New Lumix G5??? Or Barely Used Nikon D5100?

[LDX]

I want to get a cam to use mostly for video 

and with the chance to get custom lenses

for "someday" semipro video production.

 

So my sister in law wants to give me her Nikon D5100

almost at the same price of a new Lumix G5 (which is the one I wanted to get)

 

Any thoughts?

[Coombzy]

Nikon tend to know camera's more than most companies they are in the top 2  the top 2 are Canon and Nikon I would go for it.

[EricX2]

The Lumix does 1080p@60fps which can do some slight slow motion if you want to. It can also do 6fps burst, the Nikon only does 4. The Nikon has changeable lenses, which can cost money but you can get REALLY good quality with a better lens. The Lumix is stuck with what it has.

 

I have the D5200 which is very similar to the D5100, and the video quality is beautiful with the 35mm F1.8 lens.

Not the greatest video, but I think the colors are good, I like the focus. My guess is a D5100 with the same lens would look almost the same (or better if you were better at taking video).

 

 

 

My guess is I have not helped at all... :)

[LDX]

Nice video!!! 

I like that focus feature I have seen there is a preset to make things to look as if they were very tinny

is that the one?

 

I have noticed quite a diference on ISO capabilities...

but Lumix also has changeable lenses, and I have seen really interesting video samples with the lumix as well

and also has wifi and touchscreen for focus with a touch, I have heard great things about lumix autofoocus

but many reviewers put the Nikon D5100 over the Lumix GH2 which is even better than the G5...

So I am still confused...

 

Thanks for the info

[MissRiot0721]

You're better off with the D5100, you have a large selection of lense although video isn't the best under low light the quality is pretty decent, in the long run the Nikon will benefit more and last longer.

[LDX]

You're better off with the D5100, you have a large selection of lense although video isn't the best under low light the quality is pretty decent, in the long run the Nikon will benefit more and last longer

 

 

thanks!

[Alex Dimitri]

When it comes to cameras Nikon and Canon rule that world, others usually make nice looking toys......

[Blade of Grass]

When it comes to cameras Nikon and Canon rule that world, others usually make nice looking toys......

Pentax and Sony make great DSLRs too.

[Alex Dimitri]

Pentax and Sony make great DSLRs too.

Well depends what you use it for instance you will never see news reporter (sports and so) with Sony or Pentax, same goes with fashion fotographers (fancy ones use Hasselblad) ! 

The thing is like in PC world 1000$ CPU is usually better, you don`t really need it cause 350$ one is just slightly weaker but there will be always people who pay 1k$, in photo world that translates to 10 000$ Canon and 8000$ Nikon compared to 2000$ Sony and Pentax.

In terms of picture quality they are good but most people barelly can recognize flaws on photos to begin with.

I personally used Canon for number of years (nothing fancy, entry level but then i`m Graphic Designer).

Little known fact is for instance that Fuji (Fujifilm company) produces awesome "bridge" cameras that have photo quality of 7-8x more expensive DSLR`s, Fuji sells for 400$ camera with fixed lens (24 - 1000mm) now that kind of lense only costs 12000 - 15000 $ add camera itself and you got 20000$ comparison. Yes that combo will be better but 20K $ :P, and most "pro`s" will tell you that Fuji is toy (which is not true) but people will believe.....and the story goes on !