Danyyyel

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.

It is good that eoshd did a good review of the RX10 and saw its limits. A camera that he himself has been hipping a lot. For me I have stop believing in any of the Sony dslr camera. Every new model is crippled in one way or the other to protect their high-end camera line. It is so obvious that I can't even understand people who get excited by any Sony dslr camera for video use. One example is the claim that it has full sensor readout. I am 200% sure that is just marketing bull-shit because of the moire/aliasing in the shots. On the other side you have Nikon who release the D5300 camera which gets rid of the only major problem of its predecessor (fix pattern noise) and adds 60fps 1080p and gets a paragraph with a test done in the shop. It might look like minor upgrade but from an already very very strong Nikon D5200 image quality. This camera with its lack of FPN and new expeed 4 could even be better than the 5dmark3 in many area. Some I am sure like Dynamic range and sharpness and others like lowlight will need some test. Hopefully someone else (Cinema 5D Johnnie Behiri said that it was on his list). My guess is that the D5300 will have an image very close in term of sharpness, DR etc to the Canon C100/C300 below ISO 3200. And it will at least have 60 fps for $ 800. Unfortunately for most people and bloggers, what they will remember with their lack of research is that the Nikon DF has no video, and as such Nikon does not care about video and should be crucified for this. Yet Sony just released 3 cameras that all have their dose of moire/aliasing, codec, etc. etc. issues and they get all the headlines.

@skiphunt, I can't understand too much you choice between the D5300 and Sony Rx10. One cannot even be categorised at a large sensor camera while the other one is a Cinema 3d mm sensor size. The fix lens at 2.8 on such a smallish sensor will be more like f7/f8 on an Apsc size sensor. Compare that to the Nikon where you can add some very fast primes or the superb Sigma 17-35 1.8 zoom. Even if you put the more common extended zoom like the 18-140 f 3.5/56 you will still have more light than the 2.8 on the Rx10. There are also some very good variable ND now for not too much money. For me one is only good if you want camcorder type of image and flexibility and the other one much more cinema type quality image with a little less flexibility. For me they are very very different type of camera and for very very different use.

Yes I think it is definetly his skin tone or makeup which is getting the guy a more olive green colour. For me Nikon produce some very good jpg and these can be corrected in 2 sec in any grading software. A little colder white balance etc.

@RRRoger, Hi tell us your experience. I have a D7100 and a Ninja 2. The first thing I noticed is that the Ninja footage is that there is a jump in resolution and a little more detail in the shadows and it is better to get rid of the Fix pattern noise. If the D5300 hdmi output is uncompressed and 4.2.2 I would invest in one so that I don't have to deal with the fpn and the 60p.

Nikon does a niche $ 3000 camera just for photographers without video and the world wide web of video shooters bloggers etc. erupt in anger. Predicting its downfall etc. with all type of silly argument that the company will disapeer etc. Nikon release a camera which is truly hd resolution, looks like having no moire/aliasing, very good low light that will challenge the 5dmark3 and DR in the 12 stop range. They eliminate the big problem that plague its predecessors like banding, added 60 fps at full 1080p and no ones talk about it. This shows you how silly people are, from pseudo expert and bloggers that only look at the spectacular and not the concrete things. More so that if it follow the other latest Nikon camera trend you could add an external recorder to film with 220 4.4.2 prores. The closest you could compare it to is the Canon $600/12000 C100/C300 and both of them don't give you 1080p at 60 fps. For sure they have other qualities for video but this D5300 is only $ 800 and can take gorgeous 24 megapixel photos with 14 stop of Dynamic range.

Sincerely, I can't understand how anyone interested by DSLR video can feel exited by any camera from Sony. They can put all the bell and whistle of the world but in the end the image is disappointing for me. I can't bear aliasing/moire in 2013/2014 when lowly $ 700 Nikon/Panasonic camera don't have it. People just fall for the hype, they are just protecting there higher end video camera line like Canon. Look at Nikon Sony sensor moire/aliasing D800/D7000 etc... Toshiba/Nikon sensor no more moire/aliasing D4/D5200/D7100 with the same expeed 3 processors. I was praying (and still until I see test for moire on the D5300) that the sensor from the D5300 does not have a Sony sensor.

Orriginal D5300 .mov file to download. The good news for me is that when lifting the shadows there is no banding :)

I can understand that Nikon might not be so glamorous than some others. But having a very balance camera for me is sometime much better. As a working professional (more photo than video), I understand the problem of having a good and reliable system to work with. Having a camera that is true high resolution comparable to the gh2, about 12 stop of DR, no moire/aliasing, very good low light and 4.4.2 high birate prores if I use an external recorder that would go straight into any editor and cinema 35mm size sensor without any addon that might fail. For example there is a lot of hype for the Sony R10 because Sony said that it is sampling all the pixel, but these Nikons are surely sampling a lot more of the 24 megapixel of the toshiba sensor to get the high resolution moire free image of the latest d5200/d7100. They are just stupid not advertising it. What is the DR of the Sony and the tiny sensor compared to the Nikon Apsc ones. My only gripe now is 10 bit. A d7100 with a Ninja is such a good combo, peaking, false colour, zebras etc in such a small package.

From photo samples people have reported that banding is gone and you can clearly see that it is not the same sensor as the D7100/D5200 dpreview.com/forums/thread/3561765 In terms of sharpness the D7100 (no olpf apsc sensor) is very close to the gh2 http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?310503-Nikon-D7100-vs-Panasonic-gh2-sharpness . I have tested with a Ninja and you get another notch of sharpness/detail with a Ninja. If the banding is gone you will be able to truly exploit the DR without noise reduction. The D800/D5200 have been tested very near to 12 stop and if this one is the same you would have a very very good camera. The only thing that they could have added to make it near perfect for me is 10 bit. The encoder is much better than the gh2 for banding, but 10 bit would have been so much better. We would get a $ 800 camera with very good resolution, Dynamic range, low light. I hope to see more test to confirm that. For those that want convenience/feature it would be gh3 and pure image quality would be D5300 for low cost dslr.

Another thing I wanted to add about this thread is about the suppose non flexibility of the Nikon mount. In the photo world it would be considered a joke. Nikon with Canon are the two most matured lens system in the world. You can have all type of lens from super wide to super telephoto, macro, micro, tilt-shift etc. and all these lens will work as they should with autofocus, metering, stabilisation etc. They also have all sorts of third party manufactures to choose from Tamron, tokina, sigma to the high-end zeiss. In the case of Nikon you can also buy hald a century old lens that will work on the camera. When you invest in the Nikon lens you are sure that it will be a guaranteed investment because you will have a body to attach it to in 50 years. This is why, those lens tend to not depreciate a lot with time.

Exactly what I think is happening, it is more the lower end that is partly suffering because of smartphone, but the main reason is that the cameras are just good enough. Until I bought my D800 last year my workhorse camera as a pro photographer was the D300. In terms of image quality alone the D3200 would put it to shame in resolution and DR. I also printed gorgeous A3 print with my 6 megapixel D70 in 2005, I bet no consumer needs more than 6 megapixel for there A5 maximum size prints.   The 10 bit is my main concern because I think that it is tied to the jpeg processing engine. In case of Nikon it is the expeed processor and they have two functionality which are 8bit jpeg/tiff and raw. I think that we might see raw even before any 10 bit codec. I am not against raw for video, but the size is too prohibitive now. An internal log base 10 bit codec at about 100 mbit would be perfect with the uncompressed hdmi in 10 bit. The worst case for me is the 4k marketing that is gathering pace. They could go 4k 8bit before 10 bit or raw, just for the sake of being competitive against the new wave of smartphone tablet that will be coming out.

People are just as dumb here as the people in photo forum that despise video on dslr. It is the same lack of knowledge and sense of self entitlement that Nikon is not giving them what they need. In the case of the photo shooters what can they complain about? Nikon has the best Line-up since 2007/2008 at the launch of the D300/D3 since suffering for about 7 years complete dominance by Canon. Is there anything comparable to D800 in the Canon Line-up. Medium format back resolution, highest DR ever (nearly 3 stop above Canon 5d3), Low light very near to the Sport/low light camera 1dx/D4. Even the $ 1000 D7100 has better resolution and DR than the 5d3. . In case of the D800 it is currently the best Dslr and by extention the best photo camera ever to exist. So if they are complaining about a button that they are not forced to use, then they should change job/hobby/passion. Now for our friends here, who are complaining about Nikon not putting video in the DF… why should they do it? If anyone took 5 minutes to investigate, they would see that Nikon already have a solid line-up of video dslr, that are continuously updated. They just launch the $ 800 D5300 which included 1080p at 60 fps. A feature that even the Canon C line does not have!!! If it uses the same Toshiba sensor tech than the D5200/d7100, it will have no moire/aliasing problem like the gh2. The day Nikon change sensor manufacturer from Sony… Hey, gone are the moire/aliasing. Gh3 gets a sony dslr sensor and back is moire/aliasing. Guess who is holding back sensor tech for moire/aliasing in its sensors. That joke of a Company called Sony is now telling us that they are sampling all pixel form there small sensor compact camera and people are falling for that!!! This is already gone from the Apsc/S35 sensor Nikon dslr for a year. The low light is very good, it rivals the 5dmark 3 http://www.eoshd.com/content/9713 test from eoshd and the resolution of the d7100 comes very close to the gh2. A Blind test by me, where many got it wrong and others did not commit http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread...-gh2-sharpness. You do get even better sharpness using an external recorder. The DR is superb in the 11.5 to 12 stop depending on different testers. Not the best test but again confirming the more scientific test done by people like Samuel H who did the Flaaat profile for Nikon camera http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread...mic-range-test. With an external recorder, I would say that you could get 1/3 to 1/2 stop more Dr. So we would be in good 12 stop DR camera. The only caveat is the Fix patter noise, but neat video does a stunning job with the high bitrate Ninja footage which is also a bit sharper than the internal codec. The aps Nikon are nowadays for me the best DSLR in terms of image quality below the Raw 5dmark3 and even then... until some knowledgeable people test them we will never know by how much. I have always been critical about Nikon but at least they are trying. They were the one that released the first dslr with uncompressed hdmi which is already a big step in the right direction and you even have it in its $ 800 camera. Everybody would have been all over it if there was not the RAW revolution of the Blackmagic camera for $ 1000. Unfortunately they were not bold enough as nobody could guess that you would have raw and 10 bit prores for 1k. The latest step is 60fps in 1080p, something you don't have even in the $ 12 000 Canon C300. Again every new Nikon dslr generation is progressing, but where are the reviews, where are the bloggers/reviewers etc … who are supposed to guide us. So because it is not raw it is not good!!! I chose the D7100 over the Nikon D600 as a back-up to my D800 (I am a professional photographer), because of the video quality. I chose to buy an Atomos Ninja rather than the BM pocket camera, because I wanted the S35 camera look and lack of moire/aliasing. I sold my beloved gh2 because with my test, the D7100 was exactly what I wanted during the frenzy of hacked gh2, a better DR gh2. What I would really want in terms of image quality is at least 10 bit, the rest would be just bonuses for now.

I don't see how it could be viewed as a blackmagic killer. For 500/1000 more you are getting a 2k/4k raw and Prores camera. The DR should be about the same and global shutter. With the difference in cost of media, they should be very close in price and the camera is truly meant to shoot continuous video. Now if you really own a 5d3 or really want the full frame look or better low light, then it becomes a very attractive camera compared to the Blackmagic cinema cameras. Now if ML can make the raw work on the lower end camera in the $ 1000 range then it changes everything.

Nobody I think is saying that about 12 stop (11.7 by DXO) of DR is not good. But having now a D800 and compared to the 12 stop DR D300 before it, I can say that it reaches the treshold of near human vision. That is why I think the Alexa is so much hailed for its DR, because this is about really near to what I can see. (I know the different theories about the human eye DR). There is by DXOmark nearly 3 stop of DR difference and I will believe it beyond any people guess, experience or whatever. Again that does not mean that the Canon is not able to do supperb image. I sincerely hope that we see a DXOmark type of rating in the video world soon. What Dxomark has done is to pacify the dslr world. With it scientific method it standardise sensor performance ranking and except certain Fanboys everybody now has a standard to rate what is in the camera. The result is that the endless my camera is better than yours at least in image quality has subsided and people have gone more into the creative talking.

People that are contesting Dxomark today are trully baseless. It has proven during the last few years that it was the most reliable measurement for sensor performance in the dslr photography world. It total sensor score is somewhat subjective but the rest is scientific and has the methodology. For example it test at 8 megapixel, so for example the D800 is 14.5 stop at 8 megapixel but about 13.9 at pixel level. Most of the time, the people that are contesting it are Canon fanboys because it is hard for them to see that Canon sensor tech has not evolved a lot the last 4 years. In any case I am not saying that the 5d3 raw hack is not incredible. At 11.7 to 12 stop of DR (perhaps a little lower at pixel level) it is still very good and much more usable than in a compressed 8 bit format. Another of note is that I did not see any real scientific test of the DR of the BMC, so for now I take the 13 stop with a little grain of salt.