Question about buying a new camera

[RyanSult]

I'm thinking about buying a Nikon D3200 and was wondering if this is a good decision. It's on the higher end of my budget and it will be my first DSLR because I'm a beginner. I will use it both for photography and video.

My question is if there is a better alternative to this camera for video for about the same price or would this be a good buy for me.

If you need a link to this camera:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Nikon+-...s_kwcid=PTC!pe!nikon d3200!e!0!g!!15098826159

 

[Lucky Hardwood]

If you are not already invested in glass (lenses), the 3200 is a good choice. You might find more selection available with a Canon body, but there is plenty of good Nikkor glass out there, just be prepared to (eventually) pay well for it.

 

[Alcove Audio]

Just remember that DSLR should be considered a film camera; you are going to need to invest in a separate audio recording system.

 

[RyanSult]

Thank you!

Do Nikon lenses not work on Canon cameras and vice-versa? I have several friends that would probably lend lenses to me if I needed them but I think they're all Canon.

And I was planning on getting a separate mic (would a shotgun be a good choice?) and a boom for it.

 

[Lucky Hardwood]

Different manufacturers use different mounts for their lenses. Many manufacturers have multiple mount types (EF vs EF-S vs FD etc.). Some cameras, like the current crop sensor Canons, can use lenses of more than one mount type (EF & EF-S). Adapters are available for some systems.

 

[Alcove Audio]

I was planning on getting a separate mic (would a shotgun be a good choice?) and a boom for it.

You also will need an audio recorder.

The choice of mic will depend upon two things - the location and the skill of the person swinging the boom.

Shotguns are the standard; however, since most indie productions shoot in "real" indoor locations as opposed to large, controlled sets, and the boom-op will probably not be very skilled, a hypercardioid mic is highly recommended for indoor shooting. Hypers are more forgiving and will yield a little less of that hollow, roomy sound so prevalent in indie productions.

You are immediately going to dive into a minimum of $750 to $1,000 if you want to do audio correctly, and that investment will get you, at best, prosumer gear. A low impedance shotgun kit (mic, boom-pole, shock-mount, basic wind protection) will set you back about $600. A low impedance audio recorder will start at about $175 to $400 (B&H currently has the DR-40 on sale for $150). You can get a passable hyper for $150 to $250.

Everyone ALWAYS balks at the expense of audio equipment, but your audio gear will last you through many cameras. I've owned many of my mics for 15 or more years, and have had my SM-58 for over 35 years, and, with the exception of the audio recorder, everything else is "infrastructure" that will also be with you for many years.

If you want to go the micro-budget audio route ($250 to $350) you can go with high impedance audio gear, but be aware that there are numerous drawbacks to this approach.

As always, I recommend that you hire a pro. Probably out of your budget, so look around for an ambitious up-and-comer. If that also is not an option you might want to consider renting.

 

[brunerww]

Hi Ryan - That's a great deal (you can get it for a few dollars less at Amazon), but I would not get a Nikon for video. Take a look at this test video shot by Consumer DV and read the comments: http://vimeo.com/42769249

See the moire at 0:35 ("moire" is shimmering color on patterned surfaces like shingled roofs).

You can shoot around this, but striped shirts, brickwork and shingles will always be a problem for this camera. It is also limited to 20 minutes of continuous video.

For about the same price, I would get a Panasonic GH2 body from Amazon warehouse deals. I have this camera, and it has almost no moire - and it has essentially unlimited video clip length for shooting plays, sermons, concerts, etc.

You'll also need a starter lens, and they're about $100. Or, with an adapter, you can use just about any Nikon, old Canon FD, Konica, Minolta, Vivitar or other classic lens - which can be found easily on eBay.

Here is what this camera can do:

Documentary: http://vimeo.com/40029107

Narrative: http://vimeo.com/45596420

Hope this is helpful,

Bill

 

[RyanSult]

Thanks for all the advice!

I have a couple more questions, specifically about audio. Would a hypercardoid mic also be preferable in outdoor shooting?

Also would I be able to get decent audio quality out of a mic that is run directly into the DSLR rather than having a separate audio recording, I realize that the quality will be lower but if it saves a few dollars and doesn't deliver horrid quality I would be fine with it.

And if the difference is specifically due to it being separate from the video when editing couldn't the audio simply be removed from it and then replaced as its own file to allow the same editing abilities during post?

 

[brunerww]

Ryan - many DSLRs have noisy preamps and very little control of audio levels. In addition, those with autofocus that actually "works" in video mode have noisy still camera lenses with loud focus motors. Nikon shooters are almost forced to use external mics due to AF motor noise. See this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUrmm02ffoc

The "clicking" you hear in the shots without the $129 Nikon ME-1 external mic is the focus motor on the lens.

Again, Panasonic is the winner here, with absolutely silent focus motors in their video-optimized lenses (such as the 14-42 and 14-140).
Here is a video I shot in low light to show the light gathering advantage of an older lens compared to a newer Panasonic lens - but please ignore the images and notice the difference in sound from the two lenses (recorded using the : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lwDJUcrj6o

The autofocus on the 14-140 is whisper silent.

Also - here's one using a lavalier clip-on mic plugged straight into the camera. Camera's manual sound level set to low. I had a cold when I shot this, so please excuse the stuffy nose and hoarseness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slRrwUiMGIw


All of that said, an external mic is always better than an internal mic - a camera with silent lenses is better than a camera with noisy lenses - and a camera with manual audio gain is better than a camera with automatic gain control - but dual system sound with an external recorder generally beats internal recording.

Bottom line for me - I do have a couple of external recorders - but most of the time, I just plug a mic into the camera.

Hope this is helpful,

Bill

 

[RyanSult]

Thanks for all the help, I think I will end up going with the Nikon D3200 and the external mic you linked to simply because it looks to me like this will end up being the cheapest choice (from what I can tell they're out of the Panasonic on Amazon and its about $800 with a lense on a few other sites) and I will still get decent quality. I'm not too worried about auto-focus noise because I will probably shoot in manual because I don't like how the focus jumps around when the camera is moved. Y'all have been incredibly helpful!

EDIT: and one more question about audio, if I were to get a separate mic+boom could I use the basic Sony audio recorder I already own to record to using the input jacks? Or would this not record the audio well, I have used it before and the results are pretty good but thats just the built in mic.

 

[Alcove Audio]

Would a hypercardoid mic also be preferable in outdoor shooting?

You use a shotgun mic outdoors because of its superior off-axis rejection; in other words it has a narrower pick-up polar pattern than other mics. This is preferable when shooting outdoors because, if handled properly, picks up less (rejects) sounds to the sides and more of what it is aimed at.

Also would I be able to get decent audio quality out of a mic that is run directly into the DSLR rather than having a separate audio recording, I realize that the quality will be lower but if it saves a few dollars and doesn't deliver horrid quality I would be fine with it.

All DSLRs will record some compressed audio format. The audio you hear on a DVD in 16bit/48kHz.

If you plug the mic straight into the camera you will have minimal control and no way to monitor the audio as you shoot. You do want to hear the audio, don't you? To at the least make sure that it was recorded?

The audio quality of a DSLR is about two steps above a childs toy. Granted that there are some pretty cool childrens toys around these days, but nothing even close to DVD quality.


BTW, there are devices that record usable audio into DSLRs, however, they are actually more expensive than most micro-budget audio recorders, require an extra audio editing step, are not 100% reliable, and you still cannot hear the actual recorded audio.

And if the difference is specifically due to it being separate from the video when editing couldn't the audio simply be removed from it and then replaced as its own file to allow the same editing abilities during post?

When you shoot you slate each take visually and verbally - "Scene Four, Take Three" - SMACK!!! Once you have downloaded the video and audio files you need to line up the audio files with the video files. Tedious, but straight forward. Having the guide track from the camera makes it much easier than if you were working with film. Yes, you can partially automate the process with a software like PluralEyes. Once you've synced all of the audio to the video you can start editing. Consider it a first look at the footage.

I would recommend that you watch and LISTEN to about 50 indie shorts. What sets the good projects apart from the bad ones, at least on a technical level, is the quality of the audio. Quality audio starts on the set - choosing the correct mic for the location, using that mic properly, and recording in an uncompressed format. You do everything that you can to avoid the hollow roomy sound so prevalent in indie films.

Your project will only look as good as it sounds because "Sound is half of the the experience."

 

[RyanSult]

Thanks for the quick reply, so ideally I would have multiple mics for different situations it seems.

For a mic not attached to the camera could I use one of those fairly basic digital recorders you see at like a walmart? I already have a couple of them from classes and whatnot and they have mic inputs and headphone outputs, would these reliably record good audio or would the format be too compresses and low quality?

 

[Alcove Audio]

What I consider the absolute minimum would be the Tascam DR-40. It accepts low impedance (XLR) cables, the bit rate of 24 allows for more audio headroom, you can record up to 96kHz sample rate, has USB connectivity, and can supply phantom power to external mics.

B&H has it on sale for $150.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/821259-REG/Tascam_DR_40_DR_40_4_Track_Handheld_Digital.html

 

[Cracker Funk]

I don't wanna sound like a sheep, but I can't help but wonder why I don't know anybody who buys this camera for filmmaking. I took a look at the website you linked, and I couldn't find enough info for me to be able to know if this camera would work well for a filmmaker. For all I know, it might be awesome, but I don't readily see any indicator of that.

You gotta keep in mind the fact that these cameras are not built with filmmakers in mind. They are for photographers. But they're cheap, and some of them get beautiful video. But they don't all work the same in video mode, so before you make this purchase, you should definitely do your research.

My gut reaction is to push you towards the T3i -- it's only 50 bucks more, and it's great for filmmaking.

 

[brunerww]

Thanks for all the help, I think I will end up going with the Nikon D3200 and the external mic you linked to simply because it looks to me like this will end up being the cheapest choice (from what I can tell they're out of the Panasonic on Amazon and its about $800 with a lense on a few other sites)...

Ryan - Understand the need to save money - but the GH2 (body only) is $596 used right now at Amazon Warehouse Deals. Unlimited video clip length and minimal moire (in addition to the quiet lenses) make it a lot more video camera for the money than the $597 (with lens) D3200.

...My gut reaction is to push you towards the T3i -- it's only 50 bucks more, and it's great for filmmaking.

C.F. - Sadly, my first video capable DSLR was the Canon T2i. But Canon cameras' 12 minute shot length limit, moire and lack of video autofocus were real challenges for me. All solved by the GH2.

Hope this is helpful,

Bill