Steve Nunez

While I personally love this camera, I like all the analog dials etc......at $3000 I won't be buying one....just too pricey for me. I don't mind them omitting video but I think more would "consider" it if it had! Nikon has (had) the perfect opportunity to include killer video in their DSLR's as they don't make video camcorders or pro video equipment and could have taken Panasonic's approach to killer video specs in their DSLR's, they've chosen not to......sad really as their name would have drawn many to them. Nikon has no "pro" market segment in their lineup to canabalize or jeopardize it's higher-end offerings, perfect opportunity to offer the best they could have and create a new user base of video enthusiasts. I'm surprised they don't see it like this.....I thought the bottom line was profits and I just don't see why they've chosen not to offer their best video specs on their DSLR cameras......lens sales would have spiked etc. The D5200 has really good video, they are capable of producing awesome video DSLR's.

Well I've got to admit the Nikon D5200 is the "sleeper" HDSLR at the moment. We all knew the GH3 and 5D etc were very good but this Nikon is definitely outputting some very impressive video.... if you've got Nikon glass it's a no-brainer.   I'd still like to see the GH3 go against it with the same lens on it (via adapter) and set as whatever distance necessary to achieve the same FOV capture and directly compare the two! (Hint Andrew!)   Imagine if Toshiba put a better sensor in the new D7100.....killer!   Thanks for the postings Andrew.

I think the only fair way to compare them is to use a Nikon adapter on the GH3 and move back to get same field of view- this way you are not entering lens performance into the equation........the Nikon would have the advantage of being "closer" to the subject but it's still a valid comparison...please consider this as it would equalize both cameras. Thanks