Michiel78

I thought exactly the same thing.

IMHO the sharpness of the Lumix cameras is only unpleasant when using MFT glass. With FF/legacy glass (and especially coupled with a speed booster) the high resolution is wonderful.

True the D5300 isn't great ergonomically. Not being able to change the aperture in live view is a pain. Not many dedicated buttons either. ISO for example requires you to program it to a function key and then press the key AND rotate the dial to change. Archaic. I am sure Nikon stills shooters are used to this kind of thing but I just find it a pain.
 
Watch out for a shootout on EOSHD tomorrow...
 
GM1, GH3, G6, D5200, Blackmagic Pocket, RX100M2 all in it head to head. It will surprise you.

It has 24p and 25p in full HD not just 50i.
 
I have my review coming, it's a pretty special camera and you will see why shortly :)

I just did a quick explore of low light between the D5200 and new Panasonic GM1.
 
The GM1 actually is now on par with the D5200 in low light at ISO 1600 and 3200. An improvement on GH3 to say the least!
 
It's also just as cheap.
 
It resolves more detail, has a more flexible lens mount and is more feature packed.
 
The small size is slightly crazy but I highly recommend it. For those undecided on D5300 check it out. With the MFT Speed Booster on this thing you will be getting a D5200 bettering image for sure.

I hope that someday he might see the market not only in terms of what looks more innovative but camera that are also ... good enough. In my case for example, I am a Pro Nikon shooter with about $ 15 000 in camera, lens, flashes etc invested in the Nikon system the last 8 years (I don't live in a first world country). In the mean time I have bought a Canon 7D and a Panasonic gh2 for video. If there was no Nikon D5200 and the D7100 that I bought, I would have gone Panasonic gh3 or Blackmagic. But in the end, from what I saw the D7100 is good enough for me and I am so thrilled about the image quality, that is why I am so interested in the d5300. A D7100 image without the Fix pattern noise and 60p is just ideal for me. No need to search for new lens, adapters that might fail etc etc... For sure I would like at least 10 bit, high bitrate internal codec and eventually raw when I can afford the size and resources needed. But until now with my ninja if need be, I get what I always wanted when I had my hacked gh2. Better dynamic range and lowlight with good 1080 resolution without any aliasing and moire... The combo with the ninja is still very small and adds peaking, zebras, false colour and high bitrate codec. If someone cannot do nice pictures with such a combo then he needs to look at himself.

It is good that eoshd did a good review of the RX10 and saw its limits. A camera that he himself has been hipping a lot. For me I have stop believing  in any of the Sony dslr camera. Every new model is crippled in one way or the other to protect their high-end camera line. It is so obvious that I can't even understand people who get excited by any Sony dslr camera for video use. One example is the claim that it has full sensor readout. I am 200% sure that is just marketing bull-shit because of the moire/aliasing in the shots.
 
On the other side you have Nikon who release the D5300 camera which gets rid of the only major problem of its predecessor (fix pattern noise) and adds 60fps 1080p and gets a paragraph with a test done in the shop. It might look like minor upgrade but from an already very very strong Nikon D5200 image quality. This camera with its lack of FPN and new expeed 4 could even be better than the 5dmark3 in many area. Some I am sure like Dynamic range and sharpness and others like lowlight will need some test. Hopefully someone else (Cinema 5D Johnnie Behiri said that it was on his list).
 
My guess is that the D5300 will have an image very close in term of sharpness, DR etc  to the Canon C100/C300 below ISO 3200. And it will at least have 60 fps for $ 800. Unfortunately for most people and bloggers, what they will remember with their lack of research is that the Nikon DF has no video, and as such Nikon does not care about video and should be crucified for this. Yet Sony just released 3 cameras that all have their dose of moire/aliasing, codec, etc. etc. issues and they get all the headlines.

Well yeah, I'm genuinely sorry that this is off topic and won't pursue it any further on this thread. But you do have readers who are interested in the camera for legitimate reasons (and you had 2 people asking for a review before me on this thread!).  
 
No I don't have any "proof" the banding has gone - that's what I want you to do! But if you look at the 5300 thread you'll see there's pretty compelling evidence that the FPN has gone. As for "show it" - I did, to the best of my ability (considering lack of D5300 and appropriate skills) - see the stills I posted in the thread.
 
I don't want a "purely" low light camera. I want a good all-round camera that performs excellently in low light. The 5200 has banding issues, so I don't want that one.
 
Genuine apologies though - I was just hoping I might change your mind. I'll leave it alone now.

We've been there already. Andrew had a brief look at the camera - see this thread: 
 
'?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>
 
It looks like a great camera. The best evolution of the D5300 is that it doesn't suffer from banding like the D5200 and has a slightly higher bit rate, so grading looks like an option now. Unfortunately Andrew overlooked this which is a shame because it looks like a very solid, worthwhile update.
 
New and 'innovative' cameras are always going to be sexier than modest, worthwhile evolutions of already great cameras. A shame.
 
Andrew's footage with the RX10 is really nice, but there's no way I'm paying £1000GBP for a camera that has aliasing problems and mushy 60p. Not in late 2013. Not when you can buy a G6 for £450.
 
The D5300 has no aliasing or moire problems, and as you say it uses H264, so 60p will hopefully be better than the RX10.

I'd love to see you pick up the new Nikon d5300. You liked the d5200, this new model keeps all the good stuff from the previous, but removes the anti-aliasing filter and adds support for 60P... AND it uses the h264 codec just like the GH3.
 
You don't often mention Nikon because of the lens mount, but there's tons of great Nikon lenses extending back a long way. What do you think, can you do a review and comparison?

No doubt the GH3 is a very awesome camera, but it is considerably more expensive than the G6 and considerably bigger. The G6's image is very close to the GH3's and its file sizes are smaller. The G6 EVF is better, and it has focus peaking. 
 
Considering we're talking about someone who needs a small camera for travelling, has a certain budget in mind and isn't wanting to do much grading, it's hard to argue that the GH3 is the better option. Yes the GH3 has a headphone jack, but that's one expensive feature if it's the only reason you choose it over the G6. And you'd be sacrificing other features: the focus peaking and good EVF are extremely useful if you're using non-MFT lenses. The GH3 was within my budget but I went for the G6 for similar reasons. I use a small Sony audio recorder (SX1000) Velcro'ed to the side of the camera (and a Sennheiser MKE400) if I need audio monitoring and decent pre-amps with a small footprint.
 
Also, the D5300 is smaller, much lighter and has a more robust body ('monocoque') than the D5200. So the GH3 would be the bigger, weightier option in either case. I'd also find it hard to pay the premium for the GH3 when it will probably be superseded in the GH line with some major spec upgrades in the not-too-distant future (GH5). It is obviously a brilliant camera, and actually at a very good price now, I just don't think it's a very pragmatic choice for certain people right now.

Yeah the D5300 is definitely the best stills camera option. I watched that RX10 video you posted and I just felt that it's really a TV camera, not a film/art camera. If you were leaning toward the RX10, the G6 would be a good mid point between the two. But yeah I understand you wanting the 5300 for its stills ability too.

I understand you, skiphunt! I'm in the same boat, although I don't need the camera for work, just for fun as I'm trekking in New Zealand coming year and I intend to make a small film of it, in the style of Brandon Li (rungunshoot.com). Having mostly filmed my travels with an ordinary videocamera, I really want the organic look, something like the BMPCC can provide (but unfortunately needs to much gear).
 
What I really like about the RX10 are stabilization (although it's said to introduce moire; see slashcam reports), autofocus (even though I'm always falling for AF because it seems so handy, many pro's do it without. And I myself am in a constant battle with the AF of my regular cams so I think its time to skip it altogether... although something like focus peaking would be very welcome then, don't know if thats available on the D5300). So in the end, two important arguments for the RX10 seem to become less valid. And most importantly, until I see some graded real life footage softening the sterile RX10 look, I tend to go with the D5300...
 
(I heard something about Panasonics upcoming organic sensor with an amazing DR, perhaps thats what the future GH4 and RX10's going to need).

@Danyyyel, the reason I'm considering the RX10 is because the first project I want to shoot will likely be while traveling with a backpack in Mexico. Ideally, I'd prefer to have someone very talented shoot it for me and let them carry all the gear and play with all the raw/prores conversions, storage, extra gear, etc. However, the reality is... that the subject matter and project are of high-risk, ie. the content may be completely uninteresting to all but a few. This means, it's not likely I'd be able to raise the funds for a larger production with hired crew. 
 
I think I have an idea of an alternate, hybrid way to go about it and creatively use some style that doesn't require the dynamic range of a raw/prores system. It may be that I can at least get a couple extra people to help, but I'm preparing for the worse case scenario, ie. that I have to do all the shooting and pay for it myself. This is the most likely scenario by the way. ;)
 
So, keep in mind that I'll be working solo and carrying everything I need on my back including clothes, batteries, storage, etc. for at least a months time. Keep in mind also that I don't want to have to many variables that can go wrong. I want to know for sure I've got what I need without having to grade it first on location, before I move on to the next location. 
 
Also, I don't want to attract too much attention. I want to look as much like some tourist making a home video to avoid the usual questions regarding permits or looking so "professional" that it attracts thieves. 
 
I've narrowed it down to the D5300 and the RX10 for the following reasons.
 
The RX10 is small, has a headphone jack and audio level monitoring so that I wouldn't necessarily have to use a separate audio recorder. Sony has long made small recorders with excellent low-noise preamps. I don't know if the RX10 incorporates excellent preamps or not. 
 
The RX10 also has a nice lens range for most uses. I've used a small sensor Nikon P7700 compact camera while traveling, and it's range of 28-200 was just about right across the board. Used on this recent moto trip: http://skiphuntphoto.com/moto-southwest-2013
 
With the RX10, I wouldn't need to bring extra lenses, it's got a click less aperture ring built-in, the image stabilization and auto-focus appear to be very good and accurate on the tests I've seen so far. On paper, this camera meets all of my needs. I practice, from what I've seen so far... the footage looks like it was shot with a video camera and does not have a cinematic, organic look at all. It's definitely sharp and pristine, and the stills look good up to about ISO1600, but the video stuff looks sterile and flat. It may be a talented colorist could pull more out of it though, but I'm guessing that smaller sensor is to blame. 
 
Still, it would make producing my project on my own so much more easy than doing it with the D5300 that would require a dual sound system, tripod for stabilization, and relying solely on manual focussing since it's AF appears to be nearly useless. 
 
The D5300 is attractive to me because it's only $800... I already have other Nikon glass and SB strobes... so far, it appears that the D5300 is capable of producing a very impressive detailed image in very low light, even beyond iso 6400. This means I'll be able to utilize natural light and reflectors more often than not. The D5300 also appears to be cable of producing an organic/cinematic image with the right lenses. And, it is certainly capable of producing very fine still images that I plan to incorporate into the project as well.
 
Neither of these cameras will require I buy tons of more storage, a faster computer to process raw/prores files, or spend loads of time tweaking grades. 
 
Ultimately, I want to have the best possible image with the least amount of light, and have the freedom to stylize the look with a variety of glass. And have a kit that requires the least amount of extra computing power and storage. If I see proof that the RX10 can produce an organic/cinematic image that doesn't look like a very sharp digital video camera... then I'd have to seriously consider the RX10. My guess is that when it comes to the pure image in low light with detail and low non-distracting noise, with my stated constraints.... the D5300 will likely serve me better. 
 
I don't know the right answer to be honest. All I know is that I don't want to get distracted by all the extra variable that go into a current raw/prores work flow. I'm posting stuff here because I'm interested in those who pay attention to the pixel minutia, etc. all the time, to tell me I'm wrong, why I'm wrong, and what would be a better solution. So far, going by my own parameters and budget... it looks like either the RX10 or D5300 could work just fine. Which is great, because I'm looking forward to getting my head out of the pixel-peeping pool and out into the shooting world with whichever camera I pull the trigger on. :)

Very interesting discussing. I'd like a new camera for traveling next year. Video is main objective, but good stills are a bonus too. Needs to be small. And I'm looking for an organic, filmic look.
 
RX10 looks very promising, all-in-one package, relatively small. I assume it's better for video than for photography. Seen some footage, but what's been said here as well, the footage has a sterile video-like quality to me. A little bit the same as the Panasonics, which also have that strange sterile look to me.
 
D5300 is a strong contender too. Quite small, even with just one or two lenses a little less flexible than the RX10, but: less flexibility stimulates more creativity. Large sensor, choices of lenses (albeit not as much as mirrorless mounts). Also a very, very nice stills camera! I'm leaning to this camera!
 
BMPCC was my first choice but it seems it's still a v1.0 camera, which needs so much extra gear I think it's no longer practical...
 
X100S seems great for stills, but no word on video-functions...