Canon Rebel T1i vs. Nikon D5000

[texbrandt]

I am saving toward either a Canon Rebel T1i or a Nikon D5000. Beyond just upgrading from a point and shoot, I want the video capabilities. With a basic lens they are about the same price. I would be interested in any experiences any of you have had.

thanks
Robert
texbrandt.com

[gpsmikey]

I don't have any experience with either of those (still have my Nikon D70s), however, I have been looking. One thing to check out that may not thrill you is a feature that they seem to have with the new CMOS sensors that people are calling "jellocam" where instead of a fast shutter and then the sensor gets scanned, the sensor is scanned at 1/30th second so the top is 1/30th earlier than the bottom scan. This results in some strange video effects if there is any fast motion (moving objects, camera shake/vibration etc). I was looking at the Nikon D90, but I'm still in the snooping stage. Do a Google search on the "jellocam" - there are a number of clips out there that show the problem/feature in the video mode. I believe both the Canon and Nikon have the same issue from what I was reading.

mikey

[VernonRobinson]

My question is are you primarily going to use this as a still camera or a video camera? If a still camera, then I would worry less about the video feature and focus more on the thing that really costs -- lenses. Look at who has the best lense selection for what you are likely to do (macro work, portraiture, sports, etc). Camera bodies come and go but you are likely to keep your lenses for a long time. So choose based upon lenses instead of the body.

Second, if the video is a big component, then I would recommend that you get a video camera. The DSLR-Video camea do not hold a candle to a true Hi-Def camera like the Canon HV-40 and similar. Storage media is a concern. In order to fit the video, the camera has to do a lot of compression. Most common is AVCHD which will require a pretty processor intensive computer (Quad Core or I7) and the current editors struggle with the format.

Cool idea of combining video with the still, but would you use a video camera to take your still shots? The feature set is not nearly as robust as a DSLR. Right now, while inconvenient to have two devices, I think it is still the best overall solution. But if you are committed to this decision, then choose lenses as this is the main function of the still camera.

Regards,
-Vernon

[texan]

I agree with Vernon regarding the "combined" video/DSLR. I have the Nikon D90 which I love.............but I'm disappointed with the video performance........

A tripod is almost a must (For Video) because there's no video stabilization built in.......

There's also no auto focus for video AND no delay capability...........I'm glad I kept my video camera.......

Or wait until Sony bring their new SLR with video built in.
They will get it right, they have the best video cameras, and will not add a facility just to be first.

Ralph.

[Alan]

I'm with the Texan! I have the Nikon D90 which is a great camera. I upgraded from a D70. Have never used the video function. That's what video cameras are for. My video camera takes dreadful still photos. My cell phone takes awful video AND awful still photos. Vernon is right......lenses lenses.

Cheers
Alan
Downunder

[texbrandt]

Thanks for all the input, just the kind of discussion I needed. After re evaluating, it looks the best choice for me, and for what funds I will have will be one of the still only cameras. If I get a Canon or Nikon in the $500 to 600 dollar range I can an extra lens for the difference between one of those and the T1i or D5000.
Now if the house or car doesn't overhear me dreaming about a camera maybe I can get one before something breaks down or falls apart. For what we have had to spend on new appliances and home repair lately I could have a really nice camera with lots of lenses. oh well.

Robert