# I chalenge you..



## Markw (Jul 17, 2012)

Find me a video sample taken with the D3200 that actually looks good.  I've been all over the interweb looking for something out there that looks good from the D3200 in the video realm, and I can't find it. 

I purchased a D3100 to convert to infrared, mainly because it offered video, and cost less than another D800.  Not to mention the step up in ISO performance and DR from the D60 I was working with.  Now the D3200 is out, and i have yet to convert my D3100.  If the D3200 can produce good enough video to warrant a conversion, and the selling off of my D3100, I would gladly do so.  But, each of the videos on here look worse than those from the D3100!  Manual controls are a blessing, but if ISO performance is terrible, it means nothing.

I just don't know what to decide to do here.

Thanks for your help!
Mark


----------



## JoshuaSimPhotography (Jul 18, 2012)

I just don't think that the video is good enough. I looked for some vids, they were really neat views but the autofocus was laggy and the frames were jut to slow, quite a lot of blur. I don't get camera depending on their video. It's a pretty good cam so don't let the video put you of


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 18, 2012)

I agree 100% with Josh. The day photographers start buying dSLR's because of their video capabilities is the day we all need to put down our cameras. As for the slow frame rate, that is completely irrelevant. Cinematic movies that cost millions of dollars, shot with equipment that cost as much as a porsche are shot at 24 frames per second.


----------



## sm4him (Jul 18, 2012)

Mark's been around the photography block a time or two already, folks--I think he KNOWS not to be a DSLR strictly for its video ability, under normal circumstances. That's not what he's talking about.  He's already GOT a DSLR that will blow the lens blades off the D3200--he's just interested in whether it's worth getting the D3200 to convert to an infrared instead of converting the D3100 he already has.

Mark: I've never used either. Heck, I just used the video on my D5100 for the very first time two days ago, and I've had it for almost a year now.

Is there somewhere you could get your hands on the D3200 locally to test it out? Or somewhere you could rent one from for a week? Because if I were, and wanted it for such a specific use, I wouldn't really want to rely on others' results. It may just be that the kind of people who are buying the D3200 tend to be the kind of people who don't know how to take video.


----------



## sleist (Jul 18, 2012)

I'm a little new to IR.  In fact I just started researching it to determine what cameras are best suited for conversion.
I get the impression in my research so far that newer sensors are much worse candidates for IR conversion due to the better quality IR filters in these sensors.  It can be done, but the exposure times are far longer in say my D90 as opposed to a D50 to get suitable IR exposures.  If your're shooting landscapes, this will get you much more motion blur from leaf movement etc.

I just noticed that Thom Hogan list the G11 "in his bag" converted for IR.  The G11 or G12 are cheaper than the D3200 and also do video if that's important.
Of course, if you're looking to do IR video in Nikon DSLR body, then you are stuck with a newer sensor and it's potential IR conversion issues.

Like I said, new to IR so anyone set me straight if I have any of this wrong.


----------



## Ernicus (Jul 18, 2012)

I have the 3100, it's a great camera, not a great video recorder.  I'm pretty sure they put the video feature in there just to say it has it for selling purposes.  Remember it's an entry level dSLR to start, so don't expect much in the way of video.


----------



## Markw (Jul 18, 2012)

JoshuaSimPhotography said:


> I just don't think that the video is good enough. I looked for some vids, they were really neat views but the autofocus was laggy and the frames were jut to slow, quite a lot of blur. I don't get camera depending on their video. It's a pretty good cam so don't let the video put you of



I would NEVER use AF in a video I cared about.  That is of absolutely no concern to me.  I don't need the camera for a beautiful camera.  I was doing just fine with my IRD60.  I know the optical qualities of the camera as a camera.  This or the D3200 are both perfectly fine for my IR needs.  It's not my main use camera, so it doesn't need all the bells and whistles of my *D800*.  I just need a camera capable of producing great photos with my pro-grade glass.  Either of these will do a fine job.

The frame rate is 100% dependent on what setting you choose.  Most likely, the people making the videos are not setting the camera to Manual and changing the actual exposure and shutter speed in the camera, just focusing on the frame rate of the video.  This will lead to some really nasty video.



AaronLLockhart said:


> I agree 100% with Josh. The day photographers start buying dSLR's because of their video capabilities is the day we all need to put down our cameras. As for the slow frame rate, that is completely irrelevant. Cinematic movies that cost millions of dollars, shot with equipment that cost as much as a porsche are shot at 24 frames per second.



Please note the comment above.  I'm not specifically buying the camera for only taking video.  I need an upgraded infrared camera.  But, I know both camera's capabilities when it comes to photos.  I have a production I'd like to make with my D800.  But, I'm going to need an IR camera that can shoot good video, trying to match my D800 as much as possible.



sm4him said:


> Mark's been around the photography block a time or two already, folks--I think he KNOWS not to be a DSLR strictly for its video ability, under normal circumstances. That's not what he's talking about.  He's already GOT a DSLR that will blow the lens blades off the D3200--he's just interested in whether it's worth getting the D3200 to convert to an infrared instead of converting the D3100 he already has.
> 
> Mark: I've never used either. Heck, I just used the video on my D5100 for the very first time two days ago, and I've had it for almost a year now.
> 
> Is there somewhere you could get your hands on the D3200 locally to test it out? Or somewhere you could rent one from for a week? Because if I were, and wanted it for such a specific use, I wouldn't really want to rely on others' results. It may just be that the kind of people who are buying the D3200 tend to be the kind of people who don't know how to take video.



Thanks for that!  Yeah, like I said above, I know what I'm getting into as far as photos go.  Either and both are perfectly good for my photo IR needs.  Both, in good hands, can produce great photos.  Shoot, I was using a D60 before.  Surely either of these would work at very least as good as that.  I may just have to run around and try one for myself, like you said.



sleist said:


> I'm a little new to IR.  In fact I just started researching it to determine what cameras are best suited for conversion.
> I get the impression in my research so far that newer sensors are much worse candidates for IR conversion due to the better quality IR filters in these sensors.  It can be done, but the exposure times are far longer in say my D90 as opposed to a D50 to get suitable IR exposures.  If your're shooting landscapes, this will get you much more motion blur from leaf movement etc.
> 
> I just noticed that Thom Hogan list the G11 "in his bag" converted for IR.  The G11 or G12 are cheaper than the D3200 and also do video if that's important.
> ...



None of this has anything to do with getting the camera converted for IR-only use.  When you convert a camera for IR-only use, the company will remove the IR-cut filter and replace it with a different filter for the specific nanometer cut-off limit of your choice.  You will still be able to see out of the viewfinder, you will still get the same exposure times as with a regular camera (some of the higher nanometer cutoffs, 830nm and above, lose about 1/3 stop). I've went the IR filter-route before, and there is NO WAY I'd go back.  The exposure times were 20-30 seconds in broad daylight with my D300s.  With my converted D60, everything was just as it was with my normal cameras.

Thanks everyone!
Mark


----------



## Derrel (Jul 18, 2012)

The D3200 looks pretty attractive to me based upon its high MP count (24 megapixels) sensor and its $699 retail price and the F-mount. What kills it for me though is the awful pentamirror viewfinder it is saddled with...yeech!


----------



## Raian-san (Jul 18, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> I agree 100% with Josh. The day photographers start buying dSLR's because of their video capabilities is the day we all need to put down our cameras. As for the slow frame rate, that is completely irrelevant. Cinematic movies that cost millions of dollars, shot with equipment that cost as much as a porsche are shot at 24 frames per second.



Some of today's music Video, most indies movies, some TV shows, and most of the top wedding cinematographers use DSLR video, and you can shoot 1080p at 24 frames per second. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Why wouldn't you want best of both world? Photo and video in one camera, and save money to buy other gears.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 18, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> What kills it for me though is the awful pentamirror viewfinder it is saddled with...yeech!



Did you expect a pentaprism on an entry level camera? I'm not under the impression that manufacturers would justify a pentaprism in an entry level/consumer dslr.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 18, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wouldn't expect an entry-level camera to have a 24 MP sensor either...and yet..it has a sensor that has a higher megapixel count than a $7995 Canon EOS 1-series d-slr or a $3,499 Canon EOS 5D-III... I was making an observation about something called an "incongruity". Perhaps you've heard of that?

*" Incongruity."*


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 18, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> I wouldn't expect an entry-lvele camera to have a 24 MP sensor either...and yet..it has a sensor that has a higher megapixel count than anything Canon has ever made, at any price... I was making an observation about something called an "incongruity". Perhaps you've heard of that?



With the advances in tech, I would expect a higher MP count to be less costly than an upgraded viewfinder. No need to get snarky about it. I am just trying to have a conversation here.


----------



## JoshuaSimPhotography (Jul 19, 2012)

Sorry if i offended you mark, I know that you aren&#8217;t a noob. I was just saying that the cam has a terrible video and it is impossible to find a good video that was taken with it. Im pretty sure it has the same video format as he D3100 though


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jul 19, 2012)

It aint about the pixel COUNT its about the pixel SIZE.


----------



## Markw (Jul 19, 2012)

JoshuaSimPhotography said:


> Sorry if i offended you mark, I know that you aren&#8217;t a noob. I was just saying that the cam has a terrible video and it is impossible to find a good video that was taken with it. Im pretty sure it has the same video format as he D3100 though



No worries there.

But, it's got the same processor as the D800.  I can only assume that video would be processed in the same manner as it is in the D800.  And, my D800 has incredible video.  I can't help but to keep thinking that most of the people with the D3200 simply don't know what they're doing enough to use it properly for video.  I hope I'm right..

Mark


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 22, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> The D3200 looks pretty attractive to me based upon its high MP count (24 megapixels) sensor and its $699 retail price and the F-mount. What kills it for me though is the awful pentamirror viewfinder it is saddled with...yeech!



These are good points, but pixel count and viewfinder don't madder for video... Although I would love the ability to look through the viewfinder on my T3i while filming.

-Ken Turner


----------



## Markw (Jul 22, 2012)

Viewfinder matters for photos.  And this will primarily be my infrared camera.  So, it still matters to me.  It's just a hit that I can take here.  MP count also does count for video, though.  Higher MP=finer resolution, finer grain, and sharper detail potential (should you have the lenses to take advantage of it).  

Mark


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 23, 2012)

Markw said:
			
		

> Viewfinder matters for photos.  And this will primarily be my infrared camera.  So, it still matters to me.  It's just a hit that I can take here.  MP count also does count for video, though.  Higher MP=finer resolution, finer grain, and sharper detail potential (should you have the lenses to take advantage of it).
> 
> Mark



Sorry, I was only talking about the video perspective of the camera...

-Ken Turner


----------



## rexbobcat (Jul 23, 2012)

Don't Nikon DSLRs use a pretty bad method of compression as well? I don't know what container their files come in, but I heard that it's "inferior" in terms of quality to what other brands use...


----------



## Markw (Jul 24, 2012)

My D300s produced .AVIs.  My D800 produces .MOV files.  But, the beauty about the D800 is its clean HDMI out.  The footage from the camera itself looks incredible to me (I'm making a film with mine as we speak), and is only better when using the HDMI out.  Personally, I've never used a Canon for video, but the files from my D800 looks as good as any Canon footage I've seen.

Mark


----------

