I need to decide what camera to get to be used for stills and video

<p>Hello,<br /> Sorry, but I am really stuck with this one. I need to buy a DSLR for photography (to replace my D700), however, it should also have a decent video capability. Unfortunately - I know little about video, except that Canon is somewhat regarded as a better choice than Nikon. The problem here is that I have an array of Nikon gear, so switching brands would be a fairly painful option for me. So, basically I am considering either a d610 or d800. As a photographer I prefer the d610 variant (first due to file size, second - because I see the 36mp camera as a tool to be used mostly with tripod, while I mostly work handheld or with monopod (I photograph theatre)). Anyway - no problem of choice from the photographic perspective. Meanwhile , some of the theatre companies I work with asked if I could also do short video clips for them in the future, that is why I am asking for your advice. Do these two models from Nikon have any significant differences in the video department? The videos would mostly be used for youtube and the like, however it is possible that some of the footage would also be used as part of the future tv promos of the companies. Is Nikon really that way behind Canon in terms of video? <br /> Thank you very much in advance for your ideas and comments.</p>

<p>I cannot claim to be an expert, but my research has shown both those cameras used quite a bit for video. In fact David Hobby ( the strobist) recently invested in 2 D600's purely for video work.<br>

The trick is to learn how to use them effectively. Decent support, off board sound, and recording to an external device like a Atomos Blade or Ninja will make the difference.</p>

Oh, and I think I need to mention that 90% of the videos

will be done in low light (most of my photography falls into

the iso 1600-3200 range)

<p>Thanks, Wayne. I have read somewhere, that Nikon was using some kind of inferior codec for video, but I hope this has changed in the current top camera line-up. Regarding the sound - I believe both cameras have the ext.microphone jack.<br>

And sure, I am seeing quite a bit of learning and practice ahead. The main point at this stage is to make the right decision about gear. </p>

<p>Everybody loves to debate Nikon vs Canon but IMHO there's not enough of a difference between the two to justify switching lenses and other gear, regardless of whether we're talking stills or video. Especially if your end product is primarily YouTube videos.<br /><br />Having shot both professional stills and professional video, I highly recommend that you buy a video camera if you want to shoot video. Lots of people seem to love shooting video with a DSLR but if you're ever shot with a real video camera you'll realize that a DSLR is not the ideal video camera. By the time you've bought "cages" for mounting accessories, gone with outboard audio, etc. etc. you could easily have bought a good HD video camera. Not a broadcast camera maybe, but certainly something in the "prosumer" range (which someTV stations are even starting to shoot with). Sony, Panasonic and JVC all have very good cameras from around $2,000 a up.<br /><br />As for shooting in low light, you're going to need lights. Video "likes" light. Just as with still photography, the secret of a good image is in the lighting and makes the difference between a photography/videographer and a person with a camera.<br>

Most of all, keep in mind that shooting video very, very different than shooting stills. A video clip is merely a building block. a piece of the puzzle, not a finished product unto itself. A good still photographer going into video has a leg up on someone with no photo/video experience, but there's lots to learn. Which camera to buy is important, but is only the first of many issues to address.</p>

<p>Craig, thanks for your comment.<br /> I think I should have given more information. There is an older prosumer grade HD video camera, which I have access to - a Sony HDR-FX1E. I plan on learning to use that one as well, and I agree with you that it is way better in terms of handling and output than a DSLR. <br /> However, I need a DSLR for my daily photographic work and it should be able to produce quick short video clips of decent quality. In other words - I need a tool that could be quickly switched between photo/video modes, so that after a performance I have a collection of photos plus several short video clips. If I needed video only, I'd most likely use the abovementioned Sony camera. <br /> Regarding the light - I work for the theatre, so all I have is the available stage lighting, which might be fairly minimal, not to mention the mix of different light sources. There's not too much I can do about it - I need to work with what's available. And the camera should be able to handle that as well.<br /> "photographer/videographer vs the person with the camera" - that's a good one and I perfectly realise what you are saying. There is even a good joke about the current state of affairs in photography (after the rise of digital): "I have bought a smart DSLR - hence, I am a photographer now. Later on I bought a nice gold plated flute - well, I now have a flute" :)<br /> and you are absolutely right that video is different from still photography. Time will tell if I can handle both tasks equally well - but I am prepared to learn and try. And I am lucky enough to know several professional videographers who are willing to sacrifice their time and help.</p>