Danyyyel

That shot was a very extreme test. I exposed very far to the left to retain info in the highs, and then lifted the shadows - so the low noise of the 5300 contributes to the DR a lot here. There was a LOT of noise in the shadows of that shot (tree) and you can see from the lack of detail in the leaves that they have suffered a lot from noise reduction. I also bumped saturation up in the highs as far as it would go to get that green. So really it's a grading test of Flaat 11. Personally I wouldn't use that shot for critical work. But it's interesting that it was possible, and that the shadows didn't get completely crushed.

 

But having said that, I am finding that I can in general pull a lot of information out of the highlights, which is very nice.

I was telling myself that it was really challenging shots to be able to get so nice highlight of the sun and the green leaf in back light. If ever someone wants to get the best I guest an extenal recorder will be needed. The noise structure is much tighter and fine grain with a Ninja with the D7100. But the banding forces you to do noise reduction, but it cleans very very well.

Looking at Matt last video, I would say that it does look like this camera has some very good highlight handling. The second scene in particular with the sun light coming through the leaves. The highling doesn't seem to clip and you can clearly see the green colours and details of the leaves.

So I was doing some test from a side by side video from Oleg on Dvxuser between the Canon 5dmark 3 and Nikon D5300. What was striking is the difference in Dynamic range. As he is busy with work I could not resist to try and measure it. My first try was with lightroom but it seems that Adobe put a curve to protect highlight when using the exposure tool. 3 stop was a bit too much I thought LOL. So I went back to my test. This time I got a pluggin in photoshop that will move the exposure in stops. Again I am a bit amazed.

You can see some screen grabs with the histogram to compare exposure an clipping both visually and more empically with the histogram.

N0 1 The first one is the 5d3.
N0 2 It is the D5300 which I removed a little green so that it is closer to the 5d3 colors (better for seing clipping)
N03 It is the D5300 with 1.5 stop + exposure
N0 4 I graded it back to about the contrast ratio of the Canon (mainly black level) and put I think a little too much saturation.
There is a N0 5 is an earlier +2 stop exposure. But unfortunately I cannot upload more images and had to compress the heck out of them. So you will have to go and look at the Nikon D5300 images on Dvxuser.

My conclusion is that the D5300 has at least 1.5 to 2 stop better highlight than the 5D3. The first thing to note is that it clips less the green and blue channel. These two don't even clip with + 2 stop exposure in this scene !!!!!!!!!! Which makes the highlight clipping much better looking than the 5D3.

Image 3

Image 1 and 2

To change the aperture, that's where the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower/Walimex cine series lenses come in. For traditional SLR designs like Nikon, Sony A, Pentax and so on, none of which were originally designed with video in mind. (Neither was Canon, apparently, but they just got lucky with their later design, and that's a whole another story) One might also experiment with manual and legacy lenses with aperture rings.

 

As for the focus peaking, well, since the Nikon is a dSLR to begin with, and you'll have to rig it with all sorts of 3rd party shooting aids, anyway, you might as well go for an external monitor, too, a one with focus peaking built in. That'll also give you the option to monitor the audio track off the headphone jack in the monitor.

 

It's quite likely that you knew all this already, even before you decided to buy a dSLR for video, but just in case someone hasn't bought one, or thought of rigging his/hers yet.

 

Disclaimer: I haven't read through all the ten previous pages in this thread, so sorry if these topics have been discussed already.

The D7100 with a Ninja is like a wedding made in heaven. The Ninja is so small that it is less obstrusive that for example a Nikon Flash. Beside getting higher bitrate/resolution codec, you get very good peaking, false colour and zebras for exposure. It is not as good as my marshal monitor in terms of viewing angle and colour fidelity but for this you still have your in built monitor for colour accuracy. If they could get an loupe on it it would be a perfect evf coupled with the Nikons. The only thing that would really be needed is one of those bracket that would fix the mini hdmi cable securely to the camera.

Hi guys.

 

Nikons seems to have very good dynamic range and pleasing video with good colors and high iso performance.

 

BUT

 

If you compare Nikons with GH-line, 5D3 raw, BMCCP or C100, Nikons are so soft that they compete in different league. Like halfHD vs fullHD. Nikons has about 600-700 lines horizontal resolution and these other 900-1000 lines.

 

So it is like comparing 10Mpixel photos vs 20Mpixel photos.

Nikons perhaps wen't for a softer look in the D5300 as they did with the D5200 compared to the D7100. As you can see in my blind test here http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?310503-Nikon-D7100-vs-Panasonic-gh2-sharpness . The sharpness of the D7100 is so close to the Panasonic gh2 that many did not commit and some got it wrong. Perhaps they want to differentiate there different model in some ways. We might see a D7200 shortly with near gh2 sharpness. Using an external recorder also gets even better sharpness.

Matt also has to see what in camera sharpness setting he is using because he was so afraid of moire that he said he would put the sharpness in camera setting at lowest :). My thought with my D7100 is that a setting of 2 to 4 was better on a scale of 7.

I am watching Andrew test between gh3, 5d3, 5d3 Raw and Blackmagic pocket camera. I don't know if we can correlate it to Samuel H finding on Dvxuser. His finding where that the D5300 was about the same as BM pocket but lower than 5Dmark 3 Raw. While on andrews less scientific test the 5d3 Raw is lower than BM pocket ? I am referring to this comparison  https://disk.yandex.com/public/?hash=Le4Ee3Biq/a3jOphlYhqqvWPKrkIIj3Z7MAvPZbJ%2BME%3D between 5d3 and D5300 which looks like the D5300 has about 2 stop better highlight as in the Andrew test below

http://www.eoshd.com/content/11350/depth-test-5d-mark-iii-7d-raw-vs-blackmagic-pocket-vs-gh3

Samuel conclusion is that it is the highest DSLR. My only problem is his measurement is a more strict meaning of DR. Ot is like saying that every part of this DR is 100 gradable (I don't know how to explain it better). While the normal Dr test is Everything that can be recorded from black to white exposure. At those two extreme you have part that you can't grade/manipulate/post process heavily. Lets say you have dark skin person in a very dark room, you cannot expect to get like a beauty shot style from him if you don't expose correctly and the same goes for a pale skin in a very bright part in the same scene. While his measurement is more like this. I don't know if my explanation is remotely clear. That is why his measurement is a lot lower than general test.

For me I like to at least get both because the normal Dr is more standardise so that you can get a better comparison to most other camera and closer to normal filmaking. Where highlight will blow and shadows will crush or else things become a bit unnatural like HDR imagery.

Matt do you still have the D5200. If ever it would have been nice to see two shoot of the same high contrast subject at base Iso just to compare the Dynamic range.

Yes could you tell us at what time you see moire. I couldn't find any looking at the downloaded footage.

Getting nervous about the purchase. Of the professional reviews I've read so far, no one seems to be raving about this camera... and most seem to favor the Canons, while admitting the Nikon has a better image. Thom just published his review of the D5300 today: http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/current-nikon-dslr-reviews/nikon-d5300-review.html

 

I think you should put those reviews in perspective. Most of them are just treating it as a simple update to the D5200 because it reads 24 megapixel Apsc camera with GPS and wifi. But for the more knowledgeable user there is quite some difference. The first thing for photo and video is that Nikon fixed the banding issue. None of those review site even know about this.

For video you have the benefit of no banding and 60 fps at 1080p which is very nice at least for me. To be able to get a camera that can do slowmotion at 1080p while no Canon does that. The last thing is that the D5300 has easily the best image quality in any Apsc camera. It might not have a touch screen or peaking but pair it with a Ninja and you are close to the Canon C line.

The irony is that below 800 Iso the $ 800 D5300 is superior to the highest Canon camera in terms of resolution and dynamic range.

Thanks matt for the test, you really need to look for it and I personally couldn't see it. Any camera will moire at a certain frequency, at this level I would say it is insignificant.

The only solution for us is Oleg on Dvxuser. Tell him to shoot side by side between the two at different Iso from 100 to 6400 if possible.

One good thing about going Nikon at least for lens is that you can put a 50 year old lens on it and can expect to put one you buy today on a camera body for the next 50 years. Because of that you have big big lens choice. That is why Nikon lens tend to keep there value very high. The second advantage is that it has a manusl aperture ring which can be used on many adapters while the Canon can only be done electronically. Which is very costly and difficult to do.

As for the Body you have to look more at the new D5300. I don't know against the g6 but it wipes the floor for gh3 camera and the Canons APSC in low light condition as it is close to the D5200. It is very close to the Canon 5d3 in video for low light and looking to have at least 12 stop DR (could be higher because it is still in test). The D5200/d5300 also does not have any moire/aliasing if you compare it to the Canon Apsc cameras. It also has 60 fps at 1080p and you can add a Ninja to get 220 mbs prores if you want for high motion and very detailed scene in the future. For video it has one disadvantage is that you can change exposure while in live view. The solution is to have a set of older prime lens or zoom with an aperture ring. 

In term of photos the D5300 is better than any Canon camera below 800 ISO. It best the 5d3 in resolution and DR by two stops. Only in low light that the 5d3 full frame sensor beat the lowly $ 800 Nikon D5300 LOL. I think it will be the same against the micro 4/3 cameras.

So as a conclusion, if photo is really important for you the D5300 is clearly in front. For video if you can live with the aperture problem and dynamic range and low light are very important for you it is the best choice.

It is not completely false what I said. If it was done in 4k or raw etc it would have many more people commenting.

Unfortunately they did not film it in RAW or 4k, so must be garbage, that is why there is not 4 page of comment here. LOL

 

Oleg Kalyan's, wants list for the D5200: Kelvin temperature, full time histogram, full time audio monitoring. I hope Nikon will do it in the next firmware update.

Here is one of his on youtube

 

 

I think we will have to wait for some of those things in a D7200. I really hope they up the internal bitarate and add things like peaking. The expeed4 should have enough power for these, but my dream would be 10 bit.

He has also done one against the 5dmark3 comparing at same exposure as I recommended to him as the Canon is easily at least 2/3 stop darker than Nikon/panasonic camera. It is as if Canon cheats on the ISO. As you can see the D5300 is at least 2/3 stop brighter than the 5dmark3.

https://disk.yandex.com/public/?hash=iPnGEeZb13g4nwPYoeYzkpV0a47hj9QEnuFBXmrGCvw%3D

This is what I wrote on the Dvxuser thread.

For me the test is not good and it is not the fault of Oleg. The problem is that it is either Nikon which under values it ISO or Canon which overvalues it ISO (which is more likely the case). At least since the Nikon D800/5d3 the Canon is 2/3 iso darker than the Nikon. So ISO 1600 on Nikon is more like ISO 2500 on Canon 5dmark3. You can see a test done by Joe Marine from nofilmschool between Nikon D800 and Canon 5D3 and you can clearly see that the Nikon is much brighter at same ISO

It seems that everyone forget that you can add a Ninja to get 220 mbit 422 prores files. From my experience with the D7100 it gives you much better image quality with better resolution and much better gradability before the image breaks-up. If you have a basic skill set and know what you want to achieve some gorgeous shot with the C100 type of camera. Raw is better but show me better production from raw 5d3, than the stillmotion video I posted above. Again, if you can't do beautiful shot with a C100 then no tech will make your shot better.

You see for me there are big question that are puzzling me. Look at those two image attachment from oleg kaylan on DVXUSER D5300 thread between the Canon 5d3 and Nikon D5300. There are clearly a big Dynamic range advantage to the D5300. In video the 5d3 has been measured between 10.5 to 11 stop DR and the Nikon's have about 1/2 to 1 stop DR advantage from 11.5 to 12 stop. But in this example it is clearly much more, easily 1.5 to 2 stop more. Before someone start to say bull shit just look at the frequently known as BBC test of the D4. They gave it 13 stop of DR and the D800 11.9 stops. So it is not impossible that Nikon has tweeked the expeed 4 to get more DR in video mode from the sensor. Again just speculation, ahhhhhh frustration would just need someone to do some test to know.

Abonyi Attila has posted a 160 ISO original sample in .MOV and for me it looks very good. It is sharp and the Dynamic range looks very good. I am a bit curious about the DR of the D5300.

@Matt I did not want to lecture you or get in any personal debate with you. What I was saying is simply the sensor are definitely not the same visually, no banding and do a comparison on DXOmark to see that there are some difference in the measurement. Now it might just be an updated version to reduce/eliminate the banding or a completely new architecture, manufacturer, etc.

The problem is that if we start just to say... ok, same mega-pixel, same sensor, then there will be no need to test. But this camera does not have one but two good reason to be tested. The first one being a new sensor and the second one a new image engine in the expeed 4. Do we know what it is really capable of. If we just start to assume anything then we would have never known about the D5200/D7100 capabilities. We could just have assumed that Nikon would never release a $ 700 camera with better video than its $ 3000 D800. This is not logical in terms of product and that might be one of the reason we don't see any promotion of the D5300 video capabilities from Nikon.

In the case of Nikon unfortunately for me, people are just looking at spec sheet and not seeing the potential. What I see at least with the D7100 is a Canon C100 performance in every way until perhaps above 1600/3200 ISO. But this we will never know because no one give a sh....t to test because it is not fancy enough.

If you cannot do beautiful images with a C100 then no matter what prores, RAW, 4k tech won't make you do better images. There is always a threshold in any technology where the hardware stops being the limiting factor and it is the skill-set of the human behind the camera that will make a difference. For me the C100/D7100 spec are really close to it. I would just add 10 bit even if some dithering can do wonders. Just to illustrate my point look at this video from stillmotion mostly shot on the C100

But for us to know if the D7100/D5300 can get close to the C100, I can only guest because there is no test to show us if I am right or completely wrong. I hope that you understand my point and that I was not offensive toward you at all. I think that most of us on this threat are genuinely seeking some answers on the D5300.

Look at the DPreview link above where you have photos of the two sensor which comes with the marketing literature of both camera.

Nearly completely shot on the C100, I think that if someone cannot do nice film with the C100, then no matter what technology he uses won't make a difference.