Best for filming : Nikon D5000 VS Canon 550D

[dfusion-]

So here's my story. I bought a Nikon D5000 hew month back, and now i found out i like filming more than photography haha

But i dont like the film quality on the D5000 ( 1280 * 720 ).

So im thinking on selling it and buying the Casnon 550D since that one is full HD ...but i know...

Lemme hear your thoughs on this one

 

[TheNewDude]

So here's my story. I bought a Nikon D5000 hew month back, and now i found out i like filming more than photography haha

But i dont like the film quality on the D5000 ( 1280 * 720 ).

So im thinking on selling it and buying the Casnon 550D since that one is full HD ...but i know...

Lemme hear your thoughs on this one

The 550D/T2i will definitely do much better recording in 1080p mode. It also has the autofocus in video mode so you won't have to manually keep focusing when filming like the D5000.

 

[iSax1234]

Most def go with the 550D/t2i many videographers are buying them just for video

 

[TH3D4RKKN1GH7]

Canon is giving Nikon their ass in the video department even though Nikon generally has better sensors, especially for low light. Nikons only do 720p 24 and even worse they use Motion JPEG for codec. Horrible compression and artifacts. Canon HDDSLR all the way.

 

[dfusion-]

hehe thanx guys

 

[toxic]

if you're really into video more than stills, you might be better off getting an actual video camera. to get an SLR rig to work as well, you will be spending as much as the camera on accessories, and you'll have to use manual focus if you want to get anywhere.

 

[TH3D4RKKN1GH7]

^^^?

The camera is never supposed to be the bulk of your budget. You need to invest in stabilization gear on a "proper" video camera the same as on an SLR. Shaky video is shaky video. For 800 bucks you get incredible low light ability, interchangeable lens system, lightweight system, and a great stills camera. You pay an extra 300 to get the audio ports and control that would come with a prosumer video camera in the Zoom H4N and you're on relatively equal footing for a whole helluva lot less.

The best video quality is the end goal, DSLRs do that better than most 2000-5000 dollar video cameras and no RED Scarlett don't count as it does not exist yet.

 

[gødspeed]

Yeah, if you're even remotely serious about film, the camera should be considerably less than 1/2 of your budget.

IMO, something like this would be a very good setup that'll stay with you through camera body upgrades.

Canon 550D - $700

3 prime lenses - $500 - $2000+, depending on which you get.

Personally I like Nikon's Manual Focus AIS primes, which you can get used for reasonably cheap:
20mm f/2.8 - $200ish
35mm f/2 - $150ish
50mm f/1.4 - $100ish
Cinevate Nikon to EOS adapter - $25
Total - $500ish​

Zacuto Z-Finder - $300

Zoom H4n - $300

Rail system w/ shoulder mount - $500ish depending on brand

D|Focus - $200 with gears

Cinecity Matte box - $100

Tripod w/ decent fluid head - $400ish

Total - $3000ish.

So you swap out the 550D for a new body in 2 years, and keep the rest. It's less than 1/4 of the cost of your setup, and you can easily swap in a better DSLR if you decide you need better lowlight performance or whatever, or you can stick to entry level bodies just as well. Even if you decide to go to a dedicated video camera sometime down the road, you can still use all of the other components -- even the lenses with DOF adapters. edit - eh, the Z-Finder would be worthless on a video camera, so that'd be one $300 loss.

edit: the reason I like Nikon's AIS lenses is they're compatible with more body brands than Canon's lenses are, and they're cheaper as well -- albeit at the cost of autofocus, which doesn't work with video anyway. But Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, Zeiss, Contax, and Leica have all made excellent manual focus primes that can be found for cheap as well, so shop around -- just make sure that there's an adapter out there for mounting them to your Canon EOS body.

 

[TH3D4RKKN1GH7]

Yeah, if you're even remotely serious about film, the camera should be considerably less than 1/2 of your budget.

IMO, something like this would be a very good setup that'll stay with you through camera body upgrades.

Canon 550D - $700

3 prime lenses - $500 - $2000+, depending on which you get.

Personally I like Nikon's Manual Focus AIS primes, which you can get used for reasonably cheap:
20mm f/2.8 - $200ish
35mm f/2 - $150ish
50mm f/1.4 - $100ish
Cinevate Nikon to EOS adapter - $25
Total - $500ish​

Zacuto Z-Finder - $300

Zoom H4n - $300

Rail system w/ shoulder mount - $500ish depending on brand

D|Focus - $200 with gears

Cinecity Matte box - $100

Tripod w/ decent fluid head - $400ish

Total - $3000ish.

So you swap out the 550D for a new body in 2 years, and keep the rest. It's less than 1/4 of the cost of your setup, and you can easily swap in a better DSLR if you decide you need better lowlight performance or whatever, or you can stick to entry level bodies just as well. Even if you decide to go to a dedicated video camera sometime down the road, you can still use all of the other components -- even the lenses with DOF adapters. edit - eh, the Z-Finder would be worthless on a video camera, so that'd be one $300 loss.

edit: the reason I like Nikon's AIS lenses is they're compatible with more body brands than Canon's lenses are, and they're cheaper as well -- albeit at the cost of autofocus, which doesn't work with video anyway. But Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, Zeiss, Contax, and Leica have all made excellent manual focus primes that can be found for cheap as well, so shop around -- just make sure that there's an adapter out there for mounting them to your Canon EOS body.

Nikon Primes and Zeiss Primes are the best for video really on these SLRs. They hold up a lot better on the big screen. Leicas as well. As do the big boy PL mount lenses.

 

[toxic]

Nikon Primes and Zeiss Primes are the best for video really on these SLRs. They hold up a lot better on the big screen. Leicas as well. As do the big boy PL mount lenses.

all manufacturers have great lenses and duds. the expensive companies just have fewer duds.

there is no reason to think Nikkor lenses are better than OM, or any of the hundreds of lenses made for M42.

 

[champ01]

Canon is giving Nikon their ass in the video department even though Nikon generally has better sensors, especially for low light. Nikons only do 720p 24 and even worse they use Motion JPEG for codec. Horrible compression and artifacts. Canon HDDSLR all the way.

Most of the canons are really nice (I've owned a 500D, 5D2) but the D3S from nikon is better in low light conditions than a 5D2.

And thats coming from a big Canon fan.
So it all depends on what your shooting.

 

[champ01]

3 prime lenses - $500 - $2000+, depending on which you get.

Personally I like Nikon's Manual Focus AIS primes, which you can get used for reasonably cheap:
20mm f/2.8 - $200ish
35mm f/2 - $150ish
50mm f/1.4 - $100ish
​

50mm 1.4 and good quality for $100,- dollar yeah right ​

 

[gnd]

50mm 1.4 and good quality for $100,- dollar yeah right

Yeah, you can, just look on eBay for Pentax Takumar SMC M 50mm f/1.4, these regularly go for under 100$. Manual aperture, manual focus ...
There are a ton of old manual lenses out there that can't be used on modern DSLR cameras without an adapter (Pentax being the exception here) and are being sold for cheap because of that.

 

[gødspeed]

50mm 1.4 and good quality for $100,- dollar yeah right

http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-NK06010200699N?r=FE

http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-NK060000250000?r=FE

http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-NK060102006990?r=FE

"Bargain" quality on Keh isn't quite "good" quality, but it's good enough IMO.

 

[TH3D4RKKN1GH7]

all manufacturers have great lenses and duds. the expensive companies just have fewer duds.

there is no reason to think Nikkor lenses are better than OM, or any of the hundreds of lenses made for M42.

Most of the canons are really nice (I've owned a 500D, 5D2) but the D3S from nikon is better in low light conditions than a 5D2.

And thats coming from a big Canon fan.
So it all depends on what your shooting.

I've displayed my DSLR footage and have seen others DSLR footage on 50 foot movie screens. Nikon AI-S, Leica, Panavision, and Zeiss glass tend to hold up a lot better. The lenses are also better for video because of the way they're built especially the Panavision PLs and Zeiss ZF.2's.

@Champ yeah the D3s smokes the Canon's in low light, but unless you're shooting everything in the dark that doesn't really mean all that much. It's still not going to hold up well when you try to grade or do anything with loads of motion. I mean well in comparison to the other DSLRs which already don't do those two things very well.