It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
I have a sony a65 which is a awesome camera.films 1080 at 60. Really high quality stills, in body stablization. Canon are nice, just depends on which one fits you
I switched to Nikon from Canon, but honestly, people go with Canon because it's still just fine and dandy. They've slacked on a lot of stuff video-wise: at least in their more affordable setups, but they still take good photos, still have interfaces people like, and a zillion people are heavily invested in Canon gear. Not everyone takes video - or takes video that requires 60fps. Plenty of folks just want a solid DSLR for photos and Canon has been able to put itself in a great place through marketing and pricing (I mean, everyone loves a red ring...) Regardless of the business side of things, Canon still has good stuff. People that know better just go in other directions, or don't need the framerate anyway.
On that note, you're right. the D5300 is far superior to any Canon in the same price range for a beginner body... but if I was going to be getting something solely for video, I'd pick up something Sony or Panasonic over both. Solely photo? Probably Fuji, or just shoot film.
Because people compensate for their knowledge insecurity by gambling on respected brand names. This is not exclusive to photography, either.
For instance, you're more likely to see squids riding Salomons than ON3Ps because Salomon is perceived to be a safer bet them, while they know less about ON3P and are unaware that they're among the best skis money can buy (because they lack the knowledge to know what qualifies "good" in the first place).
lcoopmanI have a sony a65 which is a awesome camera.films 1080 at 60. Really high quality stills, in body stablization. Canon are nice, just depends on which one fits you
I too love my a65, but cannon and nikon are for sure better for stills than the sony. Sony kicks ass in the video department though
the gh3 for video is fucking unbelievable considering the price, the image quality is just unreal. Anybody thats buying a camera for video with enough money for a t5i and that's not primarily shooting in low light should get the gh3. There should be a fucking sticky thread in here saying that
RockNRollNghtClbthe gh3 for video is fucking unbelievable considering the price, the image quality is just unreal. Anybody thats buying a camera for video with enough money for a t5i and that's not primarily shooting in low light should get the gh3. There should be a fucking sticky thread in here saying that
Even in low light, the GH3 is still pretty good... certainly no worse than any of the Canon 18 megapixel apsc sensor cams as far as I can tell (probably not even much worse than the 20mp cams like the 70D and 7D2)
In my experience the GH2 slays the 7D in lowlight. The GH2 has a Sony like clean quality to it even when pushed. Shoot the 7D above 400 ISO and you get thick rainbow noise.
lIllIIn my experience the GH2 slays the 7D in lowlight. The GH2 has a Sony like clean quality to it even when pushed. Shoot the 7D above 400 ISO and you get thick rainbow noise.
with the driftwood hack it definitely slays, I actually think it's a better cam than the GH3 for purely the image
DingoSeanEven in low light, the GH3 is still pretty good... certainly no worse than any of the Canon 18 megapixel apsc sensor cams as far as I can tell (probably not even much worse than the 20mp cams like the 70D and 7D2)
I can tell you many reasons why Canon but at that price point, they don't matter. CPS is way better than NPS from what I have heard and my dealings with CPS have been nothing but good. Canon invested heavily into digital when it was new which gave them the edge on Nikon plus the 5D mk II was a huge stride in video. That being said, Nikon isn't afraid of using a Sony sensor, unlike Canon who keeps everything in house. I also find the Canon menus way easier to understand than the Nikon's menu. It really doesn't matter what you choose but once you invest in lenses you lose a lot of money by switching.
Sony a6000 is a pretty excellent all around as a camera and can accept so many lenses via adapters.
