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
    able123
    able123
    Inspiring
    January 7, 2013

    wow, that stuff looks cool... the moon thing reminds me of telescope family had when I was kid...spent a lot of time looking at moon and 'naming' the craters etc with a book and flashlight.. hehe... saturn was cool to see too...cause of the rings... I wonder if you could find that and shoot it ??

    Flowers are hard to do cause they move in the wind..not always enough light..plus you get so close half the time you end up blocking what light there IS ...lol...

    I did similar to what you're doing now when I first got my mamiya rb67. I wanted to run film through it and find out about the camera and the film backs and the extension tubs, bellows factor, all sorts of 'stuff' ...and the easiest thing to shoot was my mom's garden near where I lived... so I would shoot stuff there and in the end made a really BIG poster... I scanned the film with a film scanner I bought that could do 6 x 7 size..

    Unfortunately the scanner was kinda touchy color wise and I had to adjust in PSD a bit..pain in neck..but anyway...here's poster and also a sample of one that's IN the poster but larger full frame size so you can see it better...

    I used small bead board bounce cards and sometimes silver or gold showcard bounces on some of this stuff... I just needed all the light I could GET sometimes and bouncing from sun was often the best way to do it with the stuff I had at my disposal...

    I lost stops with the extension tube and bellows...so needed LIGHT...even to get near wide open on lens..you know the story...

    ps.. I used Quark Xpress to make the poster.. that way you make picture boxes in your document and can move pics, scale etc inside the individual pic boxes... and the entire POSTER doesnt become a giant IMAGE FILE like it would in other programs ( like psd for example ).. keeps the file size down a bit.. and what you see in computer is a TIF preview of the pics... google quark xpress for info about it...it's a very cool program especially for offset press printing ( cmyk ).

    pps.. poster is 48" x 36 "


    Here's an interesting story associated with when I first got my mamiya and was shooting tests etc...This incident is sorta long story.

    First I built ( had miter chop saw and table saw in backyard and tons of tools ( power etc ) ) several light boxes ( kinda like soft boxes )... you know, bought high heat resistant porcelin sockets for photo flood bulbs ( 500w each, 32K ) and wired them up on strips of wood at 'base' of light boxes, with switches so I could turn on and off the individual 'strips' of lights... so light boxes had black sides ( white inside black outside ) and I put wood frame in front where you could attach white diffusion ( used lee or rosco 250 and so on ). Could also add CC to the front if needed...( cto and ctb etc ). One light box had 2 bulbs, another had 4 bulbs and another had 8 bulbs... I used speedrail fittings on the back of boxes so I could position the boxes vertically etc on stands. Stands were speedrail pipes stuck in metal pails with cement...

    So now I had my lights.

    I then bought a 3 foot square piece of marble ( white and 1 inch thick ) which weighed a TON... and some nice cloth napkins and table cloth type thing and black felt and candles and stuff like that...

    Then I bought ( this gets better ) 2 saw horses and a half sheet of 3/4" plywood. I put the sawhorses in basement, put plywood on and screwed it down into horses, and put marble on that and draped cloth and stuff around marble to make it look really fancy.

    Then I went to fancy food store and bought a HUGE cheese, fresh round bread stuff, white grapes, red grapes, a cheese knife, and misc other food stuffs ( apples maybe, can't remember all the junk I bought ).

    Then I went to basement and put all this stuff on the marble in what I considered a very pleasant arrangement.

    Then I put lights in place and plugged them in and turned on the switches.

    The fuse box in the house started humming and one of the breakers tripped. I re - routed extension cords to basement kitchen and laundry room etc and turned on again... Fuse box was humming but didn't blow up this time...

    Then I set up camera and framed shots and shot about 8 rolls of film at various F stops and so on....( 12 exp per roll - some chrome, some negative ).

    Then I shut of the now extremely HOT light boxes and drove to the nearest custom color lab and had film developed as a rush which cost me an arm and a leg.

    I got home and looked at the results. NOT A SINGLE SHOT LOOKED GOOD. It was not beautiful. Even CROPPED I didn't get one single shot that I liked !!!!!!!  It just looked DUMB.  I wouldn't show any of these shots to the most backwards human beings on earth let alone anyone with an ounce of artistic appreciation.

    I was really bummed out, sitting in the basement now looking at these horrible compositions...which cost me somewhere about a gazillion dollars to do... and started eating the still life .....

    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