Hey guys, I need some help on deciding which camera to buy as i'm completely new to photography but a project i'm working on requires I shoot a lot of videos which need to be of good quality. I've wanted to get a good DSLR for ages anyways and now that a definite need for it has come up and I have a bit of money saved up I thought I would source peoples opinions. I've wanted a DSLR to get into photography and I'm one of these people that doesn't want something just basic for beginners but something I could grow into with more functionality than your beginner cameras. However I don't particularly want to drop insane amounts of money on it either and want to a camera that fits somewhere in the middle. Crystal clear video-recording is a must as must the pictures too. I understand I need a lens for this so open for advice on this too. My budget is about £1000 approx give or take in total for the lens and camera. It has some flexibility but I prefer not to go silly. From research initially I was leaning towards the cannon t5i however the cannon lenses appear to be far more expensive than if I went with nikon? Also I have read nikon have more functionality for the more advanced users while cannon tends to be catered for those wanting to pick up and start shooting straight away. I dont mind waiting a little if theres anything around this price range coming out soon anyways that may be worth holding out for either as another option. What I'm wondering is whether people could make recommendations on: Which camera to buy? Whats good about it? Whats bad about it? Price? Any advice is welcome really.
I personally prefer Nikons over Canons, but that's getting into the Coke Vs. Pepsi or AMD Vs nVidia levels of fanboism. I actually use a Minolta body now, but even though Sony has taken the design over I think it's an evolutionary dead end. One thing I would strongly recommend is the Tamron 18-250 or 18-270 superzoom lenses. The pros on here will tend to poo poo them for being slow (f6.3) and lower quality than first party glass, but using just one lens for every situation is awesome.
This sounds like what you want. D7100 has excelent video, plus amazing ISO quality at high figures, but isn't full frame so doesn't sit in the £1000 a lens mark. The 18-105 is very good at most times, but if you want something that you can grow into I wouldn't get a super zoom as you'll just find that it becomes a limiting factor too quickly. Cthippo, I get what you're saying about them, but I've got a friend with one and when it comes to image quality you can see the difference. If you can I'd try and get a good tripod, camera bag (with space for a day pack items) and look at getting some prime lenses in the future. But I am a little out of the loop as I haven't been paying much attention for a while.
Everything I've looked at suggests the 70D would be a wise option. It can be had for around £860 (body).
By the way the Pentax K3 has just been awarded best Expert DSLR by TIPA. Whilst I love my Pentax and would sell a kidney for a K3 I'm just not sure about its video credentials. Might be worth looking into though. They also gave the 'best advanced' category to the 70D and 'best innovation' to Canon's dual pixel CMOS AF which is in the 70D. Surely worth a shout. Finally the best photo/video hybrid went to the Lumix GH4 which is no surprise really as it has a very good reputation for its video, likewise its predecessor the GH3 which I think will be in your price range.
I'd just like to highlight the importance of grabbing both the right lens for the job, and one that is as high quality as possible. I only have a Nikon D3200, so pretty much the base rank, but I noticed a world of a difference when switching from the default 18-55 lens (which is frankly rubbish) to a proper macro optic. Now obviously there are big differences in terms of shooting style there and usage, so when I say differences I mean things like the colour accuracy and general crispness of the image. The beefier lens makes a stinking difference, images come out beautifully rich in colour (but not saturated, just about right), the standard 18-55 just turns everything into grey mush I swear. What kind of work are you specifically talking about? After all, different video uses benefit from different setups. If you're doing lots of fast paced video, then investing in a higher end body and a lower lens makes more sense as they're be able to handle that better. On the other hand, for more static scenes and general video work, a lower body with a better lens could be a better choice. Case in point, the video on the D3200 is okay. It tops out at 1080p sadly and it doesn't work well at all with lots of motion. But for static work (like product videos, modding logs etc) the fact that I could pick up a great lens means my video work can be more advanced, like being able to take advantage of effects like bokeh or more advanced DoF in general. Oh and camera shops are fantastic btw. I found that I got a huge bonus by going to an actual shop rather than shopping online. The lens I managed to get £200 cheaper as it was A+ grade (came in from a closed down Jessops) rather than new, not a nick on it. I also managed to have a bag thrown in along with the memory card and a lens filtre. Given the online price was only 10-20 quid lower before shipping, it was definitely worth it.
I personally wouldn't rule out a CSC like an Olympus E-M10, Panasonic GX-7 or Fuji X-T1 (the latter might be a little outside your budget). I think these are starting to make most entry/mid level DSLRs obsolete as they offer similar levels of manual control and image quality with generally better video quality in a smaller, more attractive body. Also the best EVFs like those in the X-T1 and E-M1 are superior to the smaller OVFs found in budget/mid range DSLRs and some are even larger than the ones in pro DSLRs like the D4. Another option worth looking at would be the Sony RX-10. It has a larger sensor than compact cameras and has a very nice fixed Carl Zeiss lens, however its video quality is spectacular and features all the controls you would need. It may seem expensive for a fixed lens superzoom but if video is more important to you than stills it would give you better results than a DSLR.
Hey guys, Thanks for the responses - i'm looking into each one as we speak so do keep them coming! I was looking at the Cannon 70d and saw it was being compared to the d7100 and they seem to be very similar almost but the d7100 apparently has better images due to the removal of a low pass filter? Hey Maki, Thanks for taking the time to reply. Im hoping to record stationary video mainly at first as the project i'm working on is to film teachers giving instructions to students and tutoring them. So nothing really fast paced. However this camera will also need to serve myself beyond this project as I wish to make solid good quality videos for other projects as well as holidays, baby pictures etc as well in the future. Its why im hoping to kill 2 birds with one stone as they say, as I dont want something just for this project alone but something I can use beyond it. Any good instore or online retailers you can suggest? Also any other suggestions on cameras for me to look into? I don't mind going as high as £1300-£1500 if the camera is definitely worth the extra bit too but not for marginal differences.
I'd be surprised if the image quality difference between the two is anything more than negligible unless pixel peeping. Having an improved autofocus though for example might have a more significant impact on your shooting. Upping the budget as you suggested puts you in reach of the Canon 7D with 15-85mm lens (£1375 after cashback) or the full frame Nikon D610 (£1279 after cashback) and Canon 6D (£1379). Those full frame cameras are body only mind you so you'd have to factor in a lens. But again if you're serious about the video the Lumix CSCs have a fierce reputation. The GH3 with 12-35mm lens can be had for £1449. http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/08/08/panasonic-gh3-review-pro-level-video-for-a-fraction-of-the-price-yes-but-th I like camerapricebuster.com to check prices and wexphotographic.com are an online store I've used several times.
Get the camera you can afford that feels best in your hands, and that you are most comfortable using. Once you start talking about image quality and low pass filters you've left the realm of what you need and have entered the domain of what marketing executives want you to hear. One thing I've noticed during all of my trips to broadcasting conferences: all of the pros use Nikon (except for all of the pros who use Canon). Also, all of the pros swear by Nikkor lenses (except for all of the ones who prefer Canon lenses). Unless you are a seasoned professional with decades of very specific experience, you're not going to tell the difference. In most of our hands, brand is irrelevant. Just get the one you can afford and you are most comfortable using. If you enjoy using it, you're more likely to keep using it, and therefore are more likely to increase your skills over time.
Hey Guys, I have given this immense thought and I'm leaning towards the Cannon Eos 70D. I hope to go into a store hopefully this weekend or next to get a feel for it and see if it suits me. The question is now - which lens do I go for that suits my needs? I plan to shoot video tutorials and presentations firstly but my hope is later to take nice scenic or photography of people. Your thoughts? Sorry about this - I like to get an idea of what direction to look at and then start researching those on google once I have a few options to investigate so appreciate your time. Solidus
