[HELP/IMPORTANT] Video quality-New Video/photo equipment

[Cristian Salmistraro]

I was considering a new photo/video equipment, but I'm stuck between Canon or Nikon for a simple reason: video quality.
Last year I made lots of videos and works with my D7100 and I was going to choose the new D750, but I can't find true informations and data about its video quality.

Some say that in HQ mode can do 45 Mbps, some 28 Mbps.

I need a good internal quality for videos, not from the external hdmi output.

Can Canon do it better? I was considering the 6D. The 5D Mk III is better?

Can anyone help me with true informations?
Thank you very much and sorry for bad english.
  

[Inazuma]

In HQ mode it does around 40mbps when shooting at 60fps and around 20mbps when shooting at 24fps.

Canons do have better bitrates but I believe the d750 still is a bit sharper than the 5d3. The 6d is OK but has a lot of aliasing/moire. 

[fuzzynormal]

Well, you should know that lots of other cameras have better quality than Canon or Nikon right out of the box.  

But, you should also know that a Canon ML (Magic Lantern) hack will give a Canon camera some of the best image quality on the market.  You have to work a bit harder in post to deal with that footage, however, but it's probably the most affordable way to get some awesome motion picture imaging.

Ultimately, I went with M43 gear, but it was't just because of IQ (which was pretty impressive from Panasonic).      

[ricardo_sousa11]

Why only both those choices ?

For Video, the clear picks are GH4, NX1 or a7s (or the newly released a7r II).

If you dont know exacly what you need, it means probably that you should wait a bit longer until you're certain. Nowadays, even entry level cameras have amazing performance, and when paired with good lenses, can be very professional. What I'd suggest is, when looking for the Video camera, look away from Canon & Nikon.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

The choice of a camera model solely, and only depends on what type of work you'll use it for.

If there was an answer to your question (what camera is the best) there wouldn't be a hundred choices.

You have a family, the best car is a Sedan. You're a track racer? a ferrari. Can't bust the tracks with the sedan, neither pick up the kids from school with a ferrari. 

What type of video are you going to shoot? What are the requirements? 

[fuzzynormal]

Can't bust the tracks with the sedan, neither pick up the kids from school with a ferrari.

​Then again, an accomplished race car driver in a modest sedan could easily lap a kid in a Ferrari.  It's not always what it does, but how you do it.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

That has to be a 4 year-old in the ferrari to be outrun by a Toyota corrolla even if the Stig is in there

Point taken, in fact I agree, because the camera industry technology has no such gaps as there is in the car industry between a Corolla and a Ferrari since 2009, so yes what you're saying is true. A pro with a 550D can definitely outrun a noob with an Alexa, even in pure technical image quality. 

[peterwhite]

I prefer Canon because mine works great and video it shoot has excellent video quality.

[Cristian Salmistraro]

After that, now I'm considering to buy an old pro FX DSLR for shooting photographs and a camera for video.
From what depends video quality? From bitrate or compression? This is my main question.
Why Canon, Panasonic or Sony have better image quality?
Maybe a camcorder around 1000 dollars can do it better?

Mainly, I want to shoot music videos. 
Sorry, I am full of questions and quite confused about technical aspects.   

[Oliver Daniel]

After that, now I'm considering to buy an old pro FX DSLR for shooting photographs and a camera for video.
From what depends video quality? From bitrate or compression? This is my main question.
Why Canon, Panasonic or Sony have better image quality?
Maybe a camcorder around 1000 dollars can do it better?

Mainly, I want to shoot music videos. 
Sorry, I am full of questions and quite confused about technical aspects.   

​I shoot music videos every week and know what works for me. (www.videoink.co.uk)

I would highly consider Sony as a camera choice for music videos. Not only do you get S-Log recording, but they are very good at making use of high frame rates (which for music videos is by far the biggest request I get). 

The new Sony RX10 II seems to be a low budget music video makers dream. 4k, 24-200m lens and high frame rates, decent quality up to 240fps. Another camera would be the A7S, as low budget music video swings with low light locations quite often! 

Of course, don't be foolish and forget your lighting requirements. Lighting is far more important than your camera, you have my word!

[Cristian Salmistraro]

​I shoot music videos every week and know what works for me. (www.videoink.co.uk)

I would highly consider Sony as a camera choice for music videos. Not only do you get S-Log recording, but they are very good at making use of high frame rates (which for music videos is by far the biggest request I get). 

The new Sony RX10 II seems to be a low budget music video makers dream. 4k, 24-200m lens and high frame rates, decent quality up to 240fps. Another camera would be the A7S, as low budget music video swings with low light locations quite often! 

Of course, don't be foolish and forget your lighting requirements. Lighting is far more important than your camera, you have my word!

 

Have you shoot the music video on your site with a Sony camera?

I've problems understanding the importance of the bitrate.

I know Canon cameras have a higher bitrate compared to Nikon, but the D750 seems also very good despite its lower output. Then it comes the Sony a7II with the XAVC S codec at 50 Mbps and I can't see a real difference.

So, what's really important, at the beginning (about technical specs), to have a good image quality? I mainly shoot for web and youtube, but I want a decent image quality, without horribles artifacts. I already know the differences about lenses etc from a brand to other because I came from photography; it's only a technical question.  

I'm really sorry about my ignorance, but internet he's driving me crazy.    
Thank you for your patience 

[Oliver Daniel]

Have you shoot the music video on your site with a Sony camera?

I've problems understanding the importance of the bitrate.

I know Canon cameras have a higher bitrate compared to Nikon, but the D750 seems also very good despite its lower output. Then it comes the Sony a7II with the XAVC S codec at 50 Mbps and I can't see a real difference.

So, what's really important, at the beginning (about technical specs), to have a good image quality? I mainly shoot for web and youtube, but I want a decent image quality, without horribles artifacts. I already know the differences about lenses etc from a brand to other because I came from photography; it's only a technical question.  

I'm really sorry about my ignorance, but internet he's driving me crazy.    
Thank you for your patience 

​

No problem Christian. 

My site is mostly Sony FS700, Panasonic GH3, Sony FS7 and a little RED Epic. 

Bit rate basically means the amount of data you have to play with. The more data, the better the quality output. Watch out though - some high data rates are impractical and some codecs aren't as robust as others. Generally 50mbps for HD is fine. 

The secret to good image quality isn't just the camera. Decent lighting is the key to good quality. Buying a better camera will make little difference if you don't focus on lighting. Do not ignore it. Get that stuck in your head and get shooting!