OT: sorry, DSLR again

[vqdriver]

i know i know. this topic comes up often, but i have a specific request.

we're going to change from our nikon d80 to one that shoots video and i've been eying the canon 60d. one thing that surprised me was that in video mode, the camera does not continuously autofocus as a camcorder would. you have to manually initiate autofocus by half-depressing the shutter.

i was told by the guy behind the counter at samys that only a couple models support this but even he was unclear where to point me.

so, i'd like to know which newer models have the capability to continuously autofocus in video mode.

i'm not married to nikon. even if that means i sell the lenses with the body.
an articulating screen is important.
the autofocus motor noise doesn't bother me since i'd use a hotshoe mic.

[thegunner]

d3100 definitely does it, although that's quite a step down from the d80 in terms of sensor/ability to pump the ISO for still shots... is that tradeoff worth it to you?

[indyrider]

The best DSLR for AF while recording movies is the Panasonic GH2, which is a m43 setup...The stills are can compete up to around 3200 iso with the canon, nikon, pentaxs, but the video is much, much better at 60 fps at 1080 HD recording...Cant beat it, although its about $1500 and hard to find. The first model, the GH1 can be found more readily and much cheaper...my .02 :beer:

[Kevan]

my 2 cents...you're aiming straight with either the 60 D or 7D. The swing screen on the 60 might give it the nod.

I'm lovin' my 7D.

[Ray]

As noted, for video the Panasonic GH2 is very tough to beat and competes pretty well on stills, but the smaller sensor means its not going to be QUITE as good in low light. It doesn't use a mirror, though, so is a somewhat different shooting experience, using an electronic rather than optical viewfinder to look through the lens. Another option is the Sony A55, which is kind of a hybrid between a true optical DSLR and a mirrorless camera. You're not looking through a mirror, but it uses a translucent mirror to divert just enough light for DSLR type auto-focus. But without the mirror having to move out of the way during shooting, its better than a lot of DSLRs for video and its burst mode is incredible. It has the same size sensor as most non-full frame DSLRs.

-Ray

[johnnymossville]

Probably the best review of the Canon 60D I've read.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/460-Canon-60D-versus-Panasonic-GH2-Full-Review-Part-1

http://www.eoshd.com/content/465-Canon-60D-versus-Panasonic-GH2-Full-Review-Part-2

I ended up buying the GH2 instead. Side by side video comparisons show a very noticeable advantage for the GH2 over the 60D. The 60D is a fine camera though, and VERY good with still photography.

[staggerwing]

Strongly suggest that you try to handle whatever you are interested in prior to purchase.

I've been looking at a DSLR with video capability, for use in our lab. The main reason, is the ability to use readily available, reasonably inexpensive, flat field macro lenses for dynamic optical measurements. I've also been shooting Nikon gear for almost 30 years, and if possible, would like to stay there because I have many older lenses. Nikon also makes great 60, 105 and 200mm Macro lenses.

Long story short, I thought the D3100 would be fine for our purposes, but was quickly disappointed. There is no way to control exposure in video mode other than setting exposure compensation. In the few short hours I had it, I spent most of my time trying to creatively work around the camera thinking for me. Glad I was able to borrow it from the local Nikon rep prior to commitment. Tried another buddies D7000, twice, and even though it doesn't have the desired 1080p at 60 frames/sec, it does have full manual exposure control in video mode.

Decide the most important features, including availability of lenses, and beg, borrow, or rent before making the commitment.

[amgc36]

The GH2 is nice, compact and focuses quite quickly for using a contrast-AF detector. DSRLs traditionally use phase detection for AF, which is very fast. The challenge is how to keep the lens path open to the sensor and still focus. Mirror cameras can redirect light to the phase detector and viewfinder, focus and then flip out of the way when the shutter is fired. Fujifilm appears to be the first to offer phase AF in their sensor.

I find the video from the GH2 to be excellent. Overall, from a photo image quality standpoint, I rank my cameras from worst to best:
Ricoh GRIIID, Panasonic GF1 (micro 4/3 sensor as in the GH2), Ricoh GXR (APS-C size sensor), Canon 5DII (full frame 35mm sensor).

The Canon 7D is also a nice camera, fast focusing and good video. My brother in law has one.

I should add that they all have excellent image quality in their class, which is why I chose them. Yes, photography (and travel) are a passion.

[ergott]

Overall, from a photo image quality standpoint, I rank my cameras from best to worse:
Ricoh GRIIID, Panasonic GF1 (micro 4/3 sensor as in the GH2), Ricoh GXR (APS-C size sensor), Canon 5DII (full frame 35mm sensor).


Just checking. You rate your Canon 5D II as the worst of the bunch for image quality?

:confused:

[vqdriver]

hmmm. the lumix line was completely off my radar. i'll definitely check it out at samys. as well as the alpha55..

[Wayne77]

I don't post here often, but I'll heartily second the GH2 - the video quality, for a dslr styled camera is the best out there... It's quite compact though and some users don't like the in-hand feel. For a professional video tool the GH2 is hard to beat (dual processors, 60fps, dual outputs, etc). I have a 60D and the video is also very good. Depending on what your intended use for video is, you may not need or want auto-focus. For informal things, soccer games, family activities, etc, a dslr isn't the best tool anyway (a dedicated HD video cam might be better). But for artisitc work, landscapes, shallow depth of field shots, extreme close ups, etc, the use of manual focus (while hard to master at first) is critical. Even the best auto focus will never get it right for those types of things. DSLR's can capture video that will rival video captured by professional video cameras costing tens of thousands of dollars more (I believe the "House" close up facial shots are filmed with a 5D mkII, someone correct me if I'm wrong). Video cameras just don't have the sensor size for detail or aperture/depth of field capabilities that video equipped DSLRs do. But it does take some work to learn, and for serious work, some extra equipment. With a little patience to learn the art of pulling focus to bring subjects into and out of view as you wish, some attention to post processing and color correction, the whole process can be extremely rewarding. Maybe you know all this already, but just my two cents...

I do think it is unfortunate when someone walks out of a store with a very nice DSLR thinking it will also replace their video cam for informal events, family activities, etc. Just not the right tool for that kind of thing. We aren't there yet with the technology, maybe someday, but not yet.

Do check out the Sony a55 as well - also a smaller camera in hand that I didn't find to be very comfortable to hold (especially with a telephoto lens attached). Aside: I think people undervalue in-hand feel of a camera. It should fit like a glove if you're going to walk around with it all day. Anyway, the auto focus and frame rate are amazing. Truly a great technology with the translucent mirrors. However I have heard some complaints of overheating, limiting video capture to 9 minutes or so, before the camera needs a break. Hopefully the purported a77, yet to be released, solves these problems...

If you have a bunch of Nikon lenses already, you may want to stay with Nikon - recommend the D7000 - awesome camera. Switching out glass if you go Canon or Panasonic will be VERY expensive.

good luck!