Skip to main content
Steven L. Gotz
Steven L. Gotz
Inspiring
November 10, 2012
Answered

DSLR conundrum: Canon 6D or Nikon D600 or ???

  • November 10, 2012
  • 3 replies
  • 33573 views

I want the best, least compressed, 1080p HD video available from a DSLR camera at the under $3000 price point (including one lens).

How do I get it? Is Canon the best way to get HD video, or the Nikon even better?

Or is the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Mirrorless worth waiting for?

I am so confused. There are too many choices and I am tired of reading camera specs when what I really want to know is which one produces the highest quality HD video? I can't seem to find that comparison. Are they all storing at about the same compressed rate, or is the advertising about 72Mb/s and/or I-Frame only what I should be looking at?

Is it important to have a high number of focus points like the Nikon? It sounds like it to my untrained brain.

Comparing the three leads me to the Nikon except for the videography notes on the Canon make it seem like I can store less compressed video. But even totally uncompressed video is useless if the focus isn't perfect. Right?

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_eos6d&products=nikon_d600&products=panasonic_dmcgh3

I want really, really nice video. Otherwise it isn't worth buying any of these.  I can stick with HDV for a while longer if I must.

Perhaps if I spell out what I want to do with it you might be able to provide better answers. I want to shoot pictures in a hurry at Disney World, in Hawaii, in Mexico and all the other places we go on vacation. I want to take video in those same places. Generally with a tripod or a Monopod, but sometimes not. I want to focus automatically, and quickly. But I want to be able to easily set up a rack focus when I feel like it.  I want to eventually buy a lens that will allow me to shoot extreme closeups of snails, and bugs and icky crawly things in motion as well as at the full frame size of a still. And I eventually want the biggest baddest telephoto lens I can get past my wife. I am going to want to do some greenscreen work and product shots in a lightbox.

I want a flash if I am not giving up higher quality, I don't think I need a built in GPS but it couldn't hurt. Wireless? Really? OK, I guess that could be handy. HDMI output is nice. I might be inclined to shoot 720p now and then if it means twice the frames to use for slow motion in post. A headphone jack is not always necessary but it could be important now and then. I would give it up for higher quality video if I really had to. Good in low light would be nice too.

Mono or not, I would like a decent microphone built in. My old Canon ZR-10 has a much better internal mic than my much more expensive Sony HDR-FX1. Carrying external mics on vacation isn't always something I want to do.

Am I missing a brand that makes more sense for me? 

I learned a lot from the last thread I opened about DSLR cameras in general and have researched the different lenses enough to know what kind of trouble I am walking into. But all is for nothing if I can't shoot some truly stunning video given the right lighting and subject.

    This topic has been closed for replies.
    Correct answer excited_Genie16B8

    I want the best, least compressed, 1080p HD video available from a DSLR camera at the under $3000 price point (including one lens).

    Hands down, no question, the Panasonic GH2 using the Cluster v7 'Apocalypse Now - DREWnet' 12/15 GOP Soft hack.  Bitrates go up to 90 Mb/s and artifacts are non-existent even with the most difficult to encode material.

    If you can hold off, then yes the GH3 would be worth waiting for.  If you can't wait, the GH2 will serve you very well.

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gh2+vs&oq=gh2+vs&gs_l=youtube.3..0l10.1325.2932.0.3457.13.7.0.0.0.3.73.427.7.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.Mw_5ozLMgL4

    3 replies

    A
    Anthony_Abegglen
    Participating Frequently
    November 13, 2012

    Hi Steven have you had a look at the neww Sony A99 http://store.sony.com/p/Sony-Alpha-a99-Full-Frame-DSLR-Camera/en/p/SLTA99V

    just a thought

    Steven L. Gotz
    Steven L. GotzAuthor
    Inspiring
    November 14, 2012

    Anthony,

    The A99 is a bit more expensive. While it has some nice features, I really want to come in under $3K for everything. And I think I need a built-in flash.

    Mitchell,

    I think the 14-140 is the way to go if a Macro lens is not one of your "must have's".  My problem is what do I get besides the Macro lens? Do I jump past the 14-140 to the 100-300? I think a lot more tutorials are on my to-do list before I figure that out.

    artofzootography.com
    E
    excited_Genie16B8
    Legend
    November 18, 2012

    I bought that and returned it.  I can't recommend it.  The autofocus is slow, and seems to hunt around a lot.  Plus there's no mechanical zoom.  You set the zoom speed in the menu, and that applies to both the zoom rocker and the barrel.  You can't manually control the zoom speed with the barrel.

    That is terribly disappointing. I thought I had it figured out. It never really occured to me that I would specifically want to zoom by turning the barrel, having never had that option, but my mental picture of zooming with a DSLR includes manual zoom. I have never had a decent still camera so all I really know is what I have seen people do, and turning the barrel zooms the lens. Right? That is what I considered "normal operating procedure". Why the heck would they build a lens without that? Must be some strange internal configuration that I don't want to get too deep into just yet.

    Rats.

    I could easily go with the 14-140 and the Macro lens to start. I just thought going with the 45-175 was a great way to get up past the 140 mark.  I just noticed a 45-200 that is inexpensive and gets good reviews on the B&H site. Better reviews than the 45-175 that you returned. But is the stepping motor the problem? Should I avoid it and stay completely manual?

    I have to say Jim, you have been very helpful. You are really allowing me to focus in (pun intended) on the final decision with a lot more information. I appreciate it.

    I am so glad I don't have to shoot weddings. Actually, I am glad I don't have to do anything at all. Being a hobbyist is certainly  a lot easier on the back. I have seen you guys at work. That kind of work is not for me. I prefer a tripod, lots of light in outdoor settings and no brides to complain afterward.

    Yes, I like the fact that the Macro lens is f/2.8 so that if I do have to shoot a little indoors, I can. It gives me my bugs and my portraits. It is just that second lens that is causing me problems.

    -- Steven


    turning the barrel zooms the lens. Right? That is what I considered "normal operating procedure". Why the heck would they build a lens without that?

    It's not that they built a lens without it, it's that the zoom barrel is fly-by-wire.  It's electronic, not mechanical like most lenses.  So the zoom speed you set in the menu also affects the barrel.

    I just noticed a 45-200 that is inexpensive and gets good reviews on the B&H site.

    I shoot a school play tonight.  The 140 didn't quite get me close enough.  When I got home, I went searching.  That is the exact lens I added to my Equipment Wish List.  The other I added is a 4/3 Olympus 70-300.  It requires a 4/3 to m4/3 adapter, but that'll give me 300mm for $500 total.

    However, I'd consider both of those as third lenses.  After the Macro, I expect you'll definitely want something that goes down to 20mm or less.   (Unless you always plan to be a good 30 feet or more away from your subject matter.)

    E
    excited_Genie16B8Correct answer
    Legend
    November 10, 2012

    I want the best, least compressed, 1080p HD video available from a DSLR camera at the under $3000 price point (including one lens).

    Hands down, no question, the Panasonic GH2 using the Cluster v7 'Apocalypse Now - DREWnet' 12/15 GOP Soft hack.  Bitrates go up to 90 Mb/s and artifacts are non-existent even with the most difficult to encode material.

    If you can hold off, then yes the GH3 would be worth waiting for.  If you can't wait, the GH2 will serve you very well.

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gh2+vs&oq=gh2+vs&gs_l=youtube.3..0l10.1325.2932.0.3457.13.7.0.0.0.3.73.427.7.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.Mw_5ozLMgL4

    Steven L. Gotz
    Steven L. GotzAuthor
    Inspiring
    November 11, 2012

    Now that is the kind of answer I can work with. Someone who I know has lots of experience with Premiere Pro who also has experience with a particular camera and is very happy with it.

    It looks like the GH3 doesn't need a hack, which I like the sound of. It may be that I would be happy with the 24p 72Mbps ALL-I mode in the GH3.

    I can wait for the GH3. I just kind of wanted to have it during the first week of December, but I really don't "need" it until Christmas. I would rather get the latest and greatest to get the additional features that I can see myself using. Like controlling the camera from a SmartPhone. Like transferring photos over the wireless. Like the native 24p at 72Mb/s.

    "artifacts are non-existent" sounds really good to me. I was pleased with the link to the comparison videos. It really helped. A lot. Thanks for that. The comparison to the RED is really kind of funny.

    OK, I think I am convinced. I am going to mark Jim's answer as correct if he can help with the next question. 

    So, Mitchell, what do you think? Is the GH3 the way to go? If so, the next question is which lens to start out with?

    What do you say Jim? What is the starting point for a lens collection for a videographer who wants to take a few stills? Which lens is good for video and for stills, and is reasonably quiet, and has a wide range? I need to keep the price of the body and the lens and any adapters or tools to the under $3000 price range I gave my wife. At least to begin with. If I decide to jump into this, it will be head first and that means I have a lot of tutorials to watch and a lot of reading to do. But I would like to hear an opinion on a starting point for a lens.

    My guesses as to a starting point run from the rather expensive Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 Lumix G Vario Zoom Lens down to the 14-140 shown here. I believe that Jim indicated in my other thread on DSLR cameras in general, that he would go with the slower 14-140 to start. I don't know if I need a faster lens yet. I might. It might be hard to say until I get annoyed at the slower lens, I suppose. I don't take all that much video indoors, but now and then it could come in handy.

    The advantage of a less expensive "every day" lens like the 14-140 is that I could then also get a Macro lens like the 45mm shown here and stay with the budget.  The Minimum focus distance of 0.5' sounds like a blast. It also means I am going to need an odd looking contraption to hold the camera off the ground to shoot stills and videos of the creepy crawly stuff.

    Although, from what I just read, it seems like I might end up leaving the Macro lens on for everyday use instead of the 14-140. I was surprised to read that the Macro lens was also good for other things. If the Macro lens is my every day lens, then I guess I would need a different telephoto than the 14-140. Something like this with a 100 to 300mm range. Or am I wrong? Is it too hard to use a Prime for someone used to a video camera like the Sony HDR-FX1?

    artofzootography.com
    E
    excited_Genie16B8
    Legend
    November 12, 2012

    The comparison to the RED is really kind of funny.

    That's what sold me when researching.

    As for lenses, it depends.  If you have enough light, then no question the best all-around "go to" lens is the 14-140.  It's got a good range, a very fast and quiet auto-focus, and excellent optical image stabilization (the best I've ever seen in any lens so far).  You can easily get the body, this lens, a some filters, SD cards, and extra batteries for less than $2000.

    (And yes, going to a prime will frustrate the hell out of a shooter accustomed to having a zoom lens.  Hell, not having servo zoom is likely to be frustration enough.  Loosing zoom entirely will drive you maaaad, MAAAAAAD, I say!)

    Mitchell_Lopez
    Mitchell_Lopez
    Participating Frequently
    November 10, 2012

    Steven,

    Once again, you are going in the direction I am leaning.  (I followed you with the Sony FX-1)

    This time I am looking for the same thing you are in a DSLR.  For me the motivation is compactness and versatility of also doing photos.  (I will still use both camcorder and DSLR,  and at time carry both)

    I’m with you on the microphone thing.  I do tripod/monpod/wireless microphones with the command of “let’s do that again, I didn’t like that take”, with the usual  groan.  I’m also very good at “run and gun” with getting those spontaneous/"lucky to be there at that moment"/ once in a life time video shots.  I'm not shy where I "run" or getting in a little trouble (mostly just gettng kicked out of an area), but I got the shot I want.  A smaller video recorder would make life easier.

    At times it is impractical to set up sound and shot and I am just lucky to get what I get.

    Please continue your research with sharing.  Due to being too “busy", my research time is a low priority thus making my purchase on the far horizon.  I probably should just “jump into the water without putting my toe in first”, but that is not me.

    Take your time on the research, you are doing us a service.

    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
    Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices