Nikon 3100... anyone?

[robbcayman]

I did a search and didn't come up with anything. I've seen a Canon G 12 package that I like, however, it only shoots 720 in video mode. Whereas, the Nikon shoots 1080 and I thought it might make a good bit of difference. Is the Nikon worth the price jump over the Canon? Any thoughts?Thanks.

 

[Chuck Tribolet]

P3100 or D3100?

 

[robbcayman]

Sorry, I didn't know there were 2 models. I am looking at the D3100. Any thoughts?

 

[slowhands]

There is no comparison between them, I mean they are in such different price points and performance realms. The G12 in a Canon case with strobe will cost say $1000, but a D3100 system will cost probably $5000. I'm sure you know that, but to me they are hard to compare.

If you want good video, neither of them, in fact no still camera, does as well as a dedicated video camera. But for that you need a very different lighting setup, and editing the video is a huge chore. So decide what mix of still and video you like, before you leap.

If your primary interest is still photos with an occasional video, I'd just live with what you have until 1080 is more common in that class of camera. I think Panasonic and Sony still cameras do a better job than Canon right now. Panasonic and Sony seem to bring their camcorder technology to the still cameras sooner. But I have not seen anything to rival a true video cam yet.

If you do want to go to the D3100, good for you. I think it offers a lot of bang for the buck. It's the number one seller among DSLR cameras at Amazon right now, so people seem to agree. It does do 1920 by 1180 at 24fps into .mov format, not much compression, so run time is limited compared to a camera that does AVCHD. Those brief videos would be impressive on youtube, but not for a full length movie.

Why not ask some questions in the video forum too??

 

[robbcayman]

There is no comparison between them, I mean they are in such different price points and performance realms. The G12 in a Canon case with strobe will cost say $1000, but a D3100 system will cost probably $5000. I'm sure you know that, but to me they are hard to compare.

If you want good video, neither of them, in fact no still camera, does as well as a dedicated video camera. But for that you need a very different lighting setup, and editing the video is a huge chore. So decide what mix of still and video you like, before you leap.

If your primary interest is still photos with an occasional video, I'd just live with what you have until 1080 is more common in that class of camera. I think Panasonic and Sony still cameras do a better job than Canon right now. Panasonic and Sony seem to bring their camcorder technology to the still cameras sooner. But I have not seen anything to rival a true video cam yet.

If you do want to go to the D3100, good for you. I think it offers a lot of bang for the buck. It's the number one seller among DSLR cameras at Amazon right now, so people seem to agree. It does do 1920 by 1180 at 24fps into .mov format, not much compression, so run time is limited compared to a camera that does AVCHD. Those brief videos would be impressive on youtube, but not for a full length movie.

Why not ask some questions in the video forum too??

I read that you can run videos for up to 10 minutes on the 3100 and I wasn't sure that was true. I found a Canon G12 package for around $1,500. The nikon camera is about $650 and the ikelite housing is around $1,400. Plus, whatever the cost of a strobe system, lens, charger etc. I was thinking it would cost more around $2,500 to $3,000 range. If that were the case, do you think it would be worth twice the price of the G12 package? My fear is buying too cheap and then regretting it.

I'm just really wanting to take good stills with the occassional 5 minute video clip. I think it would get boring to just run video constantly. I was hoping this would be the best of both worlds. I've seen several videos done in 720 from the G12 that looked really solid on youtube. Thanks for your post!!

 

[ozzydamo]

I read that you can run videos for up to 10 minutes on the 3100 and I wasn't sure that was true. I found a Canon G12 package for around $1,500. The nikon camera is about $650 and the ikelite housing is around $1,400. Plus, whatever the cost of a strobe system, lens, charger etc. I was thinking it would cost more around $2,500 to $3,000 range. If that were the case, do you think it would be worth twice the price of the G12 package? My fear is buying too cheap and then regretting it.

I'm just really wanting to take good stills with the occassional 5 minute video clip. I think it would get boring to just run video constantly. I was hoping this would be the best of both worlds. I've seen several videos done in 720 from the G12 that looked really solid on youtube. Thanks for your post!!

The ikelite housing for the d7000 is about the same price as for the d3100.
I got a d7000 for $1008 and it a so much better camera then the d3100.
But housings are everything, it's one thing to have a fast auto focusing camera to fire off a quick shot on a passing whale shark, but if you have poor control access, whats the money worth when you blow your chance? stretching your fingers.
Save and wait till you have the $5000 and get a full blown dslr setup in a quality housing like the aquatica!
Remember after xmas the prices will go down.

 

[Mark Derail]

I'll be doing Aquatica + Nikon D90. 1080p is not the best for video recording, because of the low frame rate - usually limited by the media cards - write speeds are too slow.

(That 10 minute thing is sometimes the buffer limit between internal memory and external memory)

720p @ 30 fps looks better than 1080p @ 24 fps, and getting 60 fps is even better. Remember, most HDTV's are 60hz or 120hz, thus capable of 60 fps.
So look at that - dedicated video cameras have frame rates going for them - as SDC cards are not used, but a hard disk.

If you're willing to spend that much for 1080p for video - get the proper camera - and lighting.

 

[Chuck Tribolet]

The D3100 requires lenses with an internal motor to AF. The D90 will also function with older pin-drive AF lenses. Most notably, this eliminates the Tokina 10-17 and Nikon 10.5 on the D3100.

A little history: The D40 begat the D40x (or was it D40S) which begat the D60 which begat the D3000 which begat the D3100. My GF shoots a D40 and D60 in an Aquatica Housing and has won photo contests. So don't knock the D3100.

 

[elan]

The camera is not the most expensive item in the complex camera housing lense strobes. It makes no sense to go with entry level dslr. Just get D7000 its a camera 2 classes higher and not that much more expensive. If you fork few grand on a set it makes no sense to save a few hundreds on the body sacrifizing the performance. 10.5 lens will cost almost as much as your D3100 body

 

[robbcayman]

Wow, a lot of great info. I never thought about 1080 being inferior to 720 due to write speeds etc. I am confused as to why some think ikelite isn't top quality. Is aquatica that much better than ikelite? Hmm... I don't know if I want to drop $5k on a setup. The Canon G12 running 720 video clips with solid pics for $1,500 is looking more and more appealing.