Reasons for preferring the D5000 over the 500D

This is contentious, as the EOS 500D is a fine camera in its own right.
I decided that I won't wait for Sony to introduce their first D-movie
SLR as I want to experiment more with HD video. 1080p or not 1080p, that
was the question...

Start with the first image, view these still clips and read the captions
(view the images at full size too, but the captions then disappear in
pBase typical fashion to the middle of the bottom of the shots):

http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/dmovie_stills

I ordered a D5000 18-55mm kit from Cecil Jacobs for £639 with a free bag
and a half price 8GB SD. I spent a couple of hours studying the footage
shot with the EOS 500D and the D5000, and even phoned Canon to ask
whether an upgrade would be done for the 500D to provide full control of
aperture, shutter and ISO (as has been done last week for the 5D MkII).
This they could not say.

The ultimate test was to enlarge various D5000 720p vids to fill the
1080p size, using QuickTime Player and just dragging the window to fill
my iMac 24 inch screen. I could not find a single Canon 1080p vid which
matched the level of fine detail present in the Nikon shots when
enlarged. Also, with the Nikon I was able to set fast shutter speeds to
film horse racing, and the stopped frames were as sharp as similar sized
JPEGs.

My buying decision was not based on owned equipment - I have a Canon
400D with a 75-300mm IS USM I have already tried with good results for
video, and I own no Nikon lenses. So it was a REAL problem. A 500D would
immediately have given me an outfit - and 15.2 megapixels. But I already
have Sony 24 megapixels and a cupboard full of superb glass so that was
not a real issue. I wanted to shoot video.

The 24fps 720p of the Nikon appears, to me, to be providing more real
useful image detail than either the 720p 30fps or 1080p 20fps of the
Canon - along with a colour quality I think I prefer, usable freeze
frame still quality, the potential to enlarge to 1080p with apparently
equal or better results. I did check the (very few, inadquate) clips I
shot with the D90 and also concluded that the D5000 was giving a
slightly better result, otherwise I would definitely have got the
D90+18-105mm kit for about £150 more.

The lack of control over shutter, aperture or ISO settings with the
Canon was the ultimate deal-breaker. I plan to get hold of a 35mm f/1.8
(none in stock) after testing this with the D5000 for the BJP - it was a
lovely little lens, fantastic for video work. But any such lens is next
to useless if you can not control the aperture setting.

There are aspects of the Canon - the quality of the sound recording, and
the usefulness of the stills, and the high ISO performance - which I
would dearly like to have. But I can only afford one camera, and Nikon
got the sale.

David

Marty Fremen wrote:

Try shooting at standard def. (720x480 or 640x480) with
either camera and then upsample it for comparison.

Not tried the 640 x 480 standard - it might actually be a very good
basic video standard for some uses. The Nikon is limited to 5 minute
clips, which is not enough for some concert/gig recording. For that, I
have a Kodak Zi6 pocket gizmo, and it's great for just being able to
film at 720p until the card is full.

David

David Kilpatrick wrote:
Marty Fremen wrote:

Try shooting at standard def. (720x480 or 640x480) with
either camera and then upsample it for comparison.

Not tried the 640 x 480 standard - it might actually be a very good
basic video standard for some uses. The Nikon is limited to 5 minute
clips, which is not enough for some concert/gig recording. For that, I
have a Kodak Zi6 pocket gizmo, and it's great for just being able to
film at 720p until the card is full.

David

Could you name a band that plays continuously for more than 5 minutes
please?

DMac wrote:
David Kilpatrick wrote:
Marty Fremen wrote:

Try shooting at standard def. (720x480 or 640x480) with
either camera and then upsample it for comparison.

Not tried the 640 x 480 standard - it might actually be a very good
basic video standard for some uses. The Nikon is limited to 5 minute
clips, which is not enough for some concert/gig recording. For that, I
have a Kodak Zi6 pocket gizmo, and it's great for just being able to
film at 720p until the card is full.

David

Could you name a band that plays continuously for more than 5 minutes
please?

Just the other night I was at a concert at Davies Hall in SF, CA, and
'the band' played a Schubert piece far in excess of five minutes. But
they couldn't finish the symphony in any event.

--
john mcwilliams

"Baldrick, you wouldn't recognize a subtle plan if it painted itself
purple and danced naked on top of a harpsichord singing 'Subtle Plans
Are Here Again'."
-- Blackadder

John McWilliams wrote:
DMac wrote:
David Kilpatrick wrote:
Marty Fremen wrote:

Try shooting at standard def. (720x480 or 640x480) with
either camera and then upsample it for comparison.

Not tried the 640 x 480 standard - it might actually be a very good
basic video standard for some uses. The Nikon is limited to 5 minute
clips, which is not enough for some concert/gig recording. For that,
I have a Kodak Zi6 pocket gizmo, and it's great for just being able
to film at 720p until the card is full.

David

Could you name a band that plays continuously for more than 5 minutes
please?

Just the other night I was at a concert at Davies Hall in SF, CA, and
'the band' played a Schubert piece far in excess of five minutes. But
they couldn't finish the symphony in any event.


Oh why did I expect the now famous and soon to be immortal John
McWilliams would come up with an answer!

On 2009-06-02 20:26:51 -0700, DMac said:

John McWilliams wrote:
DMac wrote:
David Kilpatrick wrote:
Marty Fremen wrote:

Try shooting at standard def. (720x480 or 640x480) with
either camera and then upsample it for comparison.

Not tried the 640 x 480 standard - it might actually be a very good
basic video standard for some uses. The Nikon is limited to 5 minute
clips, which is not enough for some concert/gig recording. For that, I
have a Kodak Zi6 pocket gizmo, and it's great for just being able to
film at 720p until the card is full.

David

Could you name a band that plays continuously for more than 5 minutes please?

Just the other night I was at a concert at Davies Hall in SF, CA, and
'the band' played a Schubert piece far in excess of five minutes. But
they couldn't finish the symphony in any event.


Oh why did I expect the now famous and soon to be immortal John
McWilliams would come up with an answer!

Well if you exclude the classics, there are several contemporary
groups/musicians who play continuously for more than 5 minutes, just
for starters I give you Phish, The Dave Matthews Band, Steely Dan, Bob
Dylan, Richard Thompson and quite a few more.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2009-06-02 20:26:51 -0700, DMac said:

John McWilliams wrote:
DMac wrote:
David Kilpatrick wrote:
Marty Fremen wrote:

Try shooting at standard def. (720x480 or 640x480) with
either camera and then upsample it for comparison.

Not tried the 640 x 480 standard - it might actually be a very good
basic video standard for some uses. The Nikon is limited to 5 minute
clips, which is not enough for some concert/gig recording. For that, I
have a Kodak Zi6 pocket gizmo, and it's great for just being able to
film at 720p until the card is full.

David

Could you name a band that plays continuously for more than 5 minutes please?

Just the other night I was at a concert at Davies Hall in SF, CA, and
'the band' played a Schubert piece far in excess of five minutes. But
they couldn't finish the symphony in any event.


Oh why did I expect the now famous and soon to be immortal John
McWilliams would come up with an answer!

....and here is a 10 or so minute piece by Phish
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWT6DB0oAjQ


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Marty Fremen wrote:
David Kilpatrick wrote:

The 24fps 720p of the Nikon appears, to me, to be providing more real
useful image detail than either the 720p 30fps or 1080p 20fps of the
Canon

Some compact cameras claiming to offer HD video have been determined in
reviews just to be upsampling standard def. video, it sounds like the Canon
is doing the same. Try shooting at standard def. (720x480 or 640x480) with
either camera and then upsample it for comparison. Mmy suspicion is the so-
called HD Canon images will have no more detail than the upsampled standard
def ones.

My suspicion is that people who buy SLRs to use as video cameras
aren't very smart.

--
Ray Fischer

Ray Fischer wrote:
Marty Fremen wrote:
David Kilpatrick wrote:

The 24fps 720p of the Nikon appears, to me, to be providing more real
useful image detail than either the 720p 30fps or 1080p 20fps of the
Canon
Some compact cameras claiming to offer HD video have been determined in
reviews just to be upsampling standard def. video, it sounds like the Canon
is doing the same. Try shooting at standard def. (720x480 or 640x480) with
either camera and then upsample it for comparison. Mmy suspicion is the so-
called HD Canon images will have no more detail than the upsampled standard
def ones.

My suspicion is that people who buy SLRs to use as video cameras
aren't very smart.


I found a whole new use for movie making with a DSLR that has my D90
running rings around the Pro level JVC video camera I also own... But
only up to a point! Probably these current models are just showing us
what we can expect in the future.

The real video camera's movies are excellent when played on a home
cinema screen. The DSLR movies are pretty good on a domestic plasma
screen. The difference is, unfortunately, quite noticeable at the larger
viewing sizes.

All these DSLRs squash the raw 1.5 Gbps HD data down to as little as 235
Mbps (for an SD card) in order to work. Kind of like JPEG compression
used in early digital P&S cameras.

The DSLR output looks fine until you compare it to that from a "real" HD
video camera that uses minimal compression. One day the RED camera (
http://www.red.com/cameras/ -- $27,000 for a body and one lens) that
doesn't compress it's data will become affordable but until then, I
believe there is a definite use for DSLR movie making. It sure as hell
isn't making movies for sale to TV stations or for big screen stuff.

Having said all that... I can hand hold a DSLR as a bride and groom
exchange rings or do the bridal waltz or cake cutting and blended the
clips into a DVD production. These clips produce a presentation some
people say is a viable replacement for a wedding video. I don't but they
add value to my product.

I could recommend using a DSLR movie camera with a 5 minute limitation
for producing promo videos for a band. The quality of a Promo is, after
all in the editing, not just how long the thing runs.

I haven't made one but from my experience I believe a good editor using
something like Proshow Producer or Adobe Premier (with some tinkering to
handle MOV files) could cobble together a 15 minute presentation of a
band using 5 minute clips and stills that would be more than just
passable. You couldn't however, expect to have it used by a TV station
for HD broadcasting. That's a whole different ball game.

On 03 Jun 2009 05:55:40 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

My suspicion is that people who buy SLRs to use as video cameras
aren't very smart.

I think that if you are taking pictures/video every day for a living
then you are right. But taking pictures and video is only a very
small part of what I do at the moment and I'm starting to wonder if it
would be a good idea to have one of these. In terms of cost/benefit
to me, I have the feeling it could be quite smart indeed.