Im looking to put together a new kit. Im considering stretching the budget a bit to grab a D800 and tamron 28-75 f2.8 possibly(other affordable choices welcome) and a prime for low light. or a D7000 with a tamron 17-50 2.8 vc and sigma 70-200 f2.8 os. which option is the best for me in your opinon? i want to be able to shoot photos of my daughter shes 3. video is very important to me.

If shooting family photos and your daughter are your only prime subject - then I would suggest keeping your money in the bank - and going with the D7000 and a nice portrait lens, and a decent wide angle. No need to spend big bucks on the D800. The video on the D7000 is decent.

But again -- I have to say: You want a video camera - BUY A VIDEO CAMERA. DSLR's are not video camera's.

stretching the budget + tamron 28-75 != D800

+1 on buying a video camera to shoot video

Joe

lxdesign wrote:
But again -- I have to say: You want a video camera - BUY A VIDEO CAMERA. DSLR's are not video camera's.

Or an iPhone / iPad / Android.

Unless of course you want to bother with follow focus, a video rig, audio equipment etc. Then DSLR video is one of the considerations if your style requires shallow DOF.

Consider the D5100 as well. It's cheaper and has the articulating screen which can be a bonus when shooting video.

IM ok with video on DSLR. however, the real question is are you making high quality videos in which you will be doing production or you simply want a camera that does great video and takes pictures as well. If number 1 is your answer then yes look at the top of the food chain. If you are simply taking video of your daughter for memories sake, I would look at something like a D3200/ 7000 even. The lenses you mentioned are fine but I am one to recommend sticking with nikon lenses if you can. Sigma primes being the exception.

Video on a DSLR takes practice. and is never as easy as simply pressing record and following your subject. I do ALOT of video on DSLR but the focusing mechanism is not to the point yet in which you can simply point and shoot. Also depending on the lenses you will actually hear the focus searching if you are using auto focus (meaning you will hear the zipping sound ). this is assuming you keep all things auto. Not external mics etc..

I have kids, but to be honest I often use a simple Kodak ZX1 for video of them because its simple and the video is good enough and quick to pull out and shoot. Occasionally I'll break out a rig but its very seldom.

Now if you want to buy a D800 for photography, and you are an amateur you may actually get frustrated. Having a camera with that kind of resolution in untrained hands can yield rubbish results. If you are experienced then more power to you.

Nothing wrong with DSLR video but its not as simple as most people think if you want a quality result. They are shaky, unstable, difficult to focus, sound is less than good in most.

If you think you will wan to try making small HQ movies in the near future tho you can't go wrong with any of the fore mentioned cameras.

Tete wrote:
IM ok with video on DSLR. however, the real question is are you making high quality videos in which you will be doing production or you simply want a camera that does great video and takes pictures as well. If number 1 is your answer then yes look at the top of the food chain. If you are simply taking video of your daughter for memories sake, I would look at something like a D3200/ 7000 even. The lenses you mentioned are fine but I am one to recommend sticking with nikon lenses if you can. Sigma primes being the exception.

Video on a DSLR takes practice. and is never as easy as simply pressing record and following your subject. I do ALOT of video on DSLR but the focusing mechanism is not to the point yet in which you can simply point and shoot. Also depending on the lenses you will actually hear the focus searching if you are using auto focus (meaning you will hear the zipping sound ). this is assuming you keep all things auto. Not external mics etc..

I have kids, but to be honest I often use a simple Kodak ZX1 for video of them because its simple and the video is good enough and quick to pull out and shoot. Occasionally I'll break out a rig but its very seldom.

Now if you want to buy a D800 for photography, and you are an amateur you may actually get frustrated. Having a camera with that kind of resolution in untrained hands can yield rubbish results. If you are experienced then more power to you.

Nothing wrong with DSLR video but its not as simple as most people think if you want a quality result. They are shaky, unstable, difficult to focus, sound is less than good in most.

If you think you will wan to try making small HQ movies in the near future tho you can't go wrong with any of the fore mentioned cameras.

great review, +1

i mean to offend no one here but im not wet behind the ears. ive been shooting on DSLRs since the canon 30D days have owned: Canon 30D, 40D, 7D, 1D MK II, 1D MK IIn, 1D MK III. I also own a video camera and have dabled with the nikon D7000 and have to say aside from my 1D III think i took the best pictures of my life with the D7000. I however had to liqudate my gear to pay for a wedding recently and am looking to get back into things. I want the video for cinematic type work not for home videos. I want to be able to do real photography but mainly of my daughter and wife. im not just a guy looking to replace my point and shoot.

rennocneb wrote:
Im looking to put together a new kit. Im considering stretching the budget a bit to grab a D800 and tamron 28-75 f2.8 possibly(other affordable choices welcome) and a prime for low light. or a D7000 with a tamron 17-50 2.8 vc and sigma 70-200 f2.8 os. which option is the best for me in your opinon? i want to be able to shoot photos of my daughter shes 3. video is very important to me.

I'd definitely suggest buying a separate video camera for family memories unless you already have a bunch of experience with DSLR video. As noted, it's nowhere near as easy on a DSLR as stills are. This is not a function of your skills, but of DSLR video being a relatively new technology. I've been shooting since 1982, and I'd love to do video on a DSLR... I'm just not yet finding it very easy to do: stills are much easier.

I'd suggest a D7000, Nikon 16-85 VR, and Nikon 70-200 VR to start off along with your other video camera. At some point now or later, you can add a Nikon 85/1.8G for portraits in lower light levels or with even shallower DOF than what the 70-200 can give you.

That'll be an extremely sharp and high-quality kit (and you can start learning your DSLR video without too much stress). I specifically recommend Nikon lenses because I've found their focusing to be much faster in low-light... the third-party lenses are fine, I have nothing against them, but they do lag behind the Nikon glass in low-light AF performance. Remember to budget for at least one or two good flashes... those'll make a huge difference to your final image quality if you learn to use them right. And with the Nikon cameras, you can use the built-in flash as a commander and use the other two off-camera to create an extremely flexible three-light kit with a relatively low cost.

I would definitely not recommend making sacrifices in glass to buy a D800.

Get the 7000 and with the savings get her a helmet and mount a GoPro to it.

rennocneb wrote:
i mean to offend no one here but im not wet behind the ears. ive been shooting on DSLRs since the canon 30D days have owned: Canon 30D, 40D, 7D, 1D MK II, 1D MK IIn, 1D MK III. I also own a video camera and have dabled with the nikon D7000 and have to say aside from my 1D III think i took the best pictures of my life with the D7000. I however had to liqudate my gear to pay for a wedding recently and am looking to get back into things. I want the video for cinematic type work not for home videos. I want to be able to do real photography but mainly of my daughter and wife. im not just a guy looking to replace my point and shoot.

You know the ropes.

Given your desire for in camera video, If I were you I would buy the d800 (Or a 5D3 as it is supposedly very good for video) and 1 good nikon lens of your budget. As you know glass is more important than body. If you are getting a great body, then you should aspire for great glass then.

Build your glass collection slowly and buy a good quality nikon lens first to pair the 800

well the sacrifice in glass im considering making is to wait on the telephoto for awhile. i think many would argue that the tamron 28-75 is actaully a pretty darn good lens. Ive just always wandering if full frame was worth it you see the breathtaking landscapes etc shot with full frame cameras and it makes you want to give them a try.

Sorry, i wasn't aware of your experience earlier. If you have the money to burn, buy the D800. No brainer. As it will do everything you want and then some. As for the Tamron. It's a great lens and can be plenty sharp. I recommend buying a " Sharp" copy off someone used, unlike Nikon glass it will depreciate faster than a detroit home.

I shot with a 5Dmk2 prior to making the switch to Nikon. It was great for video but I kid you not my M4/3 camera shot pretty amazing video. The Gh1 is a great camera for video ask Phillip Bloom. The 5Dmk2 was great because of the manual feature set. Specifically audio and low light capabilities but not having the swivel screen for video is cumbersome without a monitor.

I recommend perhaps a D700 and M4/3 Rig specifically for video. That way you can build a rig around it and set it up for video. Especially if you think you will get into the indie film making stuff. It's an inexpensive way to get going. You can buy an adapter to use your nikon glass for like 20$. A good start would be a hacked GH1 or G1 which can be had for as little as 150$. The video quality is superb. Do your research.

T

rennocneb wrote:
well the sacrifice in glass im considering making is to wait on the telephoto for awhile. i think many would argue that the tamron 28-75 is actaully a pretty darn good lens. Ive just always wandering if full frame was worth it you see the breathtaking landscapes etc shot with full frame cameras and it makes you want to give them a try.

"Full frame" is a myth. FX has pros/cons. And it's very, very expensive. Evaluate those objectively, because FX is certainly no magic bullet.

And yes, a good copy of the Tamron is very sharp. It's optically quite a good lens. What I said -- and if you're shooting small children I think it's noteworthy -- is that its AF speed is slower than the Nikon equivalent, and much more so in low light.

Skip the d800. It is total overkill. Get a D90 with a Tamron 17-50 teamed up with a Sigma 50-150. In a year or two, pick up a Nikon or Tamron 70-300 VR lens. The money you save will buy a lot of ice cream cones and pretty party dresses.

Mom is happy, too. You've saved money and have a setup she can use easily without lifting weights to manage.

mom really would be happy, but what keeps me happy helps her be happy lol. I really want to be able to shoot stills and video both. I can get a D7000 body pretty resonable locally used, so are we offically saying the full frame sensor really isnt worth the investment for low light? Now to through one more fly in the ointment how about a canon 5D Mark II which can be had fairly reasonably.

rennocneb wrote:
mom really would be happy, but what keeps me happy helps her be happy lol. I really want to be able to shoot stills and video both. I can get a D7000 body pretty resonable locally used, so are we offically saying the full frame sensor really isnt worth the investment for low light? Now to through one more fly in the ointment how about a canon 5D Mark II which can be had fairly reasonably.

You already have a ton of canon gear, so if budget is a concern, why not look into a t4i for video (and video af).

i had a ton of canon gear over the years im starting fresh. total budget is around $4000

full frame isn't a myth.

so is full frame worth the roughly $2000 price premium? or do i buy more glass? or better yet put money in the bank lol