MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: upgrading camera & seeking advice. D90, D300s, or convert to 7D for video?  (Read 5140 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 04, 2010, 00:05 »
Hey everybody,  I am seriously considering a camera upgrade soon (i currently have a Nikon D50), partly to take advantage of the video features of these newer cameras.  I would like to focus on creating video for stock, in addition to my still submissions.  If you were in my position, with a Nikon and only a couple of lenses, would you upgrade to one of the Nikons or make the leap for 1080 on the 7D?  For those of you with any of these cameras, is the video output good enough for submission to the microstock agencies with video (ie iStock, ShutterStock, Pond5)?

I am seriously considering converting to the 7D, but am anxious to figure out if the additional price (for camera and a lens or two to start) is worth it.  Any thoughts would be very helpful.  Thanks in advance.


  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2010, 01:09 »
I had a D50 which is a great camera. Also a D80 and D300. Whether it's worth it or not is a decision entirely up to you and your wallet.

Switched to a 5DMII with no regrets. Love it. A 7D should be excellent also.

You know what will happen. You'll get a D90 and then shortly after you'll wish you got something higher end. Buy higher end and be done with it.

« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2010, 02:02 »
If you are on a strict budget, please read all the reviews on dpreview.com from A to Z and Z to A. For video, you will find out that the D90 isn't fit for stock quality.

« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2010, 02:58 »
thanks for the thoughts so far.  I think i am leaning toward the D300s or 7D over the D90, despite it's low price tag.  I definitely want something to keep around for awhile, and something that won't make me wish i had spent a few hundred extra bucks at the outset.  I've also been watching some good video from the Pentax K-7, which is also cheaper than the other two.  However its 3:2 aspect ratio at max resolution (video) would be irritating.


« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2010, 16:47 »
BCnewell... I am in a similar situation.  I decided to separate my video and still photography, using separate cameras.  I came pretty close to settling on a camera in the Canon Vixia series -- HV, HF, or HG.
Then, I looked into processing/editing the video.  You need some SERIOUS computing power to efficiently process video.  That was my show stopper.  I need to invest in a much more powerful computer before proceeding.

There are some really informative threads on this subject in the General Stock Forums for Video. 

« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2010, 19:19 »
...you will find out that the D90 isn't fit for stock quality.

I beg to differ.

Two things:

1. I get D90 footage accepted all the time at SS, Pond5, IS, AlwaysHD, Canstock, Fotolia, Clipdealer and Revostock. Never had a rejection because of the actual quality from the D90.

2. Don't get the D90 if you want to seriously do footage. Sounds confusing but I learned that any still camera (DSLR) is not fit for pure video shooting. You must have experienced that already on the D50 that panning or shifting focus/focal length is a real pain with a DSLR. Camera movements (mounted on car, in train etc.) will give you crazy effects with the rolling shutter as it is software driven.

Use a DSLR for stills and get a real video camera for footage. You'll have way more fun and you will get a lot better quality out of it.

« Reply #6 on: February 05, 2010, 01:57 »
Camera movements (mounted on car, in train etc.) will give you crazy effects with the rolling shutter as it is software driven
Yes I was hinting at the rolling shutter of the D90. I think it was the first in its kind, and the rolling shutter is very obvious if you look at the demo video om dpreview.com. It's a technology in fast progress and on my 5DMKII it's already much better.
That doesn't mean you can't use the D90 for stock video, but you will have to avoid traveling movements in the cam and fast sideways movements in the scene. For waterfalls and tranquil scenes it would be fine.

Since glass in the long term is the decisive cost in the photography hardware, the OP should first decide if he wants a full-frame or not. The D7 was a big disappointment for me since it wasn't full frame. I went over my budget to have the 5DII, just because it was FF and I could invest in a decent lens for FF(24-70/2.8).
« Last Edit: February 05, 2010, 02:03 by FD-amateur »


  • Roadrunner
« Reply #7 on: February 05, 2010, 14:03 »
I like to keep still and video separate.  Folks can do very well on short clips using the Canon D5 MII, but if you arre doing something more challenging like weddingws, productions or musicals a Canon HF, HV or HG will give you a little more diversity.  I am thinking about upgrading to a Panasonic HMC40.  Though I am just getting started on video I have been doing a lot of work for our church trcording their musicals and drama productions.  I also want to get something with a viewfinder - that can come in handy at times.

Just a thought; I realize the more intelligent people have better ideas.  I just like to keep things simple.  I simply use Magix ME Pro 15 Plus or QuickTime Pro to process my work.


« Reply #8 on: February 05, 2010, 14:12 »
Any thoughts on Nikons new P100 to be released in mid March...Anyone? It's Nikons first attempt with 1080P and long zoom coolpix.

« Reply #9 on: February 05, 2010, 20:06 »
Thanks for your thoughts everyone.  The discussion is helpful. I am fully aware of the limitations of using a DSLR for real video work.  I have extensive experience with Panasonic's HVX200 and DVX100 series camcorders, as well as some JVC and Sony HDV prosumer models, and I realize the rolling shutter will be an issue.  I am interested in the 7D/5DM2 or D300s for simple stock video purposes - because of their low price tags and decent video quality, and either would be a good upgrade to my D50 for still photos as well.

Also, I think it's inevitable that Nikon will jump into the 1080p market sometime fairly soon.  Maybe I should wait until that point to keep my limited lens collection relevant.

New question: do any of you who submit video see any buyer preference for 1080p over 720p?  Do you sell enough 1080p to justify the need to get a camera that shoots it, or would 720p be enough?

« Reply #10 on: February 05, 2010, 20:16 »
One more question?  do you find 30 or 24 frames/second (NTSC shooters, of course) video sells better?  I ask b/c the D300s only shoots 24p.

« Reply #11 on: February 05, 2010, 21:02 »
The P100 is suppose to record at 30 fps


« Reply #12 on: February 05, 2010, 21:56 »
30 frame per second please. Remember that low quality web cams use 15fps... bad<---30 / 30--->good   :)


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
57 Replies
Last post February 04, 2009, 01:46
by Xalanx
9 Replies
Last post December 14, 2012, 03:00
by traveler1116
7 Replies
Last post December 19, 2013, 20:14
by onepointfour
2 Replies
Last post August 09, 2014, 16:40
by etudiante_rapide
2 Replies
Last post January 19, 2017, 10:06
by jonbull


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle