Danyyyel

For that low, camera like the Nikon D5300 would be very good compared to the Canon 5d2 because of no moire aliasing and better resolution. It will have a big advantages compared to gh3 (and most low cost m43 and Sony cameras) in low light. You will be getting 5d mark 3 low light quality out of it and that is very very important for Doc work. Super DR and colour is also two other advantages. It does have two drawback like absence of peaking and you will have exit video to change aperture. Those can be mitigated with a good viewfinder loupe for about $ 60 and buying older Nikon lens with aperture ring. You have 50 years of lens to chose from and it will be a lasting investment because they will mount on about every camera brand. One thing not to forget about when doing doc is investing in at least some good microphone and recorder.

I forgot also to add the complete eco system with for example the best flash system.

Beside all that you have said one thing will put the D750 above the mirroless cameras is the pro sport calibre autofocus tracking. You might get ..... oly 6 fps or 7 in crop mode but you will have much more keepers.

​I guess it will be obsolete in 2000 years when human beings eyes will have evolved into hawk eye I mean, for a certain time I did the test of going to Cinema and looking at the 2k projection from the front rows on big screens and I could not see pixels. In fact the last time I was bothered by resolution was in the last hobbit movie. I remember how distracting the beard where because they where so sharp. This and perhaps the use of super shallow depth of field make the characters just pop out too much as if everything was fake. In fact by this standard most if not all the best Oscar film contesting for best cinematography this year will be obsolete in 3-5 years as they were mostly shot on Alexa 2.7 k and some film and mastered in 2k. I am sure that those directors and DOPs have some idea about what is enough or not. If at normal viewing distance (it is how film are supposed to be viewed because that's the job of the Director and DOP to frame the shots to tell a story) you cannot see pixel at 2k, then as I said before until we human being evolve through evolution your image won't be obsolete in the next hundred of years. From SD to Hd was a huge difference, but from HD to 4k is just incremental and only advantages are more for some refraining, stabilisation than actual projection. The reason I actually chose the d750 video above was because of details in the skin. In fact it is the first one that I see where you don't have plastic skin that are so distinct in DSLR video. Detail is very important, the problem with the bad reputation of 2k/hd comes from the lack of detail that came with the Canon dslr. It made HD look to have low resolution.

I just saw this video, for me the level of detail at least for human being is nearly too much to shoot human beings and this is at 1600 ISO with the stock 24 mbit!!!!! This is not a test of Nikon great natural skin tone out of the box as I think that the grade might be a little bit high and stylise to a certain look, but it gives us and idea how much this base codec can be graded.

I just saw this video, I don't think you need more detail (stock 24 mbit) to shoot human beings and this is at 1600 ISO!!!!! I think that the grade might be a little bit high, but it gives us and idea how much this base codec can be graded. He wants to know if people want more detailed test, so you can go to his vimeo account and encourage him to do so.

I ​I was going to say the same thing, if someone does not need 4k, the Nikon D750 is a very solid choice. If you combine it with a ninja it is still very compact and adds the only thing I would call a flaw and it is peaking. People just lok at 4k, but there are many things that get into an image. I for myself don't consider full frame a7s and Nx1 4k to be usable with the level of rolling shutter that they have. We are talking Nikon d90 jello cam level. If you just want to shoot static shot on a tripod then ok, but the rest would be unpractical. Another thing is that it is also very good in low light.

If you like lens with vintage look, you will have an great choice in Nikon mount. For Nikon brand and a multitude of other lenses manufacturers and the advantage is that at least you know that it will fit on nearly every other camera up to full frame and you can have many of the old one for very cheap. Another thing that is never put in front is colour, colour, colour . As a photographer and big part doing wedding where skin tone and humans beings are very important, I would never touch my hands on a Sony for example. You will see endless thread on the A7s colour on every forum on this planet. People are discussing as if you need to have a master in colour science to be able to get usable result. I prefer to have a very good base and work on it. Not using all my time tweaking just to get acceptable result. Another thing that the Nikons are good is cadence. Strangely every 24p are not born equal, some camera mostly brands tend to look videoi. It might look stupid what I am saying but I was very interested in Sony Fs700 some time ago, but except for the slowmo shots it look like video in 24p, colours where also horrible with the green magenta bias.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D5500/ Cameralab has sample of the D5500. My only gripe is how Nikon did not put peaking. I mean until they implement some good to very good autofocus it is logical that the first thing to put is some sort of focusing aid. But it seems to be quite sharp out of the box.

One other thing is that Nikon has been using pixel binning which has cired aliasing and moirer to a great extend which is not what I heard of a lot of the other Sony cameras and the gh3. In fact what they have produce is camera that are very well rounded. That is in most case it is at least good, it does not exel on one side and has big flaws in others, at least flaws that cannot be fixed like aperture ring lens or external monitor in case of peaking. About lens, the best choice would be get a set of full frame Nikon primes from let say the AFD era. It is an investment that will last much longer than all those camera bodies and also brands, because those lens will mount on about everything.

Have you considered the Nikon apsc cameras like the Nikon D5300 that can be had for about $ 500. Very good colour, dynamic range, low light, 60p and good rolling shutter. You can even pair it Ninja afterward to get higher bitrate content. Disadvantage is lack of peaking, not the highest resolution and no aperture change while filming. But with the remaining money you could buy yourself a nice set of primes with aperture rings that will long outlast the camera or a Ninja that will give you peaking, exposure measuring and highbitrate in still a very compact package. Nikon has also launched the d5500 which seems to be quite sharp out of camera and has a touch screen for about $ 800 (for now). It also has the new flat cinema profile and zebras for overexposure. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFPe1RelKYY There is some sample of the D5500 in the review below http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D5500/

Guess rolling shutter for once compared to the Samsung NX1 Jello cam. From test I have seen, the NX1 is worst than the Sony A7s which itself is average in DX and quite bad in FX. When you look at behind the scene video they did not have some advance stabilising equipment with them. So imagine those shots on the bike etc with A7s or worst the NX1. I don't want to be look like a Nikon Fanboy, but sometime the treatment they are getting is ridiculous. There are things that really bothers me like no internal peaking or even no aperture change on the D7200. But the D7100 for those that have used it is already a very solid video camera, to get no banding, 60 p (hopefully not only 1.3x), flatter picture profile better meterring control and supposed better low light makes it a very solid camera, with some flaws that can be remedied. And last but not lease you get the best APSc photo camera in the business with what seems to be the same AF module in the D750 which has been praised, praised and praised as being exceptional and which goes to -3ev which is the limit of human vision (moonlight) I am sometime surprised by people on supposed specialised forum that react like basic consumer people. Oh yes it has 4k, oh yes it can shoot clean at 12 800 iso etc but forgetting some big intangible flaws like colour science or rolling shutter. I mean I am a professional photographer and been doing video for myself for some years and I can't comprehend how many on these site just are mesuberators. Don't people see the colors, motion cadence, highlight or shadow details etc or it is just numbers that are ussually coming from manufactuers, oh yes the 15 stop DR of the Sony A7s, a camera measured at about 13 stop in Raw.

Nikon moves at a certain pace, in general they will upgrade their flagship pro camera every 4 years, which will be in 2016. In 2016 they will have a new expeed processor that will do 4 k, for the simple reason that cell phone will be doing 4k. Sometime the innovation comes from a low model to test the design etc. like the d5200 was the first pixel binning alias moire free and very good low light camera in the line.

Looks to be very sharp for a youtube compress video. Beyond the spec sheet the Nikons are some of the best image quality if you are not 4k frenzy ( yes all the oscar film where mastered in 1080p). My only concern is if they you still need to change aperture while filming or not and peaking. People can say what they want the Nikon imaging factoring not quantifiable element like colour science are some of the best, I would say only blackmagic and Canon can compete. But where I will be critical is no aperture change if it is verified and peaking, this is bad. The rest is gorgeous colours, feel, motion cadence, DR, low light and good resolution (I think jello is also very good). The last thing is 1080 60fps at 1.3 crop... is it a typing error or what. The d5300,d5500 and D3300 have 60fps at full DX size.

​I guess you can more or less say the same thing from every form of art. everything is just a repetition, where do you see true innovation in music, fashion, painting etc. It seems that every corner has been covered and artist just create around those lines. For film for example, the last boundary has been reached since 3D/digital effects has become so realistic that every thing is possible. But if your thoughts are about gallery work etc it is as much about who is taking the photo (history of work) as much as the photo itself. By that I mean that the value of the work of the artist, his history/research/sensibility count as much for the photo than just some lucky snapshot out of hundreds or thousand of photos of someone on instagram.

One little advise somehow is to really cautious of who you are shooting, I am used shooting people for wedding/commercial/fashion photography. I am always softening the skin if my client is on the shot, if you had for example the manager of the company in these shot more so if it is a woman, that type of sharpness would spell trouble. For me there is difference between detail and sharpness. The Canon dslr with there bitrate and muddiness have really skewed what is the difference between both detail and sharpness. At least I would recommend to have good make-up to hide skin flaws. For example the little boy that must be like 10/12 and have very good skin, he has white speckles and dead pealing skin on his lips. Me I am more in line with DP like Rodney Charters, but that is my belief and you might have your own and I respect that.

I don't want to be controversial but I think this video is the reason I am not a big fan of shooting human faces in 4k, if I was you I would either blur the faces in post or next time use softening filters. Seing every pores or more importantly every pimple is not very flattering. For the grading in certain case I would say it goes a bit too much for my taste (again more on the human being) but it is an artistic choice and I don't know if it is not the extreme sharpness that it is making me think it it is a bit too much. That is just my humble ideas it does not mean that I am right.

This video is the perfect example of colour science, when the author posted it he said A7s and D5200 and most where saying how nice it looked, how did he grade the A7s like that. In fact it is only the first shot of the girl in the mirror (that I did not like, too green for my taste) that was from the A7s, everything else was from the Nikon D5200. It does not mean that you can't grade a look to the image, but it is always better to start from a good natural colours. I just saw the video below that I find fabulous out of the D5300

One thing that many people don't put enough emphasis is colour or what most of us call colour science now. Look at all the Sony endless thread (mainly A7s because of its popularity) here and on other website because the Sony colours are not that good ( On my part it is just horrible). Look at all the talk about getting not good but descent colours out of it. It is like going to a science class with all type of settings and recommendation etc etc. What all these people don't tell you is that grading takes time, a lot of time when you have to correct most shot to at least get a decent image. I have experiment this bitter pill lately as I have had my cousin shooting video to make some highlight reel for beach wedding as I had some Tiffen ND that brought a green cast to the image. I got to grade it quite well getting rid of the cast but it soon turn out to be a real pain having grade nearly all the shots except the ones that did not have the ND. Believe me the first thing I have done is buy some Hoya proNd filters because it was so annoying to do. Colour is one of the least talk about characteristic but believe me having nice skin tone is much more important than 1 stop more DR or 4k.

Form what I have learned since the Expeed 4 processing engine Nikon use programmable ARM processor, which mean that they can program much more functionality or features. That is why I think they are implementing this program as the features are much less set in stone at hardware level. For example I think the video pipeline is the same as the Jpeg/Tiff one where the raw data coming from the sensor is debayer and then compressed at different setting in term of bitrate colour profile and depth etc. With those programmable processor I think it would be just a question of putting 10 or 12 in place of 8 in a line of code. Now perhaps I am completely wrong but I think it is a possibility.

http://petapixel.com/2015/01/08/leaked-nikon-press-release-reveals-new-program-advanced-dslr-firmware-updates/ Nikon is puting in place an advance firmware update program called I Am Advancing. For those who did not follow Nikon has been producing very good video dslr since the D5200. The latest model like the D810 and D750 produce some of the best all round image with very good 1080p resolution, low light, DR, rolling shutter no apparent moire/aliasing and for me the best colours out of camera. But unfortunately they did lack some things like peaking, 4k (for some important) and quirks like not being able to change aperture while filming (while they have address the latter in the D750, D810 and rumoured D7200). Now with the new firmware program I would not mind even paying for some advance filmakers firware package that would get things like 10 bit, higher internal bitrate, waveform monitor and why not Raw like Magic lantern. I think things like peaking is a big omission and should be free at least until they have some super AF in liveview and should be provided free. Taking the example of Magic lantern I am sure that the hardware is capable of additional functionality like peaking additional exposure monitoring. A 60 mbit is already possible with hack on cameras like the D800, so a 10 bit 60/100 mbit, 10 bit and log mode should be more than feasible at 1080p. Raw output using hdmi output might be a bit of a dream but the the one I listed before should be easily implemented.

Nikon is a bit strange in terms of what you get of the same sensor like for example of the D7100/D5200. They are supposed to share the same sensor (with the banding issue) but in terms of video sharpness they are quite different. The D5200 is considered a little bit soft (not canon soft) while as you can see of my test here http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?310503-Nikon-D7100-vs-Panasonic-gh2-sharpness the D7100 is nearly Gh2 level in this blind test where it was so close that not a lot got it right or wanted to commit. I don't know if it is intentional by Nikon but we will have to test each camera out to be sure. The touch screen is interesting overall as it is a welcome addition for a less pro body with less physical button. For video Nikon specified that they had enhance the liveview performance, perhaps the touch screen might be and improvement for focusing for video. As for the D7200 it might be a very compelling video slr as rumour site are saying that it will be possible to change aperture in video mode. If it is as sharp, moire/alias free and banding free it might become a very compelling video slr for about $ 1000... except for peaking!!!!!!!!!! That comes to the latest subject about Nikon Firmware program. Perhaps we should petition them so that they implement features like peaking and even some more highend features like 10 bit, higher internal bitrate, waveform monitoring or even raw etc even for paid update.

Whoaw, I don't know which light they use but it is A7s green bias in full swing. If I was the guy filming it with the supposed better gradability of the prores I would have tried to get a better grade out of it.

Can someone tell me how to post photos in 1080p on this forum. Everytime I try it tells me than the photo should not be higher than something like 70 kb which is too low and I have seen others posting images at 1080p and much more KB.

If you take history of SD to HD after like 15 years most people of the world are still watching SD and 720p TV. Online system like youtube at 1080p is in truth more like 720p with the very low bitrate etc. 4k tv will be with all of us within the next 3/5 years because TV manufacturers have only this to sell there TV because 1080p is already good enough for 99% of human beings. It will go the same way as 3D. As soon as oled TV prices comes closer to mass market prices, you will see how they will all jump at how deep the shadows are and very high contrast ratio (Since the denial of plasma TV, at least this will be a big advancement in image quality compared to the move between 1080p and 4k). They are just desperate to keep selling because we are so close to the limit of human perception that people won't just care as they won't be able to discern any difference and won't feel any need to upgrade. But for distribution, people will still be watching 720p/1080i broadcast for a long long time. As for online with the actual infrastructure it will take a long long time to get the bandwidth and if they do it, it will be like youtube with very low bitrate content that won't be real 4k at all. It will just be for marketing sake. Now if you have the equipment to do it in 4k and that it does not demand too much more effort and man hour to do, just do it. But one thing I have learn with experience is that you have to be very careful about long project. Because everything accumulates, 1 minutes here, 5 minutes there and you find yourself working twice the number of hours you have thought and quoted at the start. Another thing to consider is that very good HD scales very well to Uhd. You can do some test just film something in 4k and with a very good HD camera and then project them on one of these 4k tv and look at normal viewing distance if it makes a difference. You can even do some blind test with some of your friends who bought 4k tVs.