Need Professional opinion on which DSLR for Videos and Stills.

[snapit]

Hello all I am new here.
DSLR's have only 29m.54s in MP4 but can be extended using MOV.
I was interested initially in the Nikon 5600 but having researched the specs found that the Canon 80D was dust proof but similar in specs.
Then I read about the Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5S, that records to 4K recordings with 60 frames per second and records until the battery runs out. However I read that this is not You Tube friendly, as they require 1080p. I think it is only 10.28MP. Now I think it is too expensive as I was scammed last week of $900 when buying the Canon. Maybe there is a positive there as maybe I was buying the wrong camera.
Reason for need: To capture video for an Equine Hoof Chat Group, where (don't read if your squeamish), where we dissect cadaver hooves to ascertain the cause of lameness due to barefoot trimming methods. To take stills .jpg for photo comparisons. (Guess I will never win a photo competition.)Canon Dissection.jpg
Nikon has a cashback on at the moment until the 31st October, so that is tempting to recoup some losses.
Can you tell me the best place to purchase (it will have to be online as I live out in the bush) with your recommendation.
I really appreciate any advice and thank you in advance.
Many Thanks

[ameerat42]

Welcome to AP.

I have no specific advice, but if a camera does 4K video it can also do lower resolutions, like
1080p. You'd just select that option. I do that on my Galaxy 5S phone if I have no need for the
higher res. It's mainly the time limit you'd need to look out for.

That a camera may be "only 10.28 MPx" matters less than other factors, such as but not only,
sensor size. A 4K video frame is 3840 x 2160 px ~ 7.5 MPx . I do not know how Panasonic can
achieve a video resolution that is greater than their stated sensor size of 3680 x 2760 px, unless
by some sort of interpolation. It is certainly capable of a host of video resolutions, as listed on this page.

Both of the other two cameras have 1080p video resolution, and limited file sizes (4GB), though
that is still considerable.

[snapit]

Thank You, I appreciate your reply. I will follow through on the information, the videos take up to 3 hours so that is the concern, also.

[ricktas]

When you see the best place to purchase, are you wanting an Australia store, or are you happy to buy from overseas? Remembering that when you purchase from OS, it is likely cheaper, but Nikon Aus, Canon Aus etc are not obliged to honour your warranty, so any defects might mean you have to send the camera back to the OS company for repairs etc.

[snapit]

Hello Ricktas, Thank You. I am worried about O/S now due to the scam, but if you know someone honest it would be OK but with reservation. I have read in the forums some of them are honest and even covered repair costs. I would have to make sure it is not grey and that the shipping costs weren't too high.

[Tannin]

Hi Snapit.

It seems highly unlikely that anyone (even you!) would want to record such long videos all in one take, and even less likely that anyone would ever watch such a thing. Whichever camera you select, you will undoubtedly be splicing and editing a number of scenes into one or more final cuts. So the ability of any particular camera to record more than a sensible amount in a single take is surely not relevant. I should imagine that 5 minutes, or at very most 10 minutes is all you would ever need. In practice, you'd surely record less than that most of the time, paiiusing (even if only for a moment) in order to (for example) shift over to the other side of the operation to get a different angle showing some detail of interest.

And of course, you can always take that opportunity to swap in a different flash card. You'd probably need to swap the battery over now and then too.

Another consideration is lighting. If you are working indoors under anything other than very bright artificial light, a camera which copes well with low(ish) light makes sense. On the other hand, this generally implies a larger sensor, which adds cost and weight. There is no free lunch!

1080p is 2.1MP. Anything that resolution or better is enough for 1080p. (This is not to say that all 2.1MP or greater cameras can do 1080p, just that 1080p requires 2.1MP or more. In practice, anything from about 8MP on is just fine.

You Tube hates long videos. But somehow I don't reckon you are going to be looking for 5000 subscribers and a squillion likes.

Give some thought to file sizes. A three hour 1080p video is around 10GB in size. For users on wireless connections, that's about $30 worth of mobile data. (Calculated from Telstra's cheapest mobile data plan. Other providers will cost less but probably take three weeks to play a three hour video.) You can't expect people to watch or download 10GB movies unless they are on NBN fibre or the equivalent.

Be aware that different cameras fit into very different price ranges, so it's important not to price-compare a cheap Pentax consumer model with a semi-pro Canon, and so on. As a guide, an 80D body only costs around $1500. It's midrange camera, verging on semi-pro. The Nikon D5600 is a cheaper model, around $850 odd, while the Panasonic GH5S is an all-bells-and-whistles unit well over $3000. So you are comparing a Toyota Yaris against a Holden Commodore against a 7 Series BMW, so to speak. Completely different animals. Be aware also that two of those cameras you mention are SLRs and the other one is mirrorless. For video work, this may not matter, but it does for stills.

Remember that lenses are more important than cameras. Figure out what sort of lens you need first (we can help with that) and then pick a suitable camera.

Finally, I know my cameras and lenses pretty well (especially the Canon ones) but have no interest in or knowledge of video, other than what you can't help picking up as a working computer tech, so video-specific advice will have to come from someone else.

- - - Updated - - -

For overseas suppliers, I have dealt with DWI many, many times over the years. No problems. Generally, their prices are very good, but not on all items, so check first.

Locally, I have used Digital Camera Warehouse. They have been fine too. There is not a huge price difference between local and overseas these days.

See this thread for links: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...te-Advertisers

[snapit]

Thanks Tannin, Yes I realise I was comparing apples and oranges, but did it so that I would learn what I was missing out on, in the other two. We have zoom hoof meetings with people from all over the world, and they can go up to 5 hours,and they can get a bit long winded. So I split them, with my editing program usually to an hour. I also have a FB Video Group, and surprised how much FB allows me to upload.
With the lens I was reading this on Google Canon EF-S 18-135 for the 80D over the usual 18-55mm kit lens. The image quality is comparable with the latest generation of kit lenses, but the 18-135 has a larger zoom range than the small kit lens. Because it is a bit bigger, it fits better physically with the 80D than the kit lens does.
At this stage of my horror week I think I will have to stick to the EF-S 18-55mm....

[Tannin]

Which would be more useful to you? Longer? Or wider? 18mm isn't very wide on an 80D (or any other crop camera). You may find the Canon 15-85 more useful. 15mm is a LOT wider than 18mm - it's as much wider, as the eye sees it, as 135mm is longer than 85mm. There is a 15-85 in my family, very nice little lens, about the same price as the 18-135. From my reading, quality is about the same too.

Be aware that there have been several different 18-135 Canons. Check back here to make sure you are getting the latest and best one. (If you go that way.)

Also, consider the cheap little 18-55 STM. You quite often get these for practically nothing when you buy a camera, and it would certainly do to get you started. A bit of experience with that almost free lens and you are in a much better position to know whether you'd do better with a 15-85 or an 18-135 or even a fast f/2.8 17-55. Until you have used something in the same rough class (e.g., the 18-55) you won't know which one suits your needs.

Also, how close do you need to focus? This may be a significant factor.

[arthurking83]

disclaimer: my opinions, and experiences are far from 'professional' .. and in some cases barely make me amateur(or could be described as low grade amateur):

For video, I think some thought needs to be put into which of the two purposes you want from the device are more important, or the priority.

I'm personally not a fan of EVFs(ie. mirrorless cameras) but if video was a primary concern from the device, then I'd say most mirrorless cameras will be infinitely more capable video capture tools than equivalent DSLR type cameras will be.

ie. if you want video with the ability to shoot stills, I'd say look into mirrorless cameras(and a Sony model at that)
if you want to shoot pictures with a DSLR(eg. you're preference is to use OVF cameras too), then I'd say between Nikon and Canon, Canon have better AF focus abilities, with their dual pixel(ie. current model) DSLRs than Nikon have.

With video, I wouldn't worry about 'quality' of lenses as such. Video is less reliant on image sharpness, than is a stills camera.
That is, you can get away with a not so sharp lens in a video environment, than you similarly could in a stills image.

More important in terms of lens quality for video is (IMO) chromatic aberration control inherent in the lens. So look out for lenses that produce the most minimal amounts of CA, more specifically, purple fringing.

And to help reiterate Tannins' comment re the 29min time limit on video capture. Unless you're making Hollywood blockbuster type videos .. you'll probably run out of battery shooting 29mins of continuous video before the video time limit has been hit anyhow!

Then there is the 'what do you currently have' factor that should be taken into account too.

If you currently have any lenses for DSLRs that could be used then this would be useful in some way to minimise cost.
If you have some Nikon lenses, then buying a Canon DSLR would seem like a waste.

So: if you have some specific gear that could be used in some way, go with that model/brand of device.
If you're starting from scratch, go with a mirrorless camera(almost all have better video capability of some sort)
If you definitely want DSLR, go Canon.

My personal choice of a video camera of high quality worth would be a Sony A7 model of whatever is close to your budget limit, being mindful of the need for any lenses, and whatever other kit(eg. tripod or whatnot) that may help.
Also if you intend to shoot video for "5 hours" .. then be sure you have a minimum of 5 batteries fully charged and a charger for charging the already depleted batteries during the shoot.

OH!! and don't do like I once did and expect that during video the 25% remaining battery charge is ACTUALLY 25%! .. it'll be more like 1-2% of charge in actual use. So whilst you're shooting the video, ie. the short snippets that you will then edit into the final output, in the short intervals between shooting, if you see your battery level at or below 25% change battery then and then!
Otherwise, you'll be shooting video and just as the most important moment of the shoot is about to eventuate the camera simply locks up and goes black on 'ya!

[snapit]

"I know my cameras and lenses pretty well " Tannin
Tannin, what lens do you suggest for indoors, darkish, with about 30cm from the subject on a Canon 80D.
Can you also tell me what the Wide Angle EFS 10-18mm is used for specifically.
Kind Regards

[Tannin]

Wooo ... now that's a tough proposition!

Indoors and darkish, you want something fast, so as not to have to push the ISO and get a noisy picture. (f/2.8, say.)

Close up like that, you want to stop down a lot for depth of field- i.e., f/11.

Close up like that, you want something that focuses at short distances, ideally a macro lens. (But macro lenses are always primes, which are probably not ideal.)

And for your car, I suppose you need something very fast with 12 seats, which gets 90 MPG and is easy to park.

In other words, I've just laid out an impossible set of requirements for your lens. Thankfully, at least the first one won't apply (because of our need for depth of field, and also in the light of Arthur's reminder that we don't need to be as fussy about frame-by-frame quality as we do with still photography.

We do want something that focuses quite close. It is not a good idea to work right up at your minimum focus distance (quality suffers), in any case we really want some wiggle room. I'm thinking around about normal focal length is probably good - say around the 30 to 50mm mark.

Oh, and we want something with a USM or STM focus mechanism, because video and stepper focus systems don't play nicely together. But that shouldn't be too hard. I'm going to wander off and look a couple of prospects up and come back to you.

The 10-18 is used for anything which needs wide angles, typically landscapes and architecture. It's not ideal for close-up work, or for people. Can be useful indoors, but only in fairly specific circumstances. I doubt that it would be your answer, much as it is a nice lens for other tasks.

This is a nice little puzzle. Back shortly.

[Tannin]

Snapit, I have good news, bad news, more bad news, and perhaps some good news.

The good news is that there is a perfect lens for your needs: very high quality, very useful zoom range, not ridiculously large or heavy, and able to focus very close indeed for a zoom lens - 200mm. This is very unusual, practically unique.

The bad news is that it's pretty expensive at around $1050 or so. That's a perfectly reasonable price for what it is - a premium L Series lens - but rather a lot to be walking into at this stage. It is the Canon 24-70/4 and I don't recommend it simply because you'd be nuts to spend that amount without having tried something roughly like it out for a while first.

The other bad news is that nearly all the lenses in the category you most likely want to be in ("normal zooms") are starting to struggle as you get to around the 300mm focus distance. They vary a bit, but low 300s or very high 200s is pretty much universal. That might be enough, or might not. You will have to try it to find out. Remember, results very close to the minimum focus distance of most lenses tend to be a bit iffy.

One possibility is to use either a magnifying filter or (better) an extension tube, also known on Planet Tannin as a "close-up ring". These work really well for your intended task, are quite cheap, and simplicity itself to use. However, as soon as you put one on, you lose the ability to focus on distant objects. I reckon you'd nearly get away with using a 12mm ring on a standard zoom - that would drop your MFD (minimum focus distance) down to around two-thirds or three-quarters of the book value for the lens, and you'd still be able to focus out to (wild guess!) 5 metres or so without removing the ring. (I can look the exact numbers up if it seems useful, these are just guesses - I use close-up rings quite a lot for very small birds, but on a 600mm lens, so take my guesses for a lens one-tenth of that length with a grain of salt.)

Or you might find that the 300ish mm MFD of most common general-purpose zooms is enough.

Finally, the other bit of good news. Not counting the lovely but expensive overkill solution of a 24-70/4, just about the best MFD of any normal zoom I can think of is the Canon EF-S 18-55 STM. (Canon have made 6 different 18-55s over the years, the two most recent models both have STM focus motors, which you need. (Or USM, of course, but USM lenses tend to be rather pricey.) These very cheap lenses are not half bad - vastly improved over the cruddy little 18-55s of 10 or 15 years ago - and amazing value for money. They focus down to 250mm, which is great. Plus you can get one for practically nothing if you buy it with a camera. The 18-135 you had your eye on has a MFD of 390mm, which I reckon might be a show stopper for you.

We haven't made certain that a normal zoom is your best answer yet, but it probably will be. The good thing about an 18-55 is that it costs so little that you can regard it as a "free sample" lens to learn on. From there, either it does the job and everyone is happy, or else it at least does enough of the job to let you learn for yourself what features you need that it hasn't got. For $100 or so (with a camera) that's a very cheap education. From there, knowing what you need, we can easily figure out what lens will do the trick.

- - - Updated - - -

BTW, an 80D body only from Digital Camera Warehouse (Australian stock with Australian warranty) is $1411. The same thing from DWI (Grey market, Hong Kong) is $1109. Both prices include GST and free shipping to metro areas.

The same camera with an 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM (this is the second-newest 18-55 version), from the same places, is $1501 and $1241.

For more than you ever wanted to know about the difference between the 18-55/3.5-4.5 IS USM (second newest) and the 18-55/3.5-4.5 IS USM (newest one), see Bryan Carnathan's review of the new one at https://www.the-digital-picture.com/...-STM-Lens.aspx The same site also reviews the older model.

(The Digital Picture is the best place anywhere to find stuff out about Canon kit. Bryan is the benchmark by which all other gear review sites are measured, but he only does Canon (and Canon-compatible third-party gear). Non-Canon users spend their whole lives being jealous of Canon users' ability to look stuff up on The Digital Picture. For more wide-ranging thoughts and outstanding insights, nobody does it like Thom - http://www.bythom.com/ - and Thom only does Nikon. Non-Nikon users ... you guessed it ... spend their entire lives being jealous of Nikon users' ability to read stuff on Bythom.)

[snapit]

Gosh what a great group you all are.
One question that has also come across my mind that is buying a used Canon 80D, as it does not have an easy shutter count without addition software, what would a reasonable shutter count as suggested by the seller. Is 2.5K on a Canon 80D reasonable?
In anticipation, Many Thanks.

[Tannin]

If it's genuine, it's barely a pup. They are designed for a 100k working life, and exceed that as often as they fall short of it. (Well, the 20D and 40D were, it's possible that the 80D is rated at 150k. Whatever, it's lots.)

Software to measure the shutter count is readily available, easy to use, and either cheap or free. I've forgotten the links, but doubtless another member will come along with it shortly.

[ameerat42]

Hoh! For a moment I thought you meant its price

IMO, that is not excessive, but I have heard that the video shutter system is another aspect
you should consider. - Like, has it shot 1000s of hours of video? Others will chip in here to
explain this.

PS: I know you can't post links like this yet, but look at this one for a body-only:
https://www.camerasdirect.com.au/can...lr-camera-body

NB: just check whether the warranty is Canon or 3rd party before you commit.

[Tannin]

PS: trap for young players. Focus distance is measured from the film plane, not the front of the lens. My 24-105/4, for example, has a MFD of 450mm, but you lose around 150mm of that because of the physical length of the lens.

[ameerat42]

...
Software to measure the shutter count is readily available, easy to use, and either cheap or free. I've forgotten the links, but doubtless another member will come along with it shortly.

First, read this: https://digital-photography-school.c...er-actuations/

Then, search on this "software to check shutter count canon".

This is from that: https://www.canoncameranews-capetown...ion-count.html
There a few few there.

[blkmcs]

If video of several hours is your main requirement then why not a dedicated video camera with external power supply?
https://www.panasonic.com/au/support.../hc-v770m.html

[arthurking83]

If video of several hours is your main requirement then why not a dedicated video camera with external power supply?
https://www.panasonic.com/au/support.../hc-v770m.html

Stills!
OP has specified video and stills ... and video cameras are totally crapola at shooting stills(by todays standards).

[blkmcs]

Stills!
OP has specified video and stills ... and video cameras are totally crapola at shooting stills(by todays standards).

The OP already seems to have a camera which I assume could continue to be used for stills