All-around camera under $800

[Mike Chen]

D5200 - better than G6 in low light. Better stills. Larger sensor.

 

G6 - Better all round video features, 1080/60p useful for slow-mo, has electronic viewfinder you can use for video, more fine details in video than the D5200 manages

 

Do you need AF? I recommend manual focus for video but if you need AF, G6 will do it best for video.

 

Regardless of the body choice, Nikon AI lenses on eBay are a great choice as they work on almost anything...Canon, Panasonic, Nikon, you name it! The 50mm F1.4 is a good buy and not expensive. The E-series Nikon lenses are extremely sharp for the money. 100mm F2.8 especially.

 

Thanks a lot, Andrew, I don't much need AF, I have used manual focus on other camera plenty of times and though I'm by no means an expert, I very much enjoy the process. 

 

As a still camera, is D5200's larger sensor size yield *significantly* better image quality, and/or shallower focal length?

 

By "working on anything" you mean Nikon lenses can be used on any bodies with an adapter, without any shortcomings? The lense system is currently my biggest concern, and unfortunately, something I have zero experience with. 

[andy lee]

we are just debating lenses here on this thread have a read

http://www.eoshd.com...-set-of-lenses/

 

I use Canons Blackmagic and Panasonic cameras - I have a more varied selection of micro 4/3 lenses for the panasonic g6 and gh2 as the system will take almost any lens with the right adapter off ebay , more lenses than a Nikon system as micro 4/3 has a smaller flange focal distance enabling it to also take lenses like c mount cctv lenses which are small and light cheap and fast ! so look into that too

[Mike Chen]

I just noticed one things from a number of Nikon5200 reviews, stating that it doesn't have aperture control in live view. For those of you who's been shooting for a while, is this a big issue? Can it be worked around?

 

And does the G6 have that function?

[andy lee]

if you have a panasonic micro 4/3 lens (like th 14mm or 14-42 kit lens ) the G6 lets you assign aperture control to the function slider/switch on th top of the camera so you can alter aperture while shooting - this is a very useful feature. I like it!

[Mike Chen]

if you have a panasonic micro 4/3 lens (like th 14mm or 14-42 kit lens ) the G6 lets you assign aperture control to the function slider/switch on th top of the camera so you can alter aperture while shooting - this is a very useful feature. I like it!

Hi Andy, I'm *VERY* close to picking up a G6, thanks largely to your strong recommendations.

 

Just a few more questions, have you run into moments where you think "time to change to a bigger sensor camera"? And if you have/foresee, what extra equipment do you prepare yourself for the transition? I'm talking about lenses, adapters, etc which I have zero experience with. 

[andy lee]

I have larger sensor cameras full frame Canons etc but I do prefer the micro 4/3 system the sensor size is quite close to a super 35mm cinema film frame and gives a very filmic look dof I prefer

large sensor cameras have way too narrow dof for me it , I dont like 1/32" dof at f1.4 on a full frame canon its not really usable for me

 

read this article on how large full frame sensors can be challenging on set as the dof is sooooo narrow

http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/02/the-power-of-focus/

[andy lee]

good supply of brand new Yashica ML 28mm f2.8 lenses at a very very good price!!  £45 bargin

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Yashica-ML-28-F2-8-Lens-Contax-C-Y-Mount-new-/181253873207?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item2a33929e37

[Mike Chen]

I have larger sensor cameras full frame Canons etc but I do prefer the micro 4/3 system the sensor size is quite close to a super 35mm cinema film frame and gives a very filmic look dof I prefer

large sensor cameras have way too narrow dof for me it , I dont like 1/32" dof at f1.4 on a full frame canon its not really usable for me

 

read this article on how large full frame sensors can be challenging on set as the dof is sooooo narrow

http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/02/the-power-of-focus/

Thanks so much for the article, Andy, I guess I paid too much attention to the specs (like all newbie would at some point) and haven't got a clue how they translate to real-world use. 

 

I'm going to test both the G6 and the D5200 with my own SD cards in a store here in Montreal. Unless the D5200 really have a significant edge in stills like some claimed, I think G6 would be the way to go.

[Mike Chen]

good supply of brand new Yashica ML 28mm f2.8 lenses at a very very good price!!  £45 bargin

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Yashica-ML-28-F2-8-Lens-Contax-C-Y-Mount-new-/181253873207?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item2a33929e37

 

Hi Andy, thanks again for your input. 

 

I finally got the chance to go to Lozeau, the only local store that sells both the G6 and D5200. Right  of the bat the Nikon was out. The lack of touch scree just didn't speak to me after I shot some footage with the G6. The sales person also suggested me to try the GH3, which had just dropped to CAD$999, as opposed to G6 at $CAD 720. Now that's tempting. 

 

I don't much fancy an alloy body nor HDMI out (weather proof is nice though). I only care about video quality. Do you know how much, in reality, is the video IQ difference between the G6 vs. GH3 @ 72mb/s? And can G6 produce video at 25%~300% speed like the GH3?

 

Is G6 able to produce something like this: 

[andy lee]

g6 has a better sensor than the gh3 , gh3 does have more moire issues , I dont like it , its common knowledge on this forum we have discussed the gh3 moire to death so have a read of those posts

 

g6 is a supeb camera - arguably the best non raw camera out there right now - just buy one!! you wont be disapointed

 

yes it will shoot like that youtube video of the gh3 you posted - but with less moire and less noise in the black areas

[Danyyyel]

One good thing about going Nikon at least for lens is that you can put a 50 year old lens on it and can expect to put one you buy today on a camera body for the next 50 years. Because of that you have big big lens choice. That is why Nikon lens tend to keep there value very high. The second advantage is that it has a manusl aperture ring which can be used on many adapters while the Canon can only be done electronically. Which is very costly and difficult to do.

 

As for the Body you have to look more at the new D5300. I don't know against the g6 but it wipes the floor for gh3 camera and the Canons APSC in low light condition as it is close to the D5200. It is very close to the Canon 5d3 in video for low light and looking to have at least 12 stop DR (could be higher because it is still in test). The D5200/d5300 also does not have any moire/aliasing if you compare it to the Canon Apsc cameras. It also has 60 fps at 1080p and you can add a Ninja to get 220 mbs prores if you want for high motion and very detailed scene in the future. For video it has one disadvantage is that you can change exposure while in live view. The solution is to have a set of older prime lens or zoom with an aperture ring. 

 

In term of photos the D5300 is better than any Canon camera below 800 ISO. It best the 5d3 in resolution and DR by two stops. Only in low light that the 5d3 full frame sensor beat the lowly $ 800 Nikon D5300 LOL. I think it will be the same against the micro 4/3 cameras.

 

So as a conclusion, if photo is really important for you the D5300 is clearly in front. For video if you can live with the aperture problem and dynamic range and low light are very important for you it is the best choice.

[Mike Chen]

One good thing about going Nikon at least for lens is that you can put a 50 year old lens on it and can expect to put one you buy today on a camera body for the next 50 years. Because of that you have big big lens choice. That is why Nikon lens tend to keep there value very high. The second advantage is that it has a manusl aperture ring which can be used on many adapters while the Canon can only be done electronically. Which is very costly and difficult to do.

 

As for the Body you have to look more at the new D5300. I don't know against the g6 but it wipes the floor for gh3 camera and the Canons APSC in low light condition as it is close to the D5200. It is very close to the Canon 5d3 in video for low light and looking to have at least 12 stop DR (could be higher because it is still in test). The D5200/d5300 also does not have any moire/aliasing if you compare it to the Canon Apsc cameras. It also has 60 fps at 1080p and you can add a Ninja to get 220 mbs prores if you want for high motion and very detailed scene in the future. For video it has one disadvantage is that you can change exposure while in live view. The solution is to have a set of older prime lens or zoom with an aperture ring. 

 

In term of photos the D5300 is better than any Canon camera below 800 ISO. It best the 5d3 in resolution and DR by two stops. Only in low light that the 5d3 full frame sensor beat the lowly $ 800 Nikon D5300 LOL. I think it will be the same against the micro 4/3 cameras.

 

So as a conclusion, if photo is really important for you the D5300 is clearly in front. For video if you can live with the aperture problem and dynamic range and low light are very important for you it is the best choice.

 

Thanks very much for your input, Danyyyel. 

 

The reason I ruled out the Nikon after some trying it doesn't have anything to do with its ability ---- the pictures and videos spit out of my Sandisk was *very* impressive. Video's on par with the G6 in my eyes, and photo is clearly superior. However, I'm a rookie photographer/videographer with only a point-and-shoot LX5 as my previous camera, handling the Nikon felt somewhat difficult. The G6 has a zoom trigger and touchscreen which makes handling video very smooth and silent. 

 

The biggest reason, is that Nikon lenses are expensive. When a CAD$999 lens like the Olympus Zuiko 12-40mm F2.8 can pretty much have me covered, the price of a Nikon zoom lens (or multiple fixed lens combined) starts to look pretty scary, a 24-70mm F2.8 is a whopping CAD$1886......... Coupled with the fact that its autofocus and tracking was off the pace compared to the G6, maybe I'm incapable of handling it the right way, but it doesn't feel like it's built for me. 

[dahlfors]

 

The biggest reason, is that Nikon lenses are expensive. When a CAD$999 lens like the Olympus Zuiko 12-40mm F2.8 can pretty much have me covered, the price of a Nikon zoom lens (or multiple fixed lens combined) starts to look pretty scary, a 24-70mm F2.8 is a whopping CAD$1886......... Coupled with the fact that its autofocus and tracking was off the pace compared to the G6, maybe I'm incapable of handling it the right way, but it doesn't feel like it's built for me. 

 

The 24-70 f/2.8 is Nikon's top of the line allround zoom for full frame sensors, and has the performance and price tag to match that. For a lot smaller price you get 24-70 f/2.8 lenses manufactured by Sigma or Tamron. Those lenses are not fully as good as the Nikon lens, but they're certainly not bad at all. And Nikon primes - You can use all the older Nikkor glass (AI, AI-S, AF etc) that is out there on the used market.

 

Point being, you can certainly find good affordable alternatives from Nikon, Tamron, Tokina or Sigma for Nikon DSLRs - prices for lenses should NOT be the biggest reason to choose between those lens mounts (or cameras).

 

If autofocusing in video mode is important on the other hand - that's a very valid reason to go for G6.

[Mike Chen]

The 24-70 f/2.8 is Nikon's top of the line allround zoom for full frame sensors, and has the performance and price tag to match that. For a lot smaller price you get 24-70 f/2.8 lenses manufactured by Sigma or Tamron. Those lenses are not fully as good as the Nikon lens, but they're certainly not bad at all. And Nikon primes - You can use all the older Nikkor glass (AI, AI-S, AF etc) that is out there on the used market.
 
Point being, you can certainly find good affordable alternatives from Nikon, Tamron, Tokina or Sigma for Nikon DSLRs - prices for lenses should NOT be the biggest reason to choose between those lens mounts (or cameras).
 
If autofocusing in video mode is important on the other hand - that's a very valid reason to go for G6.

Thanks bud. It's quite a relief to know that since I'll quite likely build up a system just for photography in the near future.

Funny thing is, I never took autofocus seriously till the point I tried those 2 cameras and started recording people on the street, a place I anticipate to document. Focusing from one person to the next in fluid and unobtrusive fashion was quite important, and I couldn't make it look decent with the Nikon. Autofocus hunts way too often and slowly, and the manual focus ring, as opposed to G6's trigger/touch screen, make the video slightly jittery. Again, I'm not knocking against the actual IQ, it's brilliant, the camera either isn't right or I just lack the appropriate skill.

I'm looking at the GH3 and G6 at the moment, do you have any experience with the two, in terms of stills and video? Any insight would be appreciated.

[Damphousse]

The biggest reason, is that Nikon lenses are expensive. When a CAD$999 lens like the Olympus Zuiko 12-40mm F2.8 can pretty much have me covered, the price of a Nikon zoom lens (or multiple fixed lens combined) starts to look pretty scary, a 24-70mm F2.8 is a whopping CAD$1886......... Coupled with the fact that its autofocus and tracking was off the pace compared to the G6, maybe I'm incapable of handling it the right way, but it doesn't feel like it's built for me. 

 

 

I am not familiar with the Nikon offerings but I can tell you with no hesitation M4/3 lenses are way more expensive than the Canon lenses.  The Olympus Zuiko you mentioned does NOT have in lense image stabilization.  This is a very handy feature for video.  I use a tripod and I have a steadicam but for easy shots without a lot of intimidating equipment carrying these cameras hand held is the way to go.  I never owned an image stabilized lens for photography but after a couple of video outings I immediately spend $800 for the Canon EFS 17-55mm 2.8 IS.  Best money I spent on video so far.

 

I can't recommend the Canon Rebels for video over the Panasonic G6 in general but the lens situation is a lot more reasonable on the APS-C bodies.  Also if you want shallow depth of field and low light performance the Canon Rebels do well for the money.  I picked up a refurbised Canon t3i for $300.  But the thing has terrible issues with moire/aliasing.  When I am working in low light with a Canon 50mm 1.4 the camera performs well.  But if you want to film sweeping citiscapes on a tripod get ready for moire/aliasing.

[dahlfors]

Since you asked about sensor size earlier:

 

STILLS:

For stills, the Sony sensors (and Toshiba sensor, like in D5200) are excellent. The high dynamic range of the sensors will aid a lot in high contrast light (like when you want to keep detail in shadows while not having a white burnt out sky).

 

My old DSLR had 11.5 EV steps of DR, while my D800 has 14 EV steps of DR and my Nex-5R has 13 EV steps. In harsher light the highe DR makes all the difference. In the shots where I would have needed to hassle with ND Grad filters to take down the brightness of the sky on my old camera - the Nex & D800 just capture all the detail.

The majority of Canons, many of the Panasonics like G6 only have around 11.5 EV steps of DR still today - just the same as my 8-year old dslr. The GH3 has a bit more DR than the G6, which will be helpful for stills.

 

This doesn't mean that you can't get good shots with lower DR. But higher DR makes your life easier when shooting stills in tougher lighting conditions. Hence for stills I'd always recommend a Nikon/Sony or any other camera with Sony sensor.

 

(Also note: dynamic range decreases with any sensor as you go up to higher ISOs. The advantage in dynamic range usually disappear on Sony sensors around ISO800-ISO1000)

 

 

VIDEO:

Although I love the full frame aesthetic for stills, I often find it to be a pain in the ass for video due to the narrow depth of field. In my opinion m4/3 is an excellent choice due to this: when you want deep depth of field, it is easy to achieve thanks to the small sensor. When you want narrow depth of field you can either get a large aperture lens like the SLR-Magic / Voigtländer f/0.95 lenses - or a Speed Booster.

 

The High DR capabilities of the Sony sensors doesn't really do much for 8-bit compressed video modes. What's more important when it comes to video is that cameras like G6 have very little moire or aliasing as well as high resolution.

 

 

If you're a beginner, I'd recommend not to waste too much on a camera body if you don't know what you really want/need. Chances are you'll learn what features are important to you while shooting, and that you might want to upgrade in a few years time. When it's time for that, better camera tech will be available for less money. Lenses on the other hand can be a good investment since they don't get obsolete in a few years time.

[Damphousse]

Although I love the full frame aesthetic for stills, I often find it to be a pain in the ass for video due to the narrow depth of field.

 

 

This is highly dependent on what you are shooting and under what lighting conditions.  For example if you want to do some nice videos of your girlfriend on a crowded beach and blur the background you are going to be in a real pickle with a m4/3 camera.  Really any camera is going to be an issue.  You are going to need a fierce ND filter just to knock the light down enough to open you apeture and maintain 1/48 sec shutter speed.  Now the more you have to open the apeture to get that look under those conditions the stronger the ND filter you are going to need.  And as with everything in photography the more extreme you go the the more expensive things get and the more issues you have.  Variable neutral density filters are okay over a short range of ND values.  But they start to fall apart real bad at the extreme end.

 

I actually find even when I am not trying to go for shallow depth of field I have to use a ND filter for every day outside shots just to knock the light intenesity down so I can shoot at f/8.  Without a ND filter and Magic Lanter ISO 80 I would be shooting at f/16 and above!  So outdoors with decent light DoF is not a problem on APS-C cameras.

 

 

When you want narrow depth of field you can either get a large aperture lens like the SLR-Magic / Voigtländer f/0.95 lenses - or a Speed Booster.

 

 

A Speed Booster is a $400 purchase.  I definitely think they have their place but when you look at the performance of an efs 17-55mm 2.8 IS I just don't see a m4/3 alternative in the $800 price range.

[Quirky]

 

If you're a beginner, I'd recommend not to waste too much on a camera body if you don't know what you really want/need. Chances are you'll learn what features are important to you while shooting, and that you might want to upgrade in a few years time. When it's time for that, better camera tech will be available for less money. Lenses on the other hand can be a good investment since they don't get obsolete in a few years time.

 

Yes, yes, yes.

That is the best piece of advice in this thread so far, but unfortunately so often ignored. 

 

We could geek out forever about megapixels, crop factors and all the bits and pieces of half a dozen or more different cameras, we could engage in endless fanboy wars, and keep bickering about matters of taste but, all that is irrelevant as long as you have no shooting mileage under your own belt.

 

I would even use the term "the fact is" instead of "chances are." You won't really know what's actually important to you until you've got some shooting mileage. Furthermore, instead of "in a few years time" I'd say it'll likely happen within the first year, maybe six months, but the cycle will then slow down as one's experience grows. In that light, I'd recommend to go for the model that feels nicest in your own hand, and then go with it. 

 

When it comes to shooting both stills and video with the same gear, there really are no models that do both well. It's always a compromise, a bigger compromise for either one or the other. If you wish to have best of the both worlds, buy two different cameras, one for each task. No matter what the latest hype is out there. That's all the more reason not to go too pricey with the first choice, until you know what (which) is it that you really want to do.

 

So, with the obvious compromise in mind, I'd say one of the best compromises for both stills and video under $800 category, with the "emphasis slightly on the video side," would be either the G6 or one of the Sony SLT models, like the a58, a65 and sometimes even a77, in some regions.

 

The more the scale was to tip on the video side, the more obvious the G6 would be, mostly because of the better looking video in general. Although the Sonys aren't too bad when compared to some other dSLR models, they do have slightly more colour artifacts and a little bit of moire, too. But thanks to their hybrid design, they are much nicer compromises for stills&video (with the same camera) than typical dSLR's. Same with the G6, obviously. 

 

But since the two pre-selected choices were Nikon 5x00 and G6, rather than two different models with an EVF, the choice between those two should be pretty simple, IMO.

 

From those two options I'd go for the Nikon, if my goal was to shoot mostly stills, and only dabble in video occasionally. Personally I wouldn't want to bother with the hassle of shooting video with a typical dSLR in the same price range. Canon or Nikon, doesn't matter. Awkward, clumsy and uncomfortable, with no real quality benefits, either. But for stills and action stills shooting they're pretty ok.

 

On the other hand, if the emphasis was clearly more on the video side of things as suggested in the opening comment, from those two I'd go for the G6. If you can't get the Nikon idea off your head, buy a Metabones N->mFT Speed Booster, too. 

 

But all in all, you shouldn't really listen to any of us too much. You should just go for either/any camera, because as mentioned on the top of this comment, as a beginner you don't really know what you need or want yet, and that will most likely change along the way, as your experience grows.

 

But as long as you don't have any camera, you won't get any shooting mileage and thus personal knowledge, and you'll be stuck in an endless loop of GAS and futile online debates forever. Doing research online will only help you to a certain point. After that, you just have to pick a tool, and then get up off your derrier and start shooting. Just go and pick one that fancies you the most. It doesn't matter if it's Panasonic, Nikon or some other brand, as long as you like it. Then just shoot, shoot shoot.