What do you guys think of the Nikon D3200?

What do you guys think of the Nikon D3200?

Are you trying to make movies with it? It doesn't have very good video capabilities.

You need to go to /p/. There are video making threads there.

Is it bad?

Nikon is usually a photography brand, not so much a film brand

Problem is their lenses. Nothing beats L series Canon

I used it to take pictures of my wife and her boyfriend

This guy is talking about an entry level consumer camera. He is not going to be buying thousand-dollar lenses.

you can get a 5d mk 2 body for like 1500 and a 24/70 for 1700 and you would only need to upgrade the body in like 4 years

You can shoot films with DSLRs but nothing involving any impressive movement cause the focus is impossible to control conviniently.

>Canon lenses better than Nikon

wat

>Cred Forums - Television & Film
not "Television & SD Cards" fucking fag.

This. It is almost impossible to do manuel focus on it

baby baby baby baby baby baby baby baby baby baby baby baby baby baby- Digital SLR! -baby baby baby baby baby baby baby

You sound like those autistic faggots from Cred Forums that sperg and say HURR VIDEO GAMES

>t. pleb

Not gonna prove it but ive worked with top photographers and they all prefer canon glass

Go buy a Canon 80D if you want to make a movie with a DSLR. Mid grade camera that makes some decent video. Also going to need a Cine Lens so it doesn't look like a home movie/facebook video.

Get a GH4 if you're gonna do film on a DSLR

It's a good camera.

Whatever you record you'll have to use it for the entire thing and not another camera because it'll be impossible to match it.

how do you know so much about Cred Forums?

also:

Don't buy it unless you want to do photography. If videography is what you desire go for c100 or something

That's great for doing photography. Not great for film

It gets the job done with photography, but it doesn't work that well with video. I recommend going to for questions like these.

>"I'm not going to prove it but you're a pleb"

Cred Forums, everyone.

this

>being a digicuck

as expected from a Cred Forums pleb.

me? i prefer film stock, thank you.

>film

>me? i prefer film stock, thank you.

it is absolute shit. I use my girlfriend's d3100 to film stuff until I get a camera and it is one of the worst camera I have ever seen.
>absolute shit-tier button placement
>shit quality
>live view is a complete joke
>no actual MANUAL mode

I'm not even joking on the last one, you literally do not have manual mode on the camera when it comes to video.
No control over ISO. none. you can't set an ISO, all you can do is set up some bullshit keylock or w/e it's called where you limit the minimum and maximum ISO, which is nikon's way of saying fuck you, you don't know shit about ISO we'll handle it for you. This translates to ZERO control over lighting.

You cannot see aperture and shutter speed changes in live view which is absolutely ridiculous.

Only reedeming quality is that it shoots RAW in 1080p but that's it. Low AF mega pixels too.

you're better off just buying a canon 100d if you want a cheap camera but decent enough to make short films and shit (unless you want 1080p 60/50fps which you can't get, only 720p)

tl;dr it's shit. nikon is shit. buy a canon 100d

Do you even have any idea how much an 11 minute roll of 35 mm film costs?

It's about $900.

Development and replication cost is extra.

I wanna go travelling with a good camera but i have a fear some nigger will rob me for it.

Nikon DSLR's are alright for shooting HD video. It's not perfect but with nikkor lenses + better moire/aliasing than canon, and 24p video I don't understand why Nikons get so much hate. Also with custom firmware you get full manual controls during video shooting, higher bitrates (up to 54mbps).

L Glass is good, but so are Nikkor.

5D2 is not such a good choice anymore. If you're going to spend that much you might as well get something considerably better like a GH4 or an A7S.

Why would you want to use auto focus when shooting narrative film? Learn to pull focus or shoot stopped down.

I lol'd.

/p/ is a pretty shit place though tbqh familia, full of gear fags and masturbators who don't actually shoot anything.

Film stock is incredibly expensive. Unless you really know what you're doing it is best to avoid film entirely.

>caring about MP for video
Lol. The D3200 doesn't even shoot RAW video by the way.

>suggesting a camera with terrible moire/aliasing and that doesn't even do ML properly
Lol.

Get insurance.

fucking fucking fucking fucking

This board is for memes only

I suggested him a cheap camera that is a million times better than the bullshit nikon d3200 you detail oriented pleb.
the d3100 shoots RAW btw so I assumed the d3200 does too.

Shooting RAW, of course all DSLRs shoot RAW. They don't SHOOT RAW VIDEO. That's the difference you detail ignoring pleb.

It's also ill advised to get a full frame camera for someone who is just starting out because of how much more expensive full frame glass is. Besides DSLRs are dead, he should really be looking into getting mirrorless which are much better cameras for video work.

You guys sound like a bunch of dickheads

come back to this board when you are over the age of 18

>gets schooled
>no u are underage!!!

Come back when you know what you are talking about.

Buy an FS7 fampai

You are a complete and utter faggot if you believe you """"schooled"""" anyone. You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about so I stopped trying to reason with you. Try shilling your bullshit opinions to your mom who might think you're smart for using buzzwords.
Meanwhile, op asked if the nikon d3200 is a good camera, and considering this is a fucking film board I assume he wants to film shit with it, to which I can personally confirm that it is shit and offered him a good cheap alternative, while you just sperg out about muh mirrorless is the future le dslr is le dead anyway xDd you fucking faggot.
Have you even filmed anything in your life to know what you're talking about before pretending to """school""" someone by spouting memes?

Shooting movies on DSLR's is so five years ago.

So what's a beginner camera then?

DSLR. Don't listen to that faggot. DSLR is the perfect place to start filming short films and to understand basic knowledge in film. Besides lighting is the key thing to make or break a film and if you have great lighting with a DSLR than you'll be fine

a non-SLR like the GH4 or C300 probably

What advantages does Nikon even hold on video?
There's no Magic Lantern that is what makes Canon good for video.

Good question, but I don't know the answer. I work with a blackmagic. If I had to downgrade, I'd sooner work with a video camera than a DSLR, in spite of the lesser picture quality. But that's just me. I don't know what's available.

If you read my posts and didn't act out of some juvenile rage, you'd notice that I actually said the d3200 is perfectly alright.
It's not shit, you don't know what shit really is because you probably have never shot anything in your life.
It shoots 24p HD video, good enough. Unless you want to get into the technicalities of it then it really should suffice. The 100d isn't an objective improvement over the d3200, if that's what you are suggesting.

You don't know what you are talking about because you equated RAW images with RAW VIDEO. I honestly don't know how anyone could make such a foolish mistake unless they literally knew nothing about shooting video or photography for that matter. You should read up on video compression and how the video your camera takes is NOT RAW (unless you shoot ML but that's a different story).

DSLRs are dead for a number of reasons, but it is obvious that you are also not very aware of the scene that surrounds independent filmmaking. Everything is moving mirrorless now. Better rolling shutter, better aliasing, adaptable lenses, and so on. If he wanted something better for his money than a d3200 he would look into getting an a6000, or even a GH2/GH1 (which are dirt cheap right now and perform remarkably well for this day despite being very old).

You literally didn't counter anything I said, and are pretty much just insulting me. YOU are being very childish.

Kind regards, I await your reply.

If you read my posts and didn't act out of some juvenile rage, you'd notice that I actually said the d3200 is perfectly alright.
It's not shit, you don't know what shit really is because you probably have never shot anything in your life.
It shoots 24p HD video, good enough. Unless you want to get into the technicalities of it then it really should suffice. The 100d isn't an objective improvement over the d3200, if that's what you are suggesting.

You don't know what you are talking about because you equated RAW images with RAW VIDEO. I honestly don't know how anyone could make such a foolish mistake unless they literally knew nothing about shooting video or photography for that matter. You should read up on video compression and how the video your camera takes is NOT RAW (unless you shoot ML but that's a different story).

DSLRs are dead for a number of reasons, but it is obvious that you are also not very aware of the scene that surrounds independent filmmaking. Everything is moving mirrorless now. Better rolling shutter, better aliasing, adaptable lenses, and so on. If he wanted something better for his money than a d3200 he would look into getting an a6000, or even a GH2/GH1 (which are dirt cheap right now and perform remarkably well for this day despite being very old).

You literally didn't counter anything I said, and are pretty much just insulting me. YOU are being very childish.

Kind regards, I await your reply.

Magic Lantern is a workaround because Canon wasn't providing good enough video capabilities. Cameras made for video are better suited if you're going to be making movies.

Nikon haven't really got into the 4K game yet so they aren't worth it.

mate I'm not looking for an argument with you desu since I just want to help op. I'm not even mad at you, I'm mad at how garbage the nikon camera I'm stuck with now is.
I did film quite a lot of stuff including music videos, 3 short films, advertisements and other random stuff.
In terms of low end gear I worked with canon 600d, 700d, and I got a change to see my friend's 100d (which is 90% similar to the 700d except for minor shit and the non-movable screen) and they are all OBJECTIVELY better than the nikon d3100 I work with now.
The most important thing here is no manual ISO control, which is far more important than the memes you're talking about. Good lighting makes or breaks a film and adds so much to it not looking like complete amateur shit. Also proper shutter speed when shooting 24fps and proper aperture for control over depth of field and the amount of light getting in.

On the nikon you literally cannot see the changes you make to these things and cannot manually control them, which is an absolute must for someone who is just starting out, which I am assuming OP is, so in all seriousness now, if he wants a good, cheap alternative to the d3200, I recommend the canon 100d (no shilling).

You can go ahead and keep fighting with me over literally nothing or you can help OP.

Nikon has gotten into 4K though. D500 and the D5 both should 4k. Nikon also has cameras that do shoot uncompressed, but nothing like the entry level D3200. I've heard great things about the D500 from people but I have yet to try it hands on myself.

What about a Nikon D750?
How does that do for shooting films?

it's plebe trash

get a canon for true photokino

I've tried the Nikon D800 for a short. That was pretty good

The D5 is full-frame which is ridiculous if you want to use it to shoot movies, but the D500 has problems of its own:

>The final major drawback is that additional 1.5x crop factor when you shoot 4K. This is a 2.25x total crop, compared with full frame, meaning a 16mm focal length gives a not-terribly-wide 36mm equivalent field of view. Because the Nikon F-mount has such a high flange-back distance, there's not much scope for adapting other lenses, so short of a handful of ultra-wide angle zooms (such as Nikon's own 10-24mm F3.5-4.5) you may find it hard to find lenses that shoot wide enough.

>There's also a 'Flat' picture profile, though it's not nearly as flat as the Log gamma curves offered by many Sony models or the Panasonic GH4 via paid-for firmware upgrade.

This is why you should probably stick with cheaper and more video oriented four-thirds systems for now.

also wow I just checked, it indeed does not film RAW holy fuck it's even more shit now.
But since you might know a thing or two, have you ever used a black magic camera? the 2,5K one or the 4K one not the pocket one.
And if you did use them, how good ar they really for the price?