gethin

character - yes . I was thinking about this the last couple of days when I stumbled on some old gh2 footage. it has something that the gh4 does not.

character - yes . I was thinking about this the last couple of days when I stumbled on some old gh2 footage. it has something that the gh4 does not.

character - yes . I was thinking about this the last couple of days when I stumbled on some old gh2 footage. it has something that the gh4 does not.

character - yes . I was thinking about this the last couple of days when I stumbled on some old gh2 footage. it has something that the gh4 does not.

seeing as you can use the graphics card in any new system you decide to get, i'd say this was a no-brainer upgrade 

I agree that a true global shutter this isn't. However, it could be down to F5 territory (5ms I believe?) in S35 mode. I'm very curious to see what the IQ is like with the full 135 sensor. Sony says it used in sensor binning which (in theory) is better than line skipping. Could have some aliasing but shouldn't have much moire. Personally I'd rather see a 24mp camera  with a true global shutter, full 6k readout down sampled to 4k, and faster FPS/focusing but this is quite the camera.

Most likely they do. Checkout the C-mount on m4/3 group on FB. Lots of knowledge and potential buyers there. 

Dear Andrew,
 
is the D750 video quality better than the D810? or is at least the same?
 
i have a D800 and and i use it mainly to film weddings
 
now it's time for an upgrade and i'm hesitating between the D810 and the D750
 
the flip screen and the price of the d750 are very appealing, but i'm ready to pay more for a D810 if the movie quality is much better
 
what do you recommend?
 
Thank you
 
Best,
Nad

Yeah, it's just an incremental, yet clear upgrade to a DSLR. Not something a keen cinematographer would kill for in the first place.
 
As for the the question why some people might get upset, apparently it's psychology. Apparently some people are projecting their egos onto their Nikons, and/or expect a brand to conform to their will.
 
On the other hand, looks like most people in this thread are excited rather than upset. Whether they want or like the D810 or not. 
After all, any new high megapixel Nikon is a feast for the gadget geeks, a one that will keep them busy for weeks. The D810 means a new bonanza of nerdy-nam-nam, and since it's about Nikon, this thread alone is likely to get at least ten pages of it in no time, and probably a couple of other similar threads, too. That's just how the cookie crumbles. It has little to do with actually shooting/making video.
 
/snarkasm alert  ;)

you choose the 60p footage on the library then go modify footage>interpret footage and change the 60p frames numbers by hand to 25
 
step by step here:
 
In the Project panel, right-click the desired clip.
Select Modify > Interpret Footage, and do one of the following:
Select Use Frame Rate From File,
Select Assume This Frame Rate, and type the number of frames per second.
Click OK.
 
then drag the clip to your timeline and its in slowmotion
 
ths is the most seamless way to do it

I'll try and clear up a few bits:
 
You can edit ProRes on Windows Premiere without installing Miraizon. I have done this many times.
 
Miraizon allows you to encode to ProRes straight from Premiere or via Media Encoder. You cannot do this without Miraizon.
 
Here's an example of it in use:
 

 
I bought  DNxHD and ProRes QuickTime Codecs from here http://www.miraizon.com/store/store.html
 
For the money I can't see a problem with this bit of software.
 
***
 
On Premiere, yes it's a 32-bit floating-point engine, though you won't always see this in timeline, unless you choose Maximum Bit Depth in sequence settings.
 
As long as you tick the Render at Maximum Depth box at render, you'll get best colour space. If you don't, banding is a lot worse. So tick it! :)
 

 
The maximum render quality setting at the bottom affects scaling only. Tick this if you've scaled at all in your project.
 
***
 
I never transcode to an intermediate unless my computer can't play back footage in real time. You don't gain anything visually, as all processing is done in 32-bit. The colour you lost at compression in camera  was, you guessed it, lost at compression in camera. Turning 8-bit to 10-bit won't give you any benefit, so if your computer is powerful enough, edit native
 
5D to RGB did have some arguable benefit, intelligently reshaping the red channel of 4:2:0 footage, but Premiere is pretty good at it all to be honest, so I'd save the disk space and time.
 
Being able to output ProRes from PC is great, as many film festivals and clients  want it.

I'm pretty sure that you are absolutely completely totally wrong about this.  :P

Interesting points in the article about the D600.  Can't beat a D600 for dynamic range at that price point (up there with the best at any price point).  Now if Nikon would only modernize the video on the D600 series...
 
I'll have to have a look at the Nikon 14mm F2.8 lens.  I don't see it on their website, though.
 
Michael

A bit off topic but I just spent a day with the D5300. Whereas the Sony video had little to talk about over the gh2, i really like the 5300 image. It doesn't have the crunchy detailed sharpness of the gh2 but its nowhere near as soft as the canon apscs. Dynamic range seems better than a6000 and high iso is remarkable. Bit blocky in the shadows when you try to recover detail, but compared to gh2 at least it has detail to recover.
 

A bit off topic but I just spent a day with the D5300. Whereas the Sony video had little to talk about over the gh2, i really like the 5300 image. It doesn't have the crunchy detailed sharpness of the gh2 but its nowhere near as soft as the canon apscs. Dynamic range seems better than a6000 and high iso is remarkable. Bit blocky in the shadows when you try to recover detail, but compared to gh2 at least it has detail to recover.
 

I have a GH2, D800 and 60d.  So far the GH4 looks like a very sensible next step, but typically I have 2 big jobs that need shooting before it'll be out.
 
I have a speedbooster, and a growing collection of nikon glass. I do a lot of wide lens stuff currently with the tokina 11-16, but I miss the canon 10-22, bigger range and less barrel distortion.  I shoot a bit of timelapse now and then
 
Theres only about $250 separates g6, d5300, and gh3.  Don't especially shoot in low light, but have found the gh2 blocky noise and fizz in the shadows to be an issue.  If the G6 is no different in that regard I'll rule it out. (Some people say its better, some dont). I like the dynamic range of the d800 video, but thats about it.
 
Really need a decent fast ultrawide for M43 or APSC too. (12mm doesn't cut it on M43, I need 7-9mm or 10-12 on apsc).

Hey,
 
So you would rate this camera above the GH2 and GH3 in terms of image detail. But how do you like the IQ in 60p? I am looking for something cheap to shoot slow motion (since the Pocket Camera clocks out at 30fps) and this Sony could fit the bill I guess.
 
Also do you know if the EU version has 60p/50p or both?

g6 is way superior to gh2 in low light
gone is all the fizz noise in the blacks
Ive swopped from gh2 to using g6 now and the whole camera is much better then the gh2
the screens are superb the evf is amazing cant work without it now
 
the iso's are all alot cleaner now alot less noise
 
focus peaking is great I leave it on all the time now
and the remote wifi control of the camera on your iphone is unreal
I can pull focus and stop start recording change the iso etc etc all via wifi
with the camera 100 feet away on a jib arm !
 
the panasonic image ap is free and very very useful!!
 
g6 is the way to go

What kind of big jobs?  On the wide angle, there is the panny 7-14mm.   I read somewhere that ultra-wide lenses are physically wide angle optics attached to telephotos, that the lens gets a wide angle then has to enlarge it to make it through the distance to the sensor.  This makes sense to me.  I find the quality of ultra-wide angles made for aps-c or ff to be somewhat soft.  If you're not doing much photography then seems to be you should just get a MFT wide-angle.  I would think it would give the best quality on any MFT camera.  My guess is that is has to do little, if any, "telephoto" work onto the image to get it to the sensor.