Hello, could you please compare both cameras in terms of VIDEO capabilities? I prefer the Nikon D7000 for photography, but I'll use it a lot for film. I don't have an investment in lens for either brands. Thanks.
D7000 vs. Canon 7D(21 posts) (15 voices)
1,920 x 1,080/23.976p (no 25p, 29.97 or 59.94 ability.)
1,280 x 720/29.97p, 25p and 23.976p. (no 59.94 ability.)
640 x 424/29.97p and 25p (640 x 424 is a useless 3:2 aspect ratio!)
It's interesting to note that Nikon just can't keep up with the video resolution of Canon's DSLRs like the 7D and 5D Mark II. At 1,920, the Nikon can't run at 25p or 29.97p, which is OK since Hollywood shoots at 23.976 anyway. At the faster 25p or 29.97p rates, this Nikon can only shoot at 1,280! Canons also shoot at 59.94p in 640 and 1,280 for fluid motion, something completely absent in Nikon.
Maximum Recording Time: 20 minutes.
.MOV files holding H.264/MPEG-4 data.
I'll take the D7000 over 7D any day. I'm buying a DSLR not a camcorder. If my video purposed is just to share with friends and family, D7000 will do.
If you are going to use it a lot for film, why not get a compact camcorder?!
Why not get a compact camcorder? LENSES! Thanks for the info. I'm also frustrated that Nikon can't keep up with Canon video capabilities... I don't understand why, even if the camera must be more expensive... I'll wait for reviews with extensive video use to compare... also it is supposed that the 7D price will drop... But I wish Nikon D7000 is my option... Loved that camera, and I was waiting for months for a D90 replacement. In general, the D7000 beats all the expectations. It's just that video...
I'm afraid if making movies is your primary thrust, you might be looking at the wrong camera if the video is similar to the D90, and it _pains_ me to make that remark. Nothing would make me fell better than to be wrong on this.
Nikon entered the 'movie making DSLR' game first with the D90, but really never got it quite right. Anyone who has really tried to make first-rate movies with the D90, and compared it to the other SLRs will tell you that the D90 is the caboose of that train, maybe the handcar - maybe the hobo walking the rails.
Video from the Nikon models - up to so far - hasn't be up to Canon's models or even the 4/3's Panasonic's models, and so it goes. And before anyone thinks I might be 'trolling' for another camera maker, my guess is that I've worn "Nikon" jewelry around my neck as long or longer than anyone reading this - for a long period of my life, up to 16-18 hours a day, 6-7 days a week. But I'm also a filmmaker and had hoped to use the D90 on some projects, and I'm disappointed that didn't work out.
It's just plain silly to argue that Nikon is a still camera first and blab, blab, blab, blab, blab...
That train left the station, and it was Nikon who broached the subject first by introducing the D90. Video is here to stay. It's ubiquitous. And it's on the premium DSLRs for a reason - or so one would think. If Nikon is going to play in that market, and they should if they want to play at all, then they need to be at least as good as the other players if not better.
I'd like to be wrong.
If you want a DSLR camera to shoot HD video "only" then you're better off with the 5Dmk2. However the D7000 has way more going for it than what it lacks in supposed video quality against the canon 7D.
If you really want to change LENS AND to do primary video, then get the Sony NEX-VG10. Why bother getting a DSLR to primary shoot video.
What is the main used of your video, production or just capturing the moment?
You are just beating the dead horse here.
Like Mike Gunter already explained. This feature is not leaving the DSLR world anytime soon. Get over it! I for one would love to try out doing some short films on my D7000.
DSLR Video... It's something else. It's a whole 'nother animal. Like Goldfilm said, the Lens! Not to mention the focusing as well. DSLR Video is a beautiful style of cinematography. And sad to say Nikon is not well known in this field. But that's okay. I enjoy Nikon for other qualities, that's why I'll be plenty happy with my D7k as I was with any other Nikon product I've owned. Once I experience deeper into the video, I may hope Nikon produce a better option. Until then, I know it's not too good with Nikon, but it's definitely something beautiful and awe inspiring compared to your P&S or camcorder. Try it before you knock it.
Don't take my remarks to assume that I think Nikon remain the trashcan of the video heap; I hope they will improve.
But if you want to make an independent movie, the current fav is, as NikoDoby said, the Canon 5Dmk2 (with Nikon lenses ;-0).
Of course, I'm really referring to honest-to-God, video-to-film movies, or broadcast productions.
Home movies have some latitude. ;-)
Ive used my D90 for quite a bit of video.
Sadly, the D7 is much better. Way more flexable.
Nikon diddnt add in quite as many video modes but something im very excited about is the audio controls built in. My shooting partner uses a 7d and if you are miced to the camera, any time there is a dop in audio the camera being a complete idiot pumps up the gain so high that it gets plagued with white noise untill the person starts speaking again, so you are really stuck with using an offboard recorder which is not that bad, but less convenient.
Nikon opened up pandoras box with the DSLR Video. I dont know if they expected it would take off or be a small fad like the D60's stop animation mode. Regardless Canon DOES lead the way with video, but ive learned to work within the limits of my D90 and ive managed to get some pretty good stuff. I cant wait to get the D7000 and see how the audio modes work, and to check out the HD. Not overly concerned about shooting at 25fps, nor at 60fps. i see no point in 25fps period, 60 would be cool for slo mo. And i also see the AF during video recording could be handy, but i suspect its performance would be best for interviews and such rather than tracking fast moving objects, but lets see what we get :)
what do you think the difference will be between these two cameras and the images they will produce?? I like the idea that i can do 1080 video, but it is a camera. I am still on the fence. I will be either the 7d or the d7000.
If you want to take photos AND record HD video and your primary concern is photos - get a D7000.
If you want to take photos AND record HD video and your primary concern is video - get a Panasonic GH2 (GH1 is arguably better (with hacked firmware) than the 5D for video except in low light).
If you want to take photos AND record HD video and your primary concern is you want everything to be very good - get a 5D MK2.
If you want everything simple - consider a NEX, the stills will be good, but the video isn't as good as the Panasonic GH1/2.
Only buy a dedicated camcorder if you have a tiny budget, or you're living in the past, and you're happy to enjoy relatively crap video quality. If that's not the case, DSLR video is MUCH better than anything you can get on a camcorder in the same price range, and you get a stills camera too. See http://www.vimeo.com and search on GH1/5d mk2/7d/NEX/d90/etc for examples. And see http://www.zacuto.com/shootout if you haven't already
Thank you for the great link Delie! (camera shootout I mean). It's really a brilliant series. I'll dig in it for sure. :)
Damn, the GH1 looks good on the low light iso video samples. :)
jello effect. . .
Thanks all for your insight. All the info here is so valuable, and best of all, everybody seem to be honest. I tried to post the same question in the DPReview forum and many people there is just bitchin' each other about which brand is better, like if it's a soccer match.
Unfortunately I'm on the same side than Mike Gunter. I'm kind of disappointed that the D7000 looks like a fantastic gorgeous camera but it is still one step behind Canon in terms of video. I wish I'm wrong and I'll still wait a couple of weeks until the D7000 is in the market and serious reviews and comparisons are made about it.
Talking about the 5D Mark II... is it so worthy to spend that extra $1,000 over the 7D? I'm just talking in terms of video...
I tried to post the same question in the DPReview forum and many people there is just bitchin' each other about which brand is better, like if it's a soccer match.
I never understood that... i think when you start bashing another camera system simply because it is not the one you have you are losing sight of things. My good friend and shooting partner shoots Canon and has a 7D. We have a very comparable lens lineup. We go back and forth about canon vs nikon just in good fun. When it boils down to it, Canon is awesome. Canon consistantly delivers excellent products and sets new standards. This means Nikon will have to do the exact same thing. They have to push the boundaries, and constantly one up Canon. Everyone wins!
So while i preffer to shoot with Nikon, Im a big fan of the Canon brand. Because if Canon wasnt so damn good, Nikon would not have such a heavy competition, and would not be as good as it is now.
I love Nikon but Canon and Panasonic have been making video cameras for years and probably always have a leg up just since they have the experience. I'm sure Nikon will catch up and one probably could learn to shoot video but I think Mr. Gunter gave an honest opinion of the current status now.
I have seen many videos from video-graphers that have used the GH1 and other Panasonic cameras that have been impressive. Here is one that shocked me it came from a DSLR
I'm sure it all comes down to editing and realistically, I doubt trying to play the number comparison game will get you what you need.
Nothing is easy ;)-
When I buy my next camera it will be the Nikon D7000. What I would LIKE would be a 700 replacement. I am in better shape for DX in lenses. Every time I use my D700 I am looking for the video mode or not using it as much as the DX Nikon I also brought on the hike. By Mike Gunter's criteria ( really good overview) I am quite sure I want the 7000. I tried the Canon Mark II D5 and the video beats my D90 handily. I like my D300 and D700 better as a still camera. So the D7000 I will buy and at some point the lightweight travel lens like the Voitlander f4 would be a great intro for Nikon. Some of the Nikkors are fantastic and I just wish they would do some lens like are so good on some other companies best smaller aperture FX lens for me. Why so many FX lens in a year of non FX bodies amazes me as much as any one. Producing the sensors for FX and all of the higher prices in relation to todays market must be why. Hyundai is sure selling a lot of cars today. Not because they are better than BMWs! That I believe is the real reason no FX cameras were introduced by Nikon, Canon, et al. The Nikon D7000 looks like Nikons ace, and the Canon Mark IID5 and the D7 sure look very strong from this side of the fence. That fence is too tall for me to jump over as I have the Nikon glass and especially the Nikon habit. We do all gain from Nikon versus Canon competition though.
I definitely agree on that, thanks to having both brands they try to improve all the time. Thanks for the shootout link Delie, that was fantastic. By the way, could you find out what camera they used to shoot the actual webisode (the people in the audience)? It's an impressive quality, but I couldn't find that info in their website...
You must log in to post.