Danyyyel

Sorry but your assessment has a lot of flaw. I have thoroughly tested my D7100 against my Canon 7D (Anybody would say all these Canon apsc sensor are about the same in resolution) and the D7100 is thoroughly sharper, just a little softer than Panasonic gh2. When you add an external recorder it is even sharper. The D7100 does not have 60fps in 1080p. I don't have a D810, but from what I have seen and downloaded if you see it less sharp than the 5dmark3 then I am baffled. I stop reading from there. If you could supply us with some example to show us your conclusion I would be happy to look at it, because from my experience and research as from the Nikon D5200, the Nikons thoroughly beat the Canon dslr line in terms of DR, low light, sharpness and no moire/aliasing etc.

Yes it would be nice to get some .mov file. What I would really like is to get some shots at best possible conditions to see the peak of the camera. A 10 second clip at 50 or 100 Iso at 24 fps with enough DOF to be able to judge sharpness (must not necessarily be very wide landscape shot which will strain codec). The shot must be a bit static so that it does not strain the codec who will otherwise have to blur the image to maintain bitrate if it is moving too much. This for me would be primary shot to see what the camera can do at its best. Then the rest like higher ISO shots and 60 fps one would be very nice. I am asking for more technical shots like this because we know more or less how nice Nikon camera colours are. I would have like one in contrasty condition to have an idea about DR, but without comparison to other camera or backlit chart it would be impossible to get any result unless you can measure the DR of the scene.

That guy cannot be relied upon, he does some supposed comparative shot when camera is not even out, so looks a bit suspicious if it is not click bait.

That is oversimplification. I for example have difficulty getting the same colours in RAW from lightroom using Neutral Nikon profile than the original Nikon Neutral profile images from Nikon Jpeg. I guess for certain photos I will have to use the original Nikon raw converter. I have never used the A7s but from what I have seen it is much further than the example above and by the amount of complain about skin colour here and other site, I guess it is not that easy. For sure if you put it under golden hour where the sun is directly hitting the person, everything will look nice with that golden orange look. But go into more neutral light, in shadows, overcast or worst case scenario in mix lighting or deficient lighting spectrum like cheap fluo or street lighting and the difference is much bigger. I am not saying that the Nikon/Canon colours will look good in every situation, but I think it will be much better and in video it is not even RAW file to colour correct. I still don't understand the low light argument. It is not as if the 5d3/C100 or Nikon d750 are bad in low light, we are not talking Gh2 or Canon Ti here and in photo the cameras are much closer in performance. With 5d3/d750, the bonus is that at lower ISO you get about twice the resolution for bigger prints or cropping. In terms of autofocus, they are tried and tested, the one of the D750 is better than the ones in previous Nikon D3/D4 cameras, that is better than the ones that take photos of the likes of Kobe Bryant, Usain Bolt, etc etc My argument above is more about a hybrid shooter like the OP. If it is only for video, I guess the A7s bar the aufocus of the C100 is a very good alternative. But if you are doing photos where the only advantage of the A7s is shooting above 6400/12800 ISO and it loses everywhere else and other Sony cameras are unproven. I guess either sticking to Canon or going Nikon is the best alternative, more so that the latter is getting better and better at video to have already surpass Canon.

I forgot to add that I hate the greenish pink Sony colour. It always make people skin look like under low CRI fluorescent light, giving an unhealthy and dead skin appearance. It is strange how Nikon and Sony use of the same sensor yield so much different colour science.

I think you are a bit crazy if you do photo to change system.LOL Wedding is a domain where reputation can be destroyed in a day, you cannot miss what is the most important moment in the life of a couple. For me there are only two mature system in photography for now for critical work which include wedding. It is not just about technical feet or spec sheet but mostly about reliability. How reliable is the autofocus of the Sony in low light, the metering in challenging lighting. How about the durability and work in adverse conditions etc. Camera do fail, my Nikon did, but it was always the shutter after very extensive use and I work in very humid and hot tropical climate. There are also a lot of other things like accessories/lens from third party manufacturers or Flash system. When you account for all the above I don't see myself changing system if I do wedding phoography. Reliability and maturity is first and foremost. I also don't understand also the craze about low light. Two years ago the 5d3 was a benchmark in low light video. Not so long ago I remember people raving about the low light of the C300/C100 even filming under moonlight. Now is it not good enough anymore. I don't know to what level of ISO people want to shoot now. In my near future I am thinking of getting a Nikon D750, it looks to be the best hybrid camera now. On one side from the report and reviews coming in it seems to be the best event all rounded camera. On the other it has very very good 1080p video with very good resolution, detail, DR and low light without aliasing/moire etc. The rolling shutter also seems to be low and you have added very good 60fps at 1080p. I have been pleading to my friends in the business about not investing in Canon since the surprise advent of the D5200 video because every new camera from Nikon has been better and better in video. But nowadays some are using 6D LOL

I made a lot of test of this camera on Dvxuser and for me it was the tipping point, that I would not buy any other brand camera because I had already invested in the system and that it was good enough. It was very near gh2 level of sharpness with much better DR and Low light and sold my gh2. I knew that if I could not produce good imagery out of it, it was me and not the camera that was the limiting factor. But go explain to many on the net that 4k etc won't make there work better, in fact it might make it worst because you will have to hide much more details so that it does not look fake, like in the hobbit.

I know what it is from a discussion a long time ago about the camera that we share and very good job showing how good it is.

Good luck waiting for Canon to upgrade significantly there video in its Dslr range. I think it is clear from Canon. If you want better video you have to move up to the Eos Cinema line of Camera.

Perhaps it is better to test with no lense and a cap on the mount. In this way you are eliminating one variable. It does happen that depending on the electronic arrangement in cameras, some component might cause interference. I did happens on Dslr (forgot Nikon or Canon) that lens or VR or non motor or motor lense caused some noise etc, long time ago.

It is a bit annoying from Nikon, what I mean in terms of consistency. Sharpness varies from camera to camera and now I saw it in a video where the D750 is noticeably softer in Dx, while the D810 is as sharp (Fstoppers video on D810 on youtube). The irony is that at least it is better to have very good video in full frame Nikon because it is much easier to get all type of lens dating 1/2 a century on full frame format.

It is a bit normal that people are interested in this camera because it has just been launched and looks to have big potential. It does not mean that the gh4 is not good anymore. For many it is the colour science, for others the full frame, low light, Dr etc.

I don't know if a full frame vista vision is the best camera for live action except if you are prepared to stop down your lens a lot to increase your DOF. I think the best would be to get a small rig and one of the good external EVF with the D750 and practice.

When you think about it, autofocus like in the canon 70d are perhaps the most advance and revolutionary for large sensor camera. In the space of 5 years we come from zero autofocus to the 70D. The next step for the likes of Nikon will be on sensor PDAF. It will be good for Sport, action, news, event and parents filming their children. But for cinematic purposes I think manual focus or assisted one will be the norm. The day the camera will be able to do it, them there will be no need for the camera man, because the electronic will be so advance that the camera will be able to do everything, and it is not even a joke LOL

I think youtube is killing the sharpness and some of the noise, but the D750 seems to hold very well until ISO 12 800. If you consider that this is about the general level of sharpness of the Canon 5D3, at about equal level of sharpness it will be at least 1 or even more stop. It is just speculation until we see some side by side test.

I think they completely messed up the d750 test. After I read all about the video being sharp on the D750 and someone posting that chart, I was a bit inquisitive. When I think you translate the article it is said that they took their chart with them and took the test on the show with on the displayed D750 !!!!!!!!!! I think it was more a case of being first and getting the scoop (I don't know if D750 warrants that example) that good methodology.

I have ask him to put it on vimeo, so we have a better idea of the quality in high ISO video. I think that at least until 6400 it is very good because these are really dark settings. Detail is preserve very well until the dark to very dark shadows. Some proper sample would give better idea because vimeo is mushing the images, but it looks very good.

I don't know if it looks that flat, at least compared to the normal profile. Is there a normal profile in Nikon?

In general ugly highlight clipping is due to manufacturers who want to maximise perceived and not necessary useful DR. It looks good also on chart because they are black and white so even if the highlight is reddish or blue, it will look grey and give a good stop or more DR reading.

There are many subtleties to codec like the gh2 hack showed. Like bframes cabac etc, so sometime manufactures don't use every feature because it is more processing intensive etc. I personally don't know for sure but it is more complex than just bitrate numbers.

From what I have seen of the D810 in the video above, it is very sharp but will lose at higher ISO. One thing to note is that images should also be judge noise and detail. For example I would either see if in camera high ISO NR can be set to see if it reduces noise and if it is to what level to match level of detail of the 5d Mark 3. Or use software like Neat image and match level of detail of 5D3 and see how they match. To tell the true story.

Thank you very much for the test. I second the poster above if we could get some clips in the flat mode with contrast set to minimum to download. It does not have to be artistry, just to grade and see. I would also like to know how different (if their is a difference) the 24/25 p is compared to the 60p.

They talked about it on the D810 video canadian video, when the fishermen comes out of his store. The auto ISO or smooth Iris automatically do the transition to keep the exposure the same and it does it smoothly. Some where saying how cool it would be to follow a bride from inside to outside or the contrary and exposure adapts automatically.

Some very strong and very costly ND, because above 1.2 you have to use the white water and IR version of those ND. Already shooting at base 800 ISO needed some strong ND for normal use. Now it is going to be even more difficult.

I think you cannot believe in any corporation advertising. If else you would think that Mac Donalds care about your health.