offer anything good over 5d mk2. NEX7 is a different story. It's damn small and that would be the selling point for me. Who knows, they might use down-sampling....

 

[Kaido]

Panasonic GH2 is already there so if you don't mind FourThirds format and its rather poor photographic quality, it is the best vdslr-dslt-evil in the market you can get now (but then again, if DR is what you're after, Canon+Cinestyle is the best.)

Yeah, I'd be all over the GH2 if it weren't for the terrible low-light capability. It's an amazing camera, but unless you have a well-lit scene...meh. My T2i lives next to me pretty much 24/7.

I'd love for Sony to add video to their high-end Alpha series...I'm absolutely in love with the way they process the photos in-camera. Gimme one of those with some Zeiss glass and I'd be in heaven

 

[dougp]

Yeah, I'd be all over the GH2 if it weren't for the terrible low-light capability. It's an amazing camera, but unless you have a well-lit scene...meh. My T2i lives next to me pretty much 24/7.

I'd love for Sony to add video to their high-end Alpha series...I'm absolutely in love with the way they process the photos in-camera. Gimme one of those with some Zeiss glass and I'd be in heaven

Have anything against the new SLT stuff? Because it provides some great capabilities, and active AF when shooting video.

 

[Cattykit]

Yeah, I'd be all over the GH2 if it weren't for the terrible low-light capability. It's an amazing camera, but unless you have a well-lit scene...meh. My T2i lives next to me pretty much 24/7.

I'd love for Sony to add video to their high-end Alpha series...I'm absolutely in love with the way they process the photos in-camera. Gimme one of those with some Zeiss glass and I'd be in heaven

Yup, as mentioned in my other thread, I have high hopes for A77 and NEX7. Given it's CR5 level rumor, I think Sony will finally offer us decent video.

Have anything against the new SLT stuff? Because it provides some great capabilities, and active AF when shooting video.

Its bitrate is way too low and worst of all, you can't even change or keep shutter speed. AF is too fast and terrible. It only works in where AF points are. Every single AF hit and miss gets recorded. Even worse, due to the unavoidable mechanism of photography lenses, it comes with sudden FOV changes. The worst is when it's automatically set at high shutter speed, does AF hunting which thickens the effect of multiple FOV changes. I'm all for AF when shooting a photo but for video, AF is mostly terrible. However, it can be useful in certain situations (like when you're using a wide angle lens with shallow DOF.) It could be a nice added bonus but the problem is Sony not providing the basic yet highly crucial function to begin with...

 

[dougp]

Its bitrate is way too low and worst of all, you can't even change or keep shutter speed. AF is too fast and terrible. It only works in where AF points are. Every single AF hit and miss gets recorded. Even worse, due to the unavoidable mechanism of photography lenses, it comes with sudden FOV changes. The worst is when it's automatically set at high shutter speed, does AF hunting which thickens the effect of multiple FOV changes. I'm all for AF when shooting a photo but for video, AF is mostly terrible. However, it can be useful in certain situations (like when you're using a wide angle lens with shallow DOF.) It could be a nice added bonus but the problem is Sony not providing the basic yet highly crucial function to begin with...

If your requirements are that high, I suggest you just buy a regular video camera. Video is an extra feature of a DSLR, not the primary focus - so manufacturers will go about improving the camera function as opposed to the video function.

 

[spikespiegal]

Serious video requires a serious video camera. Pretty much any dedicated HD video camera will destroy the dSLRs because of compression issues.

Zacuto did an incredible comparison of dSLRs -vs- cine digital cameras, and in a few examples you can seen how much information is being destroyed because of Canon and Nikon's ferocious compression ratios.

http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera-shootout-2011/episode-two

In defense of the dSLR makers they never intended their video modes be subject to such scrutiny. However, until these machines can handle much lower compression, or ideally some form of RAW video format they won't cut the mustard.

 

[Cattykit]

If your requirements are that high, I suggest you just buy a regular video camera. Video is an extra feature of a DSLR, not the primary focus - so manufacturers will go about improving the camera function as opposed to the video function.

It doesn't take a regular video camera to do what Sony isn't doing. Go with Canon(beside AF,) Panasonic cameras and you get what you're missing on Sony cameras. Plus, even if you get 300K cams, there's no AF.

 

[HendrixFan]

Serious video requires a serious video camera. Pretty much any dedicated HD video camera will destroy the dSLRs because of compression issues.

The Magic Lantern firmware allows you to adjust video compression.

 

[dougp]

It doesn't take a regular video camera to do what Sony isn't doing. Go with Canon(beside AF,) Panasonic cameras and you get what you're missing on Sony cameras. Plus, even if you get 300K cams, there's no AF.

I'm sorry but I wasn't talking just about Sony cameras, but all dSLR's in general when it comes to shooting video.

 

[Cattykit]

Serious video requires a serious video camera. Pretty much any dedicated HD video camera will destroy the dSLRs because of compression issues.

Zacuto did an incredible comparison of dSLRs -vs- cine digital cameras, and in a few examples you can seen how much information is being destroyed because of Canon and Nikon's ferocious compression ratios.

http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera-shootout-2011/episode-two

In defense of the dSLR makers they never intended their video modes be subject to such scrutiny. However, until these machines can handle much lower compression, or ideally some form of RAW video format they won't cut the mustard.

Yet we see serious indie films, music videos, commercials, and tv shows shot entirly on dslrs. Even hollywood blockbusters using Canon cameras as b-cams. Yes, it's nowhere as good as serious video cameras that costs so much more yet it's 'good enough to be usable' as told by James Cameron himself. His recent project is shot with Sony F3 that costs $300,000 mixed with $2500 Canon DSLRS. For the type of work OP intends to do, vdslr is more than good enough although he'll need to make a choice between Canon and GH2 depending on what matter most to him. Also, Shane Hulbert, a DP of Terminator Salvation, said Canon dslrs get 40% of usage in one of top 5 production companies in L.A and this is a company that can get their hands on any kind of cameras. I don't think it's as high as 40% but you get the picture.

With Canon and Nikon cameras that you've mentioned, the information gets destroyed due to the line-skipping method they're using. Compression isn't helping either but it's not the main source of the problem.

 

[Cattykit]

I'm sorry but I wasn't talking just about Sony cameras, but all dSLR's in general when it comes to shooting video.

I pointed out problems with Sony cameras as you were talking about Sony cameras only. Thus, all the problems I mentioned in the following reply was regarding Sony cameras and how your saying "it provides some great capabilities, and active AF when shooting video." isn't really true as Sony wants us to think.
Then, you said "If your requirements are that high, I suggest you just buy a regular video camera." Since such problem I've mentioned doesn't really apply to other brands' cameras, I pointed out one can get Canon or Panasonic cameras instead of Sony and not put up with such problems. Them you claim you weren't just talking about Sony cameras?

 

[GoSharks]

Serious video requires a serious video camera. Pretty much any dedicated HD video camera will destroy the dSLRs because of compression issues.

Zacuto did an incredible comparison of dSLRs -vs- cine digital cameras, and in a few examples you can seen how much information is being destroyed because of Canon and Nikon's ferocious compression ratios.

http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera-shootout-2011/episode-two

In defense of the dSLR makers they never intended their video modes be subject to such scrutiny. However, until these machines can handle much lower compression, or ideally some form of RAW video format they won't cut the mustard.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/13/canon-5d-mark-ii-used-to-shoot-entire-house-season-finale-direc/

 

[dougp]

I pointed out problems with Sony cameras as you were talking about Sony cameras only. Thus, all the problems I mentioned in the following reply was regarding Sony cameras and how your saying "it provides some great capabilities, and active AF when shooting video." isn't really true as Sony wants us to think.
Then, you said "If your requirements are that high, I suggest you just buy a regular video camera." Since such problem I've mentioned doesn't really apply to other brands' cameras, I pointed out one can get Canon or Panasonic cameras instead of Sony and not put up with such problems. Them you claim you weren't just talking about Sony cameras?

Or you missed my point entirely in my follow up response to you, and take this shit way too seriously?

 

[Cattykit]

Or you missed my point entirely in my follow up response to you, and take this shit way too seriously?

Since I explained how you lost your track on the way, tell us how I missed your point entirely. Don't just say I did without providing any examples, explanations and such. And I do take shit, whatever and whoever that is, seriously.

 

[twistedlogic]

and take this shit way too seriously?

ROFL