Best DSLR For Property Video?

[Jolley]

Dear forum members,

 

I'd be very grateful for any advice/opinions any of you could share on my situation below!

 

We run a small family estate agency in High Lane, England. Our USP / mission statement is to offer class leading photography and video tours of every property we take to market at no extra cost to our vendors, which we believe is quite unique in the UK at our price point.

 

Our business is currently growing rapidly so we are now in a fortunate position where I can justify investing in some higher end photography equipment in order to keep improving our service. I currently shoot all photos and video with my trusty Nikon D5100 combined with a 35mm DX prime lens for detail/arty shots and sigma 10-20mm wide angle lens for the majority of shots. As I spend in the region of five hours on site per property, and a further day editing all the photos and video for each property, I'd like to think I was using the best equipment to match the time and effort involved (even if my skill levels are in question!). 

 

 As a perfectionist, I'm frequently disappointed by the quality of video achieved (even if it is fairly decent considering the cost of the equipment). Clearly it's some way short of the claimed 1080p resolution of a professional production. Another key  issue for me is the level of noise introduced to the picture (houses tend to be quite dark spaces inside with high contrast areas from the windows too, I feel my forced high ISO settings without additional lighting or HDR options can't be helped at times).

 

So as I'm taking photos as well as video, I'm assuming my best route is to search for the best DSLR for video. I also need to consider which cameras offer the best lenses for my requirements, namely a pin sharp wide angle lens which works well in low light? (Nikon FX 14-24mm f2.8 seems to get rave reviews)!?

 

I've been looking at a few cameras like Nikon D610 / D800/E, Canon 6D / 5D Mark III. Am I on the right track? Would you have any suggestions for camera/lens combinations? It seems I suppose there's also some sense in visiting a local store to see which one would suit me best? Ultimately, I'm primarily looking for a noticeable step up in video performance from my existing setup, whilst continuing to learn and improve my photography.

 

If you're interested you can see a sample of my work (photos & video etc.) at the link below:

 

http://www.jolley-co.com/view/3073692/6-Linden-Way-High-Lane-STOCKPORT.html

 

Any feedback appreciated guys! Thanks again for your time.

 

Kind regards,

 

Chris

[Nikkor]

I've just watched the first video that appears on your site. You shouldn't change the speed of the footage, if you shoot at 24fps, you need a 24fps project in your editing software. I think this is the reason for the very bad motion stuttering in your shots.  You should also invest in some NDs to reduce choppiness.

Realestate style has to match womens taste, at least it has worked for me like that. Therefore, smooth footage is a lot more important than ultra sharpness.

Currently there is no real way, besides magic lantern raw (but you don't want to use that), to shoot interiors without blowing out the windows. You could film with some ultra flat profile and underexpose, but you will have to spend some time on the footage -> time is money.

Professionals use lighting, and geling the windows -> money

 

I would say, try out a d5300. It will be a lot less noisier and sharper (in a good way) than the d5100 you have, if you don't like it you just return it.

[Pascal Garnier]

you might get better results with slightly underexposing (compared to how you shoot today).

in my experience, bringing up the shadows slightly looks better than having your highlights overexposed.

[Jolley]

Thanks for the feedback much appreciated!

 

araucaria: In response to the frame rate, I record in 1080 @ 30fps and render in Adobe premier elements 11 as 1080p at 30fps (as I was aware you should render in the same settings you shoot at from previous advice)... Perhaps I'm doing something else wrong if this 'stuttering' is something other than internet speed? (I mean the file I upload to youtube is around 600mb for each video, and it doesn't stutter when I play back the original file outside of youtube). Perhaps the Nikon records in 1080i which would conflict if I render in 1080p afterwards?

 

Chris

[jcs]

Sounds like a GH3/GH4 will give you the detail and quality you are looking for straight from the camera. I currently shoot with a 5D3 (RAW mostly lately) and FS700 + Speedbooster (when I need autofocus, pro audio, or slomo). RAW looks great, but is a lot of work, time, and disk space. The 24Mbit/s files from the FS700 are a bit over compressed (have a Nanoflash external recorder- that's extra weight and complexity). The GH3 has a decent bitrate, and the GH4 does as well (including 4K support, which will make very detailed 1080p in post). A GH3/GH4 with a Speedbooster and the Sigma 18-35 F1.8 would make a nice combo for what you are shooting.

[maxotics]

I've been working on house photography lately.  You can might find some of this interesting  http://maxotics.com/?p=199  Here are my suggestions.

 

1. Almost no house looks good in direct sunlight.  Shoot either early morning, golden hour or when cloudy. If you must shoot in direct sunlight, as Pascal says,  don't let all your shadows go to black.

 

2. I used to shoot some house videos.  Used with an EOS-M or Nex7 (both worked great).  I bought some used Smith Vector quartz lights for about $100.  I just shone them mostly at the ceiling and let bounce light fill the room.  The windows will usually all blow out, but at least the interior will have less noise.  

 

3. Mind your lines! Picasso said if you want someone to look at your painting hang it crooked.  However, I think he meant just a pinch ;)  In any case, make sure everything you shoot, photo or video, has good lines.  (I've been working on this and feel it is something I'll be working on for the rest of my life.) in any case, you want the viewer to feel the house is "striaght". 

 

4. If you have the money, get a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema camera and an 8mm lens.  That will give you about 24mm.  With lights and a fluid head tripod you will get amazing quality.  Just shoot in prores and do the auto thingJ in Resolve.  Extra work, but NO ONE will touch your videos in quality.  Will the difference show in youtube?  Yes (because h.264 cameras are shadow/detail killers--unless you're lit perfectly within a few stops).  

 

JCS is my God lately, so I don't want to disagree, but I think any sort of speed-booster will have limited use because, except for those cool shallow depth of field shots of a flower pot on the window-sill, you want depth.  For that you need LIGHTS.  Maybe I didn't say that enough.  If you had to get anything I'd get a bunch of small and large flat-panel lights.  Batteries wouldn't be bad.  My biggest problem was running wire from outlets.  

 

I guess that's enough of my silly advice for now.

 

My favorite quote, "Amateurs talk bodies, professionals talk glass and photographers talk light."  LIGHT, LIGHT, LIGHT!  

[Quirky]

As a perfectionist, I'm frequently disappointed by the quality of video achieved (even if it is fairly decent considering the cost of the equipment). Clearly it's some way short of the claimed 1080p resolution of a professional production. Another key  issue for me is the level of noise introduced to the picture (houses tend to be quite dark spaces inside with high contrast areas from the windows too, I feel my forced high ISO settings without additional lighting or HDR options can't be helped at times).

 

So as I'm taking photos as well as video, I'm assuming my best route is to search for the best DSLR for video. I also need to consider which cameras offer the best lenses for my requirements, namely a pin sharp wide angle lens which works well in low light? (Nikon FX 14-24mm f2.8 seems to get rave reviews)!?

 

I've been looking at a few cameras like Nikon D610 / D800/E, Canon 6D / 5D Mark III. Am I on the right track? 

 

Well, partially yes, sort of, but for the most part, no. 

 

Let me be the first to point out the obvious but unpopular proverb; "it's not about the gear, but how you use it."

By which I am by no means questioning your skills. My point, however, is that your primary problem may not be the camera. Sure, from those cameras you mentioned, a Canon 5Dmk3 might be a noticeable, albeit incremental improvement, but it wouldn't remove the problem you're referring to.

 

Even in many (most) high production value advertisements, TV episodes and even in Hollywood productions the teams sometimes need to, and they will work around the shortcomings of the gear, whichever that may be, and control the variables on the set, like lighting. I'd say lighting is the key here, too, not the (brand of) gear you're using.  The rest is scripting and post-processing - the way you're delivering the story.

 

Picture a high production value commercial with actors in an interior set, for example. In many cases the light you see coming from the windows is a carefully metered and colour balanced light put outside the window, made to look like daylight, and/or the problematic shadow areas are being lit with additional lights, reflectors and so on. Often just barely outside the view. They do not let the sun (or the lack of it) dictate the look of the footage. They can't afford to. Unless they're after some dramatic mood to begin with. In commercial uses like yours that's usually not the case, though. The rest of the magic happens at the editing and grading stage with software.

 

In other words, yes, you might get a minuscule improvement by investing in certain more expensive camera models or in a whole new set of gear. But an easier and more cost-effective way to improve your current footage would be to invest in some lighting gear, post-production tools and, time.

Try to plan your shoots in advance as much as you can, giving the weather and time of day some consideration, too. In your case, investing more time on the location would probably increase the quality of the footage significantly. 

 

In most cases I've been frustrated with my own footage it has been more about the way I've done it, rather than what gear I've done it with. In many cases I'd been be better off with just some thinking outside the box kind of thing. Adapting, and making the most of the stuff I have.  

But I, too, tend to blame the gear, anyway.

 

Oh and one more thing, put the perfectionist on a vacation when doing those shoots. On a non-negotiable one.   ;) 

[Quirky]

PS.

IF you do decide to go for another brand camera system, anyway, and your goal is to shoot mostly real estate stills and video with just one camera, you might wish to consider a mirrorless camera with a decent EVF. It would make your life easier. Something like a Panasonic G6, GH3 (or even GH4), or a Sony RX10, for example, especially with an Atomos Ninja 2 recorder. 

 

All those cameras are capable of delivering decent looking results. Better video than your current Nikon, and the stills would be good enough, too. Besides, as long as your photos and video clips are being viewed mostly online in a web browser window, you wouldn't really get much benefit from the most expensive, top of the line camera gear, anyway. As long as we're talking about regular dSLR type cameras for both stills and video.

 

PPS.

I just jumped to post a reply without reading the already existing ones, and looks like some similar thoughts have been posted already, so sorry about the repetition. 

[fuzzynormal]

Quirky's advice is solid:  Skill trumps gear.  Anyone that tells you otherwise is untrustworthy as a photographer/cinematographer.  

 

If you have the best camera in the world you're not going to make good videos if you don't know what to do with it or how to manipulate your environment to get the best shots.

 

You can talk lenses and camera bodies all day (and this is the place to do it) but that's not going to solve your problem.

[Michael1]

 

Dear forum members,

 

As a perfectionist, I'm frequently disappointed by the quality of video achieved (even if it is fairly decent considering the cost of the equipment). Clearly it's some way short of the claimed 1080p resolution of a professional production. Another key  issue for me is the level of noise introduced to the picture (houses tend to be quite dark spaces inside with high contrast areas from the windows too, I feel my forced high ISO settings without additional lighting or HDR options can't be helped at times).

Chris

 

You won't get full resolution without good lighting as Maxonics pointed out.  In low light, the camera goes into noise reduction mode, and there goes your resolution.

 

For stills, a full frame would work the best, both from a low light performance perspective, and from the standpoint of getting wide shots with less degradation in the image, including less of a fish eye look.  There are some good quality, modestly priced, fast full frame lenses, but you would have to watch your depth of field.  In movie mode, the full frames still do fairly well in low light, although the difference isn't as great compared to crop lenses, since they throw away some of the light with sensor line skipping.

 

If you want the ultimate in sharpness, I would be looking at the new Panasonic GH4 when it comes out next month, with its 4K resolution.  You would get full 1080 if downres'd in post, too, something I have yet to see with any 1080 camera output (yes, the file is 1080, but the image is not).

 

Michael

[fuzzynormal]

Here's a "low-res-for-web" video I did as a quick favor for a friend a few years back.  Shot on a Rebel Ti, no lights.   It's far from perfect, but shows how available light can be utilized with some shooting strategy and concessions:

 

[Michael1]

fuzzynormal, very well done!

 

I like the smooth camera movements.  What did you use for a rig? 

 

Michael

[fuzzynormal]

What did you use for a rig?

 

A 36" slider (pushing with my finger) and a simple jib.  I forget the jib length.  My colleague let me borrow it.  I could get the arm up there around 12 feet or so.

 

Anyway, showing that video illustrates how it's not just about the number of pixels captured.  It's, IMHO, more about exploiting the light and getting decent framing.

[Guest]

Chris, having recently done very thorough research for a similar scenario to yours:

 

As others above have pointed out, you need to think about dynamic range as well as low noise to reduce ugly blown-out windows. The only way to do this "properly" is to use Magic Lantern RAW on the 5DMk3 or buy a Blackmagic Pocket Camera. But I don't think that's the right choice for you. If you don't already know that you need the above, then you don't need the above ;)

 

In your situation I would definitely go for a Nikon D5300. It has by far the best video quality of any Nikon DSLR (superior to all of the cameras you mentioned, even the 5DMk3 without Magic Lantern RAW). It has the best dynamic range potential of any non-RAW DSLR in video mode. You can use a flat profile (such as Flaat_11) and get a good amount of detail through windows etc. It also has very low noise at high ISO's - as good as the 5DMk3. It's a completely different sensor to the D5100 by the way, so don't think of it as an incremental upgrade. It has no moire/aliasing (the jagged edges on straight lines in your videos will be gone). The setup will also be familiar to you, which is a bonus. You can also use your current lenses.

 

If you're not happy with the Sigma, the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is your best option for a wide angle. It is much sharper and faster than your Sigma. It is a little soft in the corners but I have not had any problems with this (something you might want to look into though). I have the Mk1 - I believe the Mk2 trades centre sharpness for more uniform sharpness.

 

As I said, for window shots I would use Flaat_11 or a neutral profile with contrast right down. This will allow you to expose for the highlights (windows) and because the D5300 has low noise, the shadows will have detail and won't look too noisy. But you need to learn how to grade the footage properly in your editing software (perhaps even use Neat Video). If you do use lights this will also help (interior and exterior exposure will be closer, so less DR needed).

 

This is a dynamic range test I did with the D5300 and the Flaat_11 profile installed (I now just use the in-camera Neutral profile with contrast right down, which gives similar results). It's a bit of a mess (I'm still learning how to shoot and grade video to a decent standard), but you can get an idea of the dynamic range potential for interiors from the last few shots - shot in the National Railway Museum in York, which is pretty dimly lit. By the way, I added film grain and poor stabilisation (it was all handheld) so ignore the noise and jello: 

 

[Danyyyel]

As Matt has said before, I think your best bet is to get a Nikon D5300. Very good all-rounder with no moire aliasing, best DR and low light in the dslr cameras. It might only loose in terms of resolution but only a little. For example the amount of brick wall in your video could turn into a mess for most dslr and the blackmagic cameras. In terms of DR, I don't think that even the 12 stop of the Nikon or 13 of the blackmagic would suffice. You should either light and Nd the window (movie style) or change your shooting hours when the contrast is much less.   The latter is better because using light for example you would need hollywood style budget (many thousand watt of HMI ) to be able to counter the sun. Now blowing out the window in itself is not bad aesthetic. A little better rolloff would be nicer, so you can get a little promist filter (not too much) and the higher DR of the d5300 could be good. In aesthetic, sometime less is good, like resolution is overstated, like you don't want too see every pores of the skin of a beautiful woman.

[Jolley]

Thanks to everyone for the replies and your sample videos.

 

I really appreciate the advice, as I'm sure like many of you will agree, the more you start shopping, researching and comparing... the more confused and tired you get! ( although maybe my girlfriend wouldn't agree :)

 

I've really appreciated on reflection where I can improve my techniques, most noticeably my tendency to over expose video. I do think from a business point of view the bright images sell a house far quicker than dark gloomy shots, which is my best excuse for this, but I'm determined to reduce noise and blown windows/lights on the video. I don't have time to set up stand alone lighting on my shoots, but the LED light panels which can clip on a camera flash mount look interesting? Would they help for video as an equivalent to bounce flash for still photos? 

 

So I see the logic in going for the Nikon D5300 now, combined with a new lens (as the sigma is VERY soft) (Tokina 11-16mm or Nikon 10-24mm is better?)... But the camera and new lens combined would come to around £1200, so I'm left wondering if I would regret not making the step up to full frame camera for the same money (such as the Nikon D610) as quality photography is actually more important to our marketing than video! :-/  

[Guest]

The Nikon D3300 has the same image as the D5300 and is cheaper. The D5200 has a very similar image as well  (very good in low light)  and can be found a lot cheaper now.

[fuzzynormal]

the LED light panels which can clip on a camera flash mount look interesting? Would they help for video as an equivalent to bounce flash for still photos?

 

No.  It's not the the quantity of light, it's how you use what's there. You can't purchase your way into professional accomplished photography/videography.  You either learn the skill to do it well or you don't.

 

If you're coveting a new camera that's fine, but don't assume that camera is going to accomplish something professional just because it's nice gear.

[Pawel]

The Nikon D3300 has the same image as the D5300 and is cheaper.

 

Hi - do you refer to the video quality? I think it should be the same, but never seen a direct comparison. People at Nikon helpdesk confirmed to me that it (d3300) can stream RAW video through HDMI the same way that d5300 can, but has anyone had actually a chance to properly test the cheapest Nikon?