Danyyyel

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.

I mean they are definitely not the same sensor like the D5200/D7100, by how much is the question. There are many speculation, but what I am saying is that any test conducted on the D5200 and extrapolating it to the D5300 is not valid at all.

Someone of dvxuser posted these two sample from Canon 5d3 and Nikon D5300 at 100 ISO. I don't know the specifics but the D5300 looks to have much better DR than the 5d3. One thing looks bizar that that it seems to have like a fix noise in the deepest shadows on the monitor stand. It is not FPN (The 5d3 has vertical FPN) but like a pattern that stays the same. Could be VLC? https://disk.yandex.com/public/?hash=Le4Ee3Biq/a3jOphlYhqqvWPKrkIIj3Z7MAvPZbJ%2BME%3D

Again I have posted it many times... http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?310503-Nikon-D7100-vs-Panasonic-gh2-sharpness A test I did between my gh2 and D7100. Just browse it and see how many did not commit and many got it wrong because the two are very close. I am fed up assuming pseudo testers that take two minutes to test Nikon cameras and some laughable example like philip bloom test of the D4/D800 in a crowded bar in New york. Can you do a more dump test where every second the lighting can change. In the case of the D7100 every of those expert just assumed that the D7100 just a D5200 in video mode while many user report said that the D7100 was sharper than the D5200. I don't know by how much but I sold my gh2 after this test to buy an Atomos Ninja and again a gain in resolution with tighter grain so better resolution and detail that cleaned even better with Neatimage video the banding.

You see that is why you should never assume anything until side by side test from anyone. The sensor are different and it is easy to see http://***URL removed***/forums/thread/3561765 . So assuming that they are the same by people that don't want to make the effort to test is never good. When you think about it the D5200 might be the shortest lived Nikon camera and this will render its test useless.

Just to clarify that the C100/C300 are rated at 12 stop of DR up to 20 000 iso. The 5Dmark3 is rated at 11.7 in photo RAW mode. So it might not as straight forward as saying that a RAW camera has necessarily more DR. The problem is that we don't have any test putting them one against each other. A second thing is that the C100 uncompressed hdmi out and that you can record it to 220 mbits 422 with an Atomos ninja. The last thing being that the 2003 Palme d'or was shot on C300 http://www.fdtimes.com/2013/05/28/canon-c300-cameras-win-cannes/ . In fact reaching a certain good enough level like true HD resolution, 12 stop DR and good to very good low-light things like Lighting will make a much much better impact to the final image quality.

For a youtube video the horse Looks very sharp and the building also is very nice in tonality etc.

Does the wifi has any use for video?

Again not to be confrontational at all and for the sake of discussion over and above brand. The reason I came here is because you are reviewing video dslr and camera in the affordable range to small or no budget filmmakers. I think you made a big improvement in your testing with the 13 stop scene (with the film camera etc) for the 5dmark3 and kineraw camera. The standardisation makes people get a better idea of each camera and you would gain a lot from doing the same thing for each camera beside any brand etc. From the 70d to the Panasonic gh3 etc It would be like what photo reviewing site like Dpreview do. Test that are sorely missed in the video camera world. Like what I quoted above, how much is what everybody want to see. Is the raw/prores size etc warranted for the budget and disk size needed compared to h264 cameras like the gh3/d5300/70d etc. With time you would get a sizeable database that believe me you would become the 'to go' site for the vast range of large sensor camera users. I take the example of the c100/c300 $ 6.5k-12000 camera that everybody dismissed on internet forum because of its native low bitrate and 8 bit image. Camera that have wipe the floor in the Docu and small film production. The Canne film festival winner was shot on a 8 bit Canon C300!!!! What people like us are just searching are empirical data to compare which camera is good enough for what we need. I take your word about the speed booster Bmcc camera being superior to the D5200/D5300 but by how much is what is important for many. Is the 2 or 3 time investment worth it. A BMcc with a speed booster is $ 1500 and you have to add at least an external monitor because the screen is crap and also use top of the line SD card. I hope I don't sound confrontational but believe me this is what sorely missed on the video world about test of every camera brand like on photo website. And your last test is heading in this way but even if some promising ones like the RX10 looks more like dud now it is important for people too chose. One of the poster here was really interested on either the Sony Rx10 and D5300 for a project that needed a small camera, used in difficult and even dangerous situation. At least now he knows what to expect from the Sony Rx10 which was on paper a perfect choice for an all in one solution but now not so much because of the final image quality. If I was ready to go raw, for me perhaps the perfect camera for my budget would be the Kineraw Mini because of your test. I never thought about this camera before. An apsc camera with 13 stop DR and no moire/aliasing (Reason I won't go BM for now), would be my choice because of your review. Things like these are the reason why aspiring film-makers need those side by side empirical test, we never know what will be coming out of it.

I think they are very interested, they were the first to uncompressed 422 hdmi output (no need for hack) with the D4 and D800. They heavily promoted the D800 at its launch with the video of the guy on a bike. They had a hollywood production on it and some were saying it was in the half a million dollar budget in Chicago. I think there problem now is that they have there $ 800/1200 model outclassing there $ 3000 camera.

You should do more research, look at the video above at about 17.50 min testing moire aliasing between Nikon D7100 and Canon 70D. You get the same thing from the cheaper D5200 and the gh2 has been doing it for the last two years. It is not because Canon is using 5 year old tech to protect its Cinema Eos line that every other company is doing the same.

Just read his comment where he says that the image is extremely soft, noisy and moire/aliasing is everywhere with the 70d.

Just look at this test between the D7100/70D at about 17.50 min on moire/aliasing between the two. I think it is telling. You cannot get more organic than a hippie style community shot during golden hour LOL. I think the reviewer himself shot some other video and he was a bit critical about the moire/aliasing and low resolution image. For me one of the secret of the Alexa vaunted film look is the highlight roll-off. Many have speculated and analyse that Arri hss put a diffusion filter like the tiffen promist filter before the sensor. There are many thread on reduser forum about this and I have bought a 1/4 promist to test it. I would have preferred a 1/8 but I got a very good price on a used one on Ebay. I wanted the lowest number because I don't want the filtered look too much. Just a little bit seems to make wonders but in the process you loose some resolution. At least with the higher resolution Nikons I can afford it for a much more film like image. Some good resources http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2012/06/diffusion-for-the-digital-age-the-use-of-glass-filtration/

A good place to start is here or on Dvxuser nikon forum. I have posted some test there for the D800 and mostly d7100 now. The lack of info is just terrible for such good camera as the latest Nikon.

I think the reason many here expected a review of the D5300 is because you where one of the people that showed the capability of the D5200 to the film community. Until now it is still the reference to show the fantastic low light capability of the Nikon D5200 that rivals the $ 3500 5dmark3 full frame camera which itself is hailed as a very very good low light camera. Now you have told us that you don't want to review it and I respect your opinion because it is your site and your time and you can decide your priorities. I will just tell you why I am interested in this camera, it might just be for the sake of discussion and comprehension. I am not in anyway trying to convince or confront you. The first thing is that I am a pro Nikon photographer that is always interested in Cinema. Contrary to those pseudo pure photographers that can't photo their shoes I am a big fan of the hybrid concept. So for the last 5 years I have bought a Canon 7d and a panasonic gh2 for video because Nikon was behind. Then I bought the D800 for my photography and it was much better than the 7D and previous Nikon but still kept my gh2, the moire/aliasing of the D800 (much better than the 7d) was still a little annoying for me. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?286855-Sharpness-test-between-Nikon-D800-Panasonic-GH2-and-Canon-7D Then came the D5200!!! What is that thing a $ 800 Nikon camera that had no moire/aliasing with fantastic lowlight and about 12 stop of DR and you could even record in high bitrate 422 with an external recorder. Further test showed that it had one downfall and it was the FPN. There was a solution with neat-image but it was a bit cumbersome if you pushed into the shadows for some shots. In the end I bought its sensor brother in the D7100 as a second body to my D800. It took me some time because the logical choice was the D600 but I wanted so much the better video image. There was report that the D7100 image in video was sharper than the d5200 and I did test against the gh2 as you can see it was blind test and most did not commit and some got in wrong, so close they where that I sold my gh2. I can also confirm the the hdmi output give an even more detailed and sharper image. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?310503-Nikon-D7100-vs-Panasonic-gh2-sharpness During those time I had to chose at first between the D7100 and the BMC camera (I already had my D300 as backup for my D800) and then when between the Ninja and the BMCC. For some it is like heresy but everybody would have drooled on an APSC size sensor camera with gh2 resolution, about 12 stop of DR, low light of the 5dmark3 and 220 mbits prores image with a Ninja 1.5 years ago. the only prayer for me would be 10 bit output for now until raw can become mainstream. I also have to think in terms of production environment if I want to do film that I have to have reliable cameras (at least 2) and reduce the maximum number of point of failure with native set of lens, no adapter that can fail etc. etc. To have cameras where I don't even know how much space is left on the disk etc. or moire/aliasing and in the end things like lighting will make so much more difference than any raw. To come back to the D5300, why I am interested to get the d5300 is because the FPN is annoying, I can live with it but an FPN free image would be much more than a simple upgrade. I like to get in those deep deep shadows that the Nikons have to get the most out of the DR of the camera. The second thing is the 60p, for filming my fashion shoot it will be huge. even if for now until we get external recorders that do 60fps 1080p out of the hdmi. But I think next year we will see in next atomos ninja with the number of 60p camera with uncompressed hdmi coming out. So in the end we might be getting very close to Canon Cinema EOS line of image quality for $ 800 and even getting 60p. The last thing I will talk about the industry in general. What many video/slr website don't take into account is the vast vast vast Nikon world. Contrary to what many on here were talking about the demise of Nikon, they have survived 6 long years to Canon dominance between 2000 to 2007 until the Nikon D300 and D3. One of the big reason is the lens and ecosystem. I can mount 50 year old lens on my camera if I want or if I buy a lens tomorrow I know that I will be able to but it on a camera for decades. This market won't just disappear even if tomorrow cell phone kills the low end. The enthusiast semi pro and pro are not going to cell phone any-time soon and both Canon and Nikon will still be billion dollar company in 5 years. They might adapt but they won't just disappear overnight. So what about this huge Nikon slr market, if only 1 out of 5 Nikon users cares about video it might be more than lumix users. That is why you will more and more Nikon users because they will start to push the video button and the image will be so good that they won't be interested to buy other equipment, but will search for Nikon related test and info on the video capability of their camera. The one who understand that will get part of this cake.

@noirist anyone that will tell you that ISO 6400 is good, is not relative to a 100 ISO image. If you thought that you would get noiseless detailled image at 6400 then he lives in another dimention in 2013. What everyone who has worked with different cameras at high ISO will see some very good quality factoring that he kept the image with very dark area (surely using shutter speed to achieve it) that will yield more noise. In real life scenario it would be very very dark near darkness to get to this shadows at 6400 ISO. The last thing is just look at the Canon 700D example to give you a taste of what general apsc Slr camera level of noise compared to the D5300. If you factor in detail level, it is good 2 stop better.

He should have broaden his views about dslr video brand when he is talking about only the high-end 5dmark3 has any improvement over the canon cameras of 5 years ago. The Panasonic gh3/g6 offer better image quality with low to no aliasing/moire and the best functional for hybrid photo/video camera. The Nikon D5200/D7100 surely has less functionality but even better image quality with better Dynamic range and low light. The new D5300 could even further that with no banding and 60fps at 1080p. It is not as if because Canon is sleeping that the others are doing the same.

I hope that someday he might see the market not only in terms of what looks more innovative but camera that are also ... good enough. In my case for example, I am a Pro Nikon shooter with about $ 15 000 in camera, lens, flashes etc invested in the Nikon system the last 8 years (I don't live in a first world country). In the mean time I have bought a Canon 7D and a Panasonic gh2 for video. If there was no Nikon D5200 and the D7100 that I bought, I would have gone Panasonic gh3 or Blackmagic. But in the end, from what I saw the D7100 is good enough for me and I am so thrilled about the image quality, that is why I am so interested in the d5300. A D7100 image without the Fix pattern noise and 60p is just ideal for me. No need to search for new lens, adapters that might fail etc etc... For sure I would like at least 10 bit, high bitrate internal codec and eventually raw when I can afford the size and resources needed. But until now with my ninja if need be, I get what I always wanted when I had my hacked gh2. Better dynamic range and lowlight with good 1080 resolution without any aliasing and moire... The combo with the ninja is still very small and adds peaking, zebras, false colour and high bitrate codec. If someone cannot do nice pictures with such a combo then he needs to look at himself.