700D vs D3300

[GeekaWhat]

I was wondering, more from a video perspective what the best option is between the nikon d3300 and the cannon 700d. The swivel touchscreen is a huge selling point but the lower price of the d3300 definately draws me in. I'd love some recommendations.

 

Thanks,

James

[GeekaWhat]

I've heard Canon is generally better with video while Nikon excels in still images, but it may be an urban myth. I haven't done any testing myself.

 

If you are doing vlog-type videos, the swivel screen is huge advantage alone, making the 700D a better choice

 

Thats the thing with the swivel screen, its such a massive advantage, and its touchscreen, plus the EF mount lenses are cheaper 

 

But ultimately to the viewer it all comes down to video quality

[ALwin]

Thats the thing with the swivel screen, its such a massive advantage, and its touchscreen, plus the EF mount lenses are cheaper 

 

But ultimately to the viewer it all comes down to video quality

 

Video quality is going to be about the same, they both record maximum 1080p resolution (which is around 2MP) so the cameras will have to do some down sampling (scaling down) of their high megapixel sensors to that 1080p resolution.

 

Canon offers some advantages over Nikon for video:

• Canon seems to have more knowledge about video than Nikon (Nikon produces photo cameras, laboratory optical equipment, industrial lenses but they don't produce or sell camcorders or other commercial/consumer video recording devices aside from their photo cameras with video)
• Canon implements some features better than Nikon
• EF-mount is used in other video camera systems, and the flange distance is shorter so you can mount Nikon lenses using an adapter*
• Magic Lantern to add additional features

*When it comes to flange distance advantage, Sony E-Mount has one of the shortest meaning it is better compatible with more lenses using a mount adapter.

 

When using a camera which is designed primarily as a photo camera, don't take into consideration the autofocus and image stabilization systems.  Their systems are designed to be optimized for photography where the image captured is of a single moment in time.  When focusing and stabilizing the image for a continuous video, the system has to be optimized differently.

 

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't buy a NIkon for video.  If this is going to be a one time purchase, and you're not going to get too deep into producing videos, independent movies, etc. a Nikon is fine.  However if this is just to start you out and you plan to gear up as time goes on, buying follow focus systems, gimbals, field monitors, field recorders, etc. I recommend avoiding Nikon.  Better to go Canon, Sony, Panasonic or another brand.

 

Nikon cameras with video are OK for a person who wants to use it occasionally for stuff like v-logging or quickly recording something interesting while on holiday**, but not for serious video production.

 

**And even here, someone who wants to take videos on holiday will be better served with a camcorder than a photo camera with video.

[GeekaWhat]

Video quality is going to be about the same, they both record maximum 1080p resolution (which is around 2MP) so the cameras will have to do some down sampling (scaling down) of their high megapixel sensors to that 1080p resolution.

 

Canon offers some advantages over Nikon for video:

• Canon seems to have more knowledge about video than Nikon (Nikon produces photo cameras, laboratory optical equipment, industrial lenses but they don't produce or sell camcorders or other commercial/consumer video recording devices aside from their photo cameras with video)
• Canon implements some features better than Nikon
• EF-mount is used in other video camera systems, and the flange distance is shorter so you can mount Nikon lenses using an adapter*
• Magic Lantern to add additional features

*When it comes to flange distance advantage, Sony E-Mount has one of the shortest meaning it is better compatible with more lenses using a mount adapter.

 

When using a camera which is designed primarily as a photo camera, don't take into consideration the autofocus and image stabilization systems.  Their systems are designed to be optimized for photography where the image captured is of a single moment in time.  When focusing and stabilizing the image for a continuous video, the system has to be optimized differently.

 

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't buy a NIkon for video.  If this is going to be a one time purchase, and you're not going to get too deep into producing videos, independent movies, etc. a Nikon is fine.  However if this is just to start you out and you plan to gear up as time goes on, buying follow focus systems, gimbals, field monitors, field recorders, etc. I recommend avoiding Nikon.  Better to go Canon, Sony, Panasonic or another brand.

 

Nikon cameras with video are OK for a person who wants to use it occasionally for stuff like v-logging or quickly recording something interesting while on holiday**, but not for serious video production.

 

**And even here, someone who wants to take videos on holiday will be better served with a camcorder than a photo camera with video.

 

You sir are an absolute LEGEND. You answered all my concerns and will definitely go for the 700D. It's more of a starting purchase into videography and being, as you educated me of, within the canon eco system is definitely gonna be a big plus for me later on down the line. I'm just getting into filmmaking and video production and needed an upgrade from my phone. One last question: You mentioned the downscaling to the 1080p (approx 2MP resolution) from the lartger sensor sizes - does this resort in 'better' 1080p footage?

[ALwin]

 does this resort in 'better' 1080p footage?

 

The quality can depend, there is no sure way to say.  Canon has been rather consistent with quality than Nikon.  The only way to be certain is to look for online recorded video samples or reviews by professionals like Philip Bloom to tell you about the image quality of the video, not image quality of a photo.

 

This is one of the reasons I decided to invest in a expensive video camera, so that I wouldn't have to deal with inconsistencies and uncertainties anymore.

[GeekaWhat]

The quality can depend, there is no sure way to say.  Canon has been rather consistent with quality than Nikon.  The only way to be certain is to look for online recorded video samples or reviews by professionals like Philip Bloom to tell you about the image quality of the video, not image quality of a photo.

 

This is one of the reasons I decided to invest in a expensive video camera, so that I wouldn't have to deal with inconsistencies and uncertainties anymore.

 

Ah I see, thank you very much, I will hopefully upgrade to a high e nd video camera at some point but I want to build it up slowly and start within my means

 

Thanks,

James

[.spider.]

You mentioned the downscaling to the 1080p (approx 2MP resolution) from the lartger sensor sizes - does this resort in 'better' 1080p footage?

It uses line skipping for downsampling so there are only disadvantages by downsampling.

I'd also buy the D3300 which has a much better sensor and slightly better video quality.

[bob345]

Out of the box, the nikon will look better for video, but withe the canon you have the option of installing the magic lantern software which gives you a ton more features over what is possible with the nikon.

[TechStyle]

The Canon is better geared towards videography than the Nikon and there's a wonderful amount of cheap lenses both 1st party and 3rd party as well.