What's so great about Canon DSLRs?

[Byron Jones]

I am new to wedding videography, but have worked in image capture and editing for a while. I focused more on photography and leaned heavily toward Nikon as I loved the lenses. Being interested in the video capabilities, I jumped on the D90 when it was released; however, it was quickly outdated being only 720. Since then I have stuck with Sony for video and Nikon for photos. I am interested in adding a DSLR to my camcorder lineup for some extended creative capabilities. It makes since to me to go Nikon because of my current glass; however, this forum seems heavily weighted to Canon DSLRs for wedding videography. What is so good about Canon? I hear Canon models frequently with no mention of Nikon. Are their video capabilities THAT much better? What advantages would I have in buying new glass for a different brand for shooting weddings and receptions? Can a D600 or D800 not compete?

[James Manford]

Originally Posted by Byron Jones

I am new to wedding videography, but have worked in image capture and editing for a while. I focused more on photography and leaned heavily toward Nikon as I loved the lenses. Being interested in the video capabilities, I jumped on the D90 when it was released; however, it was quickly outdated being only 720. Since then I have stuck with Sony for video and Nikon for photos. I am interested in adding a DSLR to my camcorder lineup for some extended creative capabilities. It makes since to me to go Nikon because of my current glass; however, this forum seems heavily weighted to Canon DSLRs for wedding videography. What is so good about Canon? I hear Canon models frequently with no mention of Nikon. Are their video capabilities THAT much better? What advantages would I have in buying new glass for a different brand for shooting weddings and receptions? Can a D600 or D800 not compete?

You say you own Sony for video.

What models exactly?

Have you looked in to the Sony VG20, VG30, VG900 (full frame) and the ENG style Sony EA50 ? They all offer that 'cinematic / depth of field' look that Canon users basically masturbate over!

Your EXISTING glass can be used on these models with a simple Nikon to NEX adapter which will cost you no more than £30.

[Daniel Latimer]

Originally Posted by James Manford

'cinematic / depth of field' look that Canon users basically masturbate over!.

That made laugh.

I think Canon had a huge advantage because it was the first (or at least first to make a splash) DSLR to offer 1080p video, so people initially gravitated towards the canon bodies. Once someone starts to invest in Canon glass, it's harder to jump ship.

Nikon came on pretty late and I've never used one, but from the reviews they have some nice camera (D800). You hear about Panasonic some since the Gh2/3 are geared towards video more than most DSLRs, but the large full frame sensors have a huge advantage in low light.

[Josh Bass]

Honestly, DOF aside, and with the admission I've never worked with another DSLR, there is something just really nice about the Canon's look. Skin tones/color/contrast handling. It's just. . .nice. Like pre-graded footage straight out of cam. Can get nice looking footage even in many bleh (in terms of lighting/color of environment) situations.

[James Manford]

Originally Posted by Josh Bass

Honestly, DOF aside, and with the admission I've never worked with another DSLR, there is something just really nice about the Canon's look. Skin tones/color/contrast handling. It's just. . .nice. Like pre-graded footage straight out of cam. Can get nice looking footage even in many bleh (in terms of lighting/color of environment) situations.

Valid point here. Canon does have a certain look ... but to be fair, with most NLE's a simple color correction / grading can achieve a similar look, or help you get an even better one. It's all preference.

Just look at some of the examples on the Sony EA50 thread, loads of people have contributed top quality samples of graded footage.

[Josh Bass]

Indeed. But how awesome to be able to get very nice (if not aggressively graded looking) footage right out of camera?

Standard profile, good operator judgment on everything else, BAM, nice image.

[Rob Cantwell]

there's probably not a huge difference between them, I have a Canon 5D MkIII cost €2,250, i think the D800 costs around the same, I've read that moire is an issue with the Nikon and the Canon is somewhat better in low light.
But i think whatever camera system you've bought into, is the one thats considered the best.

In 2006, the clever Canon marketing team introduced the EOS 350D (Digital Rebel XT) at a much lower price point than the competition and grabbed a huge share of the DSLR market that i think they still have, so more photographers own Canon than Nikon.

[Peter Szilveszter]

Hey Byron

Canon's are great and for all the reasons people have mentioned but definitely if you already have invested plenty on Nikon Glass I can easily recommend the D800, I had the luck of Nikon getting me to shoot a 4 day event with all Nikon Gear (as it was a Nikon sponsored event, big No to my Canon gear) and really only had a few gripes with it, the only real thing that puts me of is the noise that starts creeping in at a pretty low ISO range (800) but still its pretty awesome camera. The moire & aliasing is actually very good, easily as good as the MarkIII. Also the Rolling Shutter seems a bit less as the MKIII as well. Overall I do really like the image quality as well.

But you be the judge, here is the video (It has been graded but I found I can push it quiet a bit)

AIPP // THE EVENT 2013 PROMO on Vimeo

[Chris Harding]

Hi Byron

I shoot all my stills on two D90's and love the cameras and my lenses but it only shoots 720P video and I really don't like the form factor of a DSLR for doing handheld video either.

My solution (I shoot video and photos) is I have two Sony EA-50 cameras and they are awesome for video ..the shoulder mount form factor is just perfect and everything I need to get decent video and more importantly audio (the 50's have the best XLR channels I have ever used!!) so a standard I have really good cameras with the 18-200 stock zoom. Because it's an APS-C sensor I can get neat DOF but even better than that with Novoflex adapters I can use all my Nikon lenses too. If you had Canon glass then, of course, you would use a Canon adapter but it seems a shame to have to buy Canon lenses when you already have Nikon. I also have my favourite Nikon mount lens which is a Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 constant and it works so well on the Sony too but I can snap it off the video camera and drop it onto the Nikon body and I'm ready to do Real Estate photography.

To me that was the best of both worlds as I have a DSLR video camera that works like a video camera, sits on my shoulder when needed and I don't need to resort to zoom recorders and can also use my wireless mic setups.

Chris

[Dave Partington]

I've shot video at weddings with the following DSLRs

Canon: 550D, 60D, 7D, 5D2, 5D3

Nikon: D800

After we tested the 5D3 all the others were sold. I truly loved the D800 for photos but it simply can't compete for video with the exception of out of camera sharpness. The D800 is sharper out of camera but then won't take much, if any further sharpening without lots of artefacts appearing. The 5D3 is slightly softer SOOC but sharpens nicely if required (most of the time it's not required).

In terms of shooting in low light (which is a lot of what happens at weddings!) the 5D3 is truly king of the hill. We can shoot happily at ISO6400 and have pushed to ISO8000+ at times and been perfectly happy with the results. For me, the D800 tops out at around ISO2000-2500 for and then introduces nasty banding and colour shifts.

Also, the 5D3 has timecode whereas the D800 does not.

The 5D3 has a better codec and higher bit rate.

D800 aliasing and moire were on par with the 5D2 (tested side by side) but is virtually none existent on the 5D2.

There are things I miss from the Nikon, in fact I really loved the D800, but the end result we found the 5D3 is by far the better camera for video at weddings due to lack of moire/alias (especially on veils etc) and incredible low light abilities when you need more DOF.

[Byron Jones]

How does focus fit in here? I use manual focus for artsy shots and for shots of still subjects (like during the vows), but I am not great with a subject moving toward me (bride entrance). I can keep focus most of the time, but I do lose it. The Nikons (D600/800) have continuous autofocus during video, even a face tracking focus. I don't think Canon has this. I can't miss this shot.

[Peter Rush]

A bit off topic but I use Canon glass on my Sony EA50 (mainly 24-105mm) for the ceremony but have to use my VG20 with kit lens (18-200mm) for the processional as i can't follow the bride with a nice slow zoom and manualy keep her face in focus at the same time

[Nigel Barker]

Use the full DoF so don't focus right on the bride as she enters but be focused on a mid-point down the aisle. Take a look at a DoF calculator & get used to using the full DoF without re-focusing e.g. with a 5D & 50mm lens at F/8 if you focus on a point 10m away then everything from about 5.2m to 200+m is in focus. If you open up to F/5.6 then everything is in focus from 6m to 30m.

[Byron Jones]

Nigel, thanks for the suggestion. I think that will help a great deal. With what I have read about the 5D's ability to handle higher ISO, bumping it a little to shoot at f5.6 should not introduce grain.

[Byron Jones]

Peter, I liked the promo video. Good footage. There were a couple of clips that really showed off a nice dynamic range. Your post could really help convince me to stay Nikon...except for that bit about noise at ISO 800. That sounds scary for some of the low light venues I've seen. I really want to do some shallow DoF stuff to jazz the footage up a bit, but it will also need to be my "go to" camera in really dark environments. I currently am using a VG30 for Steadicam and shallow DoF shots, but it disappointed me in a dark venue a few weeks ago even with a 50mm f1.8.