Danyyyel

I think the odyssey does, but I don't know if it is not too costly. I find it strange that they did not put 60p recording in 1080p for the Ninja. With all the camera coming out with 60p. They seem fixed on the Canon now, with the 5d and C100. They will be missing some market with all the cheap Nikon's coming out with clean hdmi. Now what we can hope is that the Nikon hack can bring higher bitrate to the 60p. That would be very nice.

I think you should try what I wrote before on not over stressing the codec (more so if you don't have an external recorder). You never know because your first video with the d5300 regardless of the g6 looked sharper than the last two one. I think you were shooting wide open and part of the image was blurred and did not stress too much the codec. One thing to take into account is that some codec are geared toward detail and other toward other factors like subtle gradient, noise, even motion etc. This is from the experience of the different gh2 hack with diftwood and lpowell. So just over stressing the codec might not be a simple answer because with the external recorder these Nikon's might be different than the typical Canon with fix bitrate. One you tested them with wide lens with deep dof and lot of detail they just turn to mush. So one test would perhaps be to just shoot something with a lot of detail but perhaps 1/4 of the screen and a very plain background. So that the codec bitrate is not over stressed but still able to render than part of the image the sharpest it can, at least without using an external recorder that would not rely on the internal codec at all and would show the best result.

One thing to take into account is that some codec are geared toward detail and other toward other factors like subtle gradient, noise, even motion etc. This is from the experience of the different gh2 hack with diftwood and lpowell. So just over stressing the codec might not be a simple answer because with the external recorder these Nikon's might be different than the typical Canon with fix bitrate. One you tested them with wide lens with deep dof and lot of detail they just turn to mush. So one test would perhaps be to just shoot something with a lot of detail but perhaps 1/4 of the screen and a very plain background. So that the codec bitrate is not over stressed but still able to render than part of the image the sharpest it can, at least without using an external recorder that would not rely on the internal codec at all and would show the best result.

It also tend to stress the codec. It use to relevant for the canons but for the Nikon's it would be good to test with an external recorder to take out the codec variable.

At first the narration bothered me a bit and then slowly it just worked out. It had a very woody Allen feel to it and could have been a little nicer with more related imagery, but was still very nice.

I don't know if it is the shots, but the D5300 does not seem that soft compared to the G6. In the last one it even looked sharper. But it could be due to what was in focus.

This is very nice, they are making big progress reverse engineering the Nikon firmware and with the example of magic lantern for Canon, big things could result. I don't know how the SD interface of the Nikons like the D5200/D5300/D7100 would sustain data rate for raw. If they are able to do it, it would be immense because of the dynamic range that would put them much higher than the Canons for me. I would personally prefer a 10 bit log high bitrate codec but I think that it might be more complicated than RAW.

You know Dynamic range is not dependent of just Full frame. It is a set of technologies to treat the signal to noise ration and the full well capacity of the pixel. A very concrete example is that all the latest Nikon/Sony apsc sensor score 2+ stop of Dynamic range (about 14 stop) compared to the 5dmark 3 (11.6 stop) in raw. Even in video the D7100/D5200 where at least a stop above the 5D3. The more filmic look is more to do about the capacity to blur the background so that the lack of composition/framing and lower production value is more apparent than when blurring a bit more the background. Perhaps my problem is that I think more in the movie style of shots than the DW/BBC (when I was young in the eighties, they use to pass short video of people, nature, city scape with some music) that Philip Bloom has popularized.

I think I am loosing my time discussing with you. You started by physics, then it was standard and now to make your point it is just your eyes esthetics. So be it, listening to you, it is as if the Cine 35mm/Apsc can only yield deep focus camcorder style look with no blurred background and deep focus. I think my needs is more of a practical view of moving subject that needs to be in focus and the fact that in low light situation if two cameras like the 5dmark3 and D5300 are about the same quality ISO, it will be much easier to shoot at 2.8 to 1.4 with an apsc with the Nikon vs the Canon. If you have to close the Canon by more than a stop for it to be focusable then you would need to shoot at higher ISO. The same argument can be said about 24p, yes it was the minimum to save on film and get good motion. But in the end 9/10 people would tell you that 24p is one of the main ingredient to the suspension of disbelief or movie Look.

The Nikon cameras can be discused at length, but the Nikon lens is surely one of the best to get for low cost filming because they can be adapted on nearly any format. So should you change camera system in video where autofocus is less used you can choose a whole set from zoom's to primes from more than half a century that will cover a vast range of focal length and can be had for very low price used. Most of them will also cover full frame.

In fact you are confirming what I was saying. We are talking about cinematography and not photography here!!!!!!!!!!! The standart for cinematography is Cine 35mm, which actually is about the same as APSC. So yes the standard is APSC in most motion picture film for more than half a century. As a professional photographer, I can tell you that even if photo and video share many many traits, in practice there are some big difference. Photography is an instant, video is time and continuity. For example if you take 4 photos for a portrait and that one is focused, you photo session is good. But if you are filming someone and that he is in focus only 1/4 of the time you filmed him, your video will be bad.

Nikon lense is a much better solution to invest in as it has a mechanical aperture mechanism. So it is easy if you go into one of the mirror less or blackmagic camera to use them. I use a simple $ 30 adapter when I had my gh2 with my Nikon lens. For canon you have to use sophisticated and costly electronic system that can control the aperture. Another advantage is the lens becomes clickless and it is much better for video for smooth aperture change. Personally for me their are two brand that should be avoided at all cost if you really care about image quality below $ 3000 and it is Canon and Sony. My first video was a Canon 7D in 2009, that was superseded by a gh2 about 1.5 years latter. I could never go back to the moire/alias riddled image of the 7d. I can live a bit with the lower resolution but the moire/aliasing, once you are use to a proper image, you can never go back. When you see it crawling in eyebrows etc The thing is that those two company will give you all type of things like fast autofocus (Canon 70D), peaking etc etc but in the end the image quality is still at the same level than the camera 5/7 years ago. They just want to protect their higher end camera like Canon C100 or Sony FS100.

I would recommend you to look closely at the D3300. If it has the same image quality as the d5300, it should be your choice above the D5200. The absence of fix pattern noise would be a big upgrade. Neatvideo does a very good job of removing the FPN, but not having it in the first place would be better, even more so if you like to shoot with a flat profile.

I am not the biggest fan of full frame video. Perhaps because it has been overused since the Canon 5d2 when we came from one extreme (small sensor camera) to another extreme with full frame. The habit of completely blurring the background until the subject was like floating in a mist and more than often being out of focus if he moved 5 cm in front or back was really annoying. I think that the Apsc Cine 35mm look is a good balance between subject isolation and focus. If an actor is in an environment he should at least be part of it.

1bb4c79b5523d8d5b8a1fea62166a894

It is a bit difficult to make a choice for you. If you are doing more controlled work like movies, the articulated screen is less important unless you like to shoot at extreme angles.

It is so recent a bit difficult to get reviews, more so video ones.

Can't you wait a little bit at least for the D3300. It has the 60p in 1080p which you can't find on any Canon and most Nikon.

The D5300 lacks only one thing for the consumer market and it is autofocus for video and I am sure Nikon engineers are working feverishly on it. In terms of video and more so photo it has long outgrown its market. Imagine that it is sharper than the lastest Nikon D3s $ 8000 flagship and sharper than any Canon in existence. Has about 2 stop better DR than any canon and Better DR than any medium format back. In video it will kill every phone/tablet in terms of DR and lowlight and true resolution. What it lacts for now for video is an autofocus system so that the consumer can put everything on auto. If you read the market trend it is the mirrorless camera that are suffering the most -48 % market in the Americas.

It matters to me because people look up to review site and blogs for advise. If you had read a one page rant without any image comparison against any other camera on the D5200 one year ago would you have bought it. Last year there was 2/3 article review on the D5200 and was compared side by side to the Pana GH3 and Canon 5d3. As we cannot buy all these cameras we all rely on reviews to guide us and that they are the most reliable possible and for those of us who have been following the latest Nikon Dslr video. We know that they are very capable cameras. And I want other low budget filmakers to know how capable those camera are. The same that I did when the gh2 was coming out and everyone was Canon. This is a community and as much I benefited from others sharing their experience, I would like to do the same.

Hi, there is a whole series of video he did from both camera at different ISO. You just have to click on his vimeo profile. What I was showing is how the D5300 at ISO 3200 is about the same noise level as the T5i at ISO 800 (2 stop difference). This is a very big difference. You can see the Canon at 3200 ISO here

Just look here for the difference in ISO. One is at ISO 3200, the other one at 800.

I think if you want to sell yourself as a cinematographer the best thing is to get the best image quality you can. For this the D5200 will be better than the Canon. No one is going to ask you if you had focus peaking but a cleaner by 2 stop image noise will be much more visible. The D5200 also does not have moire/aliasing, better resolution and much better dynamic range. Now in term of usability the camera can also grow with your need. You can get an external monitor for 250-300 nowadays that will help you focus much better than any magic lantern Canon camera. Just the size of the screen will make a big difference. The uncompress hdmi out will also give you the possibility to record high bitrate proress and 422 for better image quality in detailed scene and it will be better also for grading. The last thing I would add is that the D5200 has been replaced by the D5300 which has removed the Fix pattern noise (which is the only annoying thing in the d5200) and added 60fps in 1080p (no canon has this). But I think it will be costlier. But on the other side Nikon has also launched the D3300. Which on paper looks the same as the D5300. That is you will have much better slow motion. But I did not see any firm test of the D3300.

Very nice footage Matt. I like the sense of composition and the grading. The problem with these supposed reviews is not for the people that have bought the cameras but the undecided or beginner. It is a sense of sharing and trust that have made people create those internet site or communities. It has perhaps badly replace the photo clubs etc. So when someone comes to search for these information and they find some biased or rushed reviews, I think the trust is broken. I don't mind if someone makes money out of his site, once it is clear and he does not break this trust. One of worst case is the philip bloom test of the Nikon D800/d4 vs 5dmark3. So +200 000 person saw a test when the low light was done in a crowded Bar. Oh god, can you have a place where the light changes constanly as this to make a camera test !!!!!!!!!!!!!! As for Eoshd, I think it is more gear porn. The new shiny toy today is a gem and all the one before are now crap. And it goes on an on as the next one come along. Just look at the Blackmagic production cam threat, you wouldn't believe me if I told you that the 5d mark 3 raw mode is describe as shit LOL. And how one year ago makes such a big difference LOL '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>> Bought a Nikon D5200 yesterday - This thing is really surprising me... appears the new Toshiba sensor in the Nikon D5200 fixes moire. There's nothing like the problems here that plague the D600 and D800 full frame sensors. There's still a tiny bit of aliasing but no more than on the GH2. It is giving really nice Canon C300 approaching detail in 1080p, all on a $800 DSLR. You can dial it down really flat in-camera too, though I prefer to shoot graded in camera with a standard picture profile. In producing footage for the review I have found it to be in the same league as the mighty GH3 for video so far. Here's a 100% crop of a 1080p frame grab shot in 25p mode. The picture profile on the GH3 was slightly flatter in-camera so ignore the contrast difference, just look at the detail. Really nice!

I think that I can understand where your point of view comes. It is from a blogger reviewer who can have multiple cameras that he can use depending his particular needs. Unfortunately most of us cannot afford or are inclined to do so. Since 2005 I have bought 7 cameras mainly for my photography (D70, D80, D300, D800, D7100) and for video Canon 7D and panasonic gh2. If there was no turn in video quality with the D5200 and later D7100, I would surely have bought the BMC. But I saw the D7100 as a ........... good enough camera that I bought a Ninja. My only gripe and that is why I am looking at the D5300 is the lack of Fix pattern noise and 60p. I will be more inclined selling my D7100 to buy a D7200 in the near future. So lets see how my perspective of a normal user that cannot just buy every camera in the sun thinks of your perspective. Danyyyel, it's no joke. Name one Nikon innovation for video since the D90's shoddy 720p heralded others to do better.... As for the things you listed, they're not so unique on their own, but yes somehow the D5300 has accidentally ended up with quite a lot of them. No moire / aliasing - see 5D Mark III, which came out before the moire & aliasing Nikons. Nikons were a veritable moire and aliasing PARTY before just around 9 months ago when they finally got wise. Shame D800 did not come out this year instead, maybe they could have done a better job. By your judgement, so I should invest 4 times more to get no moire/aliasing in the Canon cameras. Lets compare it to the all the other cameras D5300 Win Gh3 Loss Bmpcc Loss Canon Apsc Loss OLympus Loss Frame rates 24p to 60p... numerous other cameras had this a long time before Nikon (2-3 years). Sony were first to 1080/60p. Panasonic I believe offered 1080/24p first with the GH1 before the Canon 5D Mark II firmware update. But you don't knock on olympus who has only 30p (For a cinema site it is very strange, remember when everybody was begging cannon for 24p) or all the Canon andBmc don't go above 30p in 1080. D5300 Win Gh3 Win Bmpcc Loss Canon Apsc Loss OLympus Loss Very good DR... I'm not seeing it myself. Way more on others, such as Blackmagic cameras and even the tiny Panasonic GM1 does better in the highlights. You yourself said in the previous Nikon D5300 that the Nikon D5300 was on par with the Bmpcc prores about 12 stop. The BBC test and Samuel hurtado who does the Flaat profiles measures the Nikons at 12 stop. There is an example that Matt posted where the D5300 kills the 5d3 from oleg kylan. D5300 Win Gh3 ? Bmpcc Win Canon Apsc Loss OLympus ? Very good low light... It's not hugely different to others. 5D Mark III is better and GM1 is near enough identical but with more fine detail. I don't know if this is considered small, but for me this is not http://www.eoshd.com/content/9653/nikon-d5200-review and this would can be considered on par http://www.eoshd.com/content/9713/nikon-d5200-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii . Remember the cannon tend to be 2/3 stop darker than the nikons. D5300 Win Gh3 loss Bmpcc loss Canon Apsc loss OLympus loss Proper S35 sensor... yeah, but crappy lens mount which I can't use 80% of my glass on! 1.4x crop with Speed Booster on GH3 = larger than S35. I would say that the Cinema 35 mm standard for good reason. The second you put an adapter like the speed booster you loose the autofocus and have to get a set of lens for the M43 camera and will loose things like stabilisation. It might be crap for you but there are a ton of Nikon/third party lens to choose from the last 50 years and most third party will do nikon versions. Nikon lens also tend to keep there market value for a long time. D5300 Win Gh3 loss Bmpcc loss Canon Apsc Loss OLympus Loss Clean HDMI out... been around since GH2 times. For external recorder this output on the D5200 and D5300 like on other cameras brings little-to-no real image quality increase but for a lot of hassle. Wait until it is 10bit 4:2:2 or 4K then it will actually be useful. Have you done some test, I have a Ninja with my D7100 and I would say that it gives the same feeling as the gh2 hack. The first thing is that their is better resolution and details. It is like you lift a veil on the image. The noise is tighter and grading is much more solid. Put the camera in front of some static image and it won't be that much different at first view (It is but in a subtle way) but add some moving images with lots of details and grading and the higher bitrate makes a much bigger difference. For those who have experience with the gh2 and hacked one it is about the same. If you see the amount of effort and dedication on higher bitrate for hacked gh2, I think their was some good reason for it. So perhaps you have a plethora of camera at your disposal that can cater for different needs better than the D5300, but non offer a better all rounder complete camera for now. And not a jack of all trades master of non soccermon camera, but nearly everytime at the top of the class. As can be seen by the work Wild Ranger here, it is a very capable camera for the low budget cinema film-maker in the right hand.