tosvus

Can't say I am noticing any moire so far with mine.
 
Review soon.

Holding off on a GH4 until this is sorted, waiting to see 4K OM footage, what IS options are there on the Samsung NX1
Only optical on the A7s ?

I don't see how 4k would have ex Tele, as I believe 4k is a 1:1 crop on the sensor already. You can use the 4k footage and crop to 1080p in post processing of course.

It's focus-by-wire, so no it is not repeatable off the barrel. The shutter speed dial does not include 1/50, but you can dial it in easily with other knobs.
 
 
The camera actually doesn't use the entire 4/3 sensor at any given time like a GH4 in photo mode can. The sensor is set up with a multi-aspect mode, so depending on the aspect ratio a different chunk of the sensor is being used. Its 4k mode uses the same area as the GH4 - resulting in a 2.2x crop from full frame 35mm. But the lens isn't 12-37.5mm, it's 10.9-34mm. So the 4k crop is actually very close to 24-75mm equivalent.
Rolling shutter is the same as the GH4.
No Cinelike profiles at the moment, but picture styles have the same adjustments that they do on Panasonic's other m4/3 cameras.
Haven't tested the sound yet. I'm expecting GX7 quality (great for built-in mic), but that's just a guess. 

The Verge reviewer must have no clue. I am sure there is a pretty sizable market for a camera with these specs, size and ability to control most anything manually with nice dials and lens-rings. This certainly went to the top of my purchase list. Having the GH3, it would be nice to have something that does 4K, and not having a 12-35 f2.8 already, this camera is a no-brainer. Even if I get the GH4 or some upcoming Olympus later on as my main camera, this will likely still take care of the wide/normal range.

You were given an answer in a nearby thread which you've probably missed. Yet again, that "transfer rate" is just how much data you get for every pixel when you record internally. Compressor efficiency and workflow not taken into account, so that's just useless conceptual pixel peeping with theoretic pixels.
 
There is no equivalence, unless you're trying to say "if i put off 2 wheels from my car, its equivalent speed would double".
Or, as they say, if grandma had balls, she would be grandpa.

For me, I'm sticking with my GH4 preorder for a number of reasons.
- Articulating screen
- Touch screen
- better grip/more comfortable to hold
- established lineup of lenses (Nocticron looks amazing, as does the new 15 f/1.7)
- internal 4k
- cheaper most likely

Sony does this to us with every release. They come so close to making a complete, breathtaking product but leave something out of it that makes you scratch your head. Almost makes you wonder if they're purposely holding back to get you with the next product. It started with the NEX line (molasses slow lens release), went to the RX1 (sluggish AF, external EVF), then to the a7 line (slowish AF, no touch screen, loud shutter, limited lens release). Not everyone adapts manual glass and some rely on fast AF since it's not all about landscapes and architecture.

Another thing that I haven't seen brought up us ergonomics. Yes the a7s is more compact but look at the layout, it's the same as the other a7's. What I mean is by all reports the video record button is in an odd place, offset to the side like that. People either comment how it's too easy to press and they end up accidentally recording a bunch of grass and the inside of the camera bag or it's too difficult to reach comfortably for the times that you want to shoot video. The GH4 like the 5DM3 seem to have it in the right place, not somewhere where you would accidentally press, but easy enough to reach when you want to.

The difference between 8-bit and 16-bit might be apparent when comparing two images of the same resolution (on monitors of the same resolution and bit depth to match each image).  Such a difference would become obvious if the scene contained a gradation subtle enough to cause banding in the 8-bit image but not in the 16-bit image.
 
However, in such a scenario, if you could continually increase the resolution of the camera sensor and monitor of the 8-bit system, you would find that the banding would dissappear at some point in the 8-bit image.  By increasing the resolution of the 8-bit system, you are also increasing its color depth -- yet its bit depth always remains at 8-bit.
 
One can easily observe a similar phenomenon.  Find a digital image that exhibits a slight banding when you are directly in front of it, then move away from the image.  The banding will disappear at some point.  By moving away from the image, you are increasing the resolution, making the pixels smaller in your field of view.  However, the bit depth is always the same, regardless of your viewing distance.
 
 
 
Such a test wouldn't be conclusive unless each monitor matches the resolution and bit depth of the image it displays.
 
 
 
Most image makers are not aware of the fact that bit depth and color depth are two different properties.  In digital imaging, bit depth is a major factor of color depth, but resolution is an equally major factor of color depth (in both digital and analog imaging).
 
Therefore, one can sacrifice resolution while increasing bit depth, yet the color depth remains the same (or is decreased).  In other words, swapping resolution for more bit depth does not result in an increase in color depth.

I don't think this site is aimed too much at producers of content to big budget productions. Correct, you won't find GH2/GH3/Blackmagic, or D800 or Canon 5d mk3 there for that matter. (maybe any of these as funny experiments or very limited scenes where they don't want to risk more expensive equipment).
 
 
The nice thing about a camera like the Blackmagic, is that it affords filmmakers who can't afford a big crew of lighting people etc to still end up with good footage.
 
So:
 
Nikon 5300 - soccermoms
Blackmagic/GH2/GH3/GH3 - indie, smaller productions
Arri (mostly) - large budget digital
 

I like the analogy of Bit depth being like rulers for this argument, I see a "10bit HD" source as one person having to produce a measurements in full 1/4 centimeter while "8bit 4k to HD" is like 4 different people measuring in full centimeters then averaging to the median of their measurements.
 
For example let's say they have to measure a subject that is 3.25 cm. 
 
The guy measuring in 1/4 centimeters easily and accurately produces the measurement of 3 1/4cm.
 
The four guys measuring in full centimeters would have to choose between 3cm or 4cm initially, if three of the four measured it as 3cm and one guy measures it as 4cm then their result would be accurate at 3 1/4cm.  But if they ended up with a different set of initial measurements they could result in an inaccurate measurement of 3 1/2cm or 3 3/4cm.
 
So it is possible to down sample 8bit 4k and gain more accurate color depth similar to 10bit HD but you will be introducing an opportunity to get slightly inaccurate results compared to an actual 10bit source, in fact each pixel has only a 1 in 4 chance of being accurately sampled to 10bit, this would be noticed on edges of color objects and in gradients.  I don't think it's worth it as a 10bit replacement but it's definitely worth it for 4:4:4 and hey it's better than 8bit so if you're stuck with it I would down sample it.  
 
Bit-rate compression is another story, as 100mbps is not enough for 4:4:4 HD.  Luckily we are bloating to 4:4:4 after recording so we are able to reset the bit-rate, allowing adequate room for the extra information to keep the same detail of the original, I would suggest 400mbps at least up to 1.6gbps if you really think it's 10bit. 
 

As others have mentioned, motion film cameras were never "FF", so unless you go for the feel that was created by Digital FF DSLR's in the last few years, you might as well stick with APS-C or similar for video. Besides if you want ultra-thin DoF, you can accomplish that with something like a speedbooster & sigma 18-35 f1.8 zoom. In the end, FF or APS-C doesn't mean much. There are other qualities far more important to get great video/film.

WOW! I dont think that you know much more than your neighbourhood. There is an entire world out there, my friend. You need to get out of your desk. You just sounded like Hitler right now! That may be one of the most stupid and nonsense comments EVER!
 
Have you ever heard about miscegenation? Let me tell you a secret: even black people can have blue eyes!
 
One of the hottest girls in the planet has a dark skin tone and blue eyes.
 
Let me present you to Adriana Lima.
 

I understand where Andrew was coming from, although his "DSLR Dead" points probably should have been in a different blog post.  The D5300 camera is more capable than many for video.  It has a nice image.  It's just a bit clumsy for controls, and is stuck with low data rates.  Nikon and the other camera manufacturers, like many big companies, are slow respond to changing trends.  Cell phone cameras are killing the P&S market, AND the camcorder market.  People want both stills and video in one camera, because they have seen it can be done on a cell phone.  If they spend the money for a separate camera and another item to carry around, they want superior quality and functionality for both stills and video, not just stills.  Other than Panasonic, the camera companies for the most part are still are stuck on stills, and dragging their feet on video, meaning they are 5 years behind the times.  That's an eternity when it comes to technology now.  Entire markets dry up in that amount of time.

I hope it didn't come across that I was implying Andrew is some sort of shill. Wasn't saying that at all. The point was, if I may clarify, is that I value the findings of other users who don't review all the time. Those who're looking for a camera to do the same things I want it to do and have similar criteria as me. The conversations like the ones I had back and forth with Matt before we each decided that based on our experience with the D5200, the D5300 would meet our needs. 
 
I'll add that I first got the D5200 based on what Andrew wrote about it, and the work that Brandon Li was doing with it. So, I do appreciate his opinion and weigh that with what appears to be a little different ultimate criteria, ie. final work flow, budget, and computing power/storage needed. 
 
Before I left for Mexico, I did a few tests and started playing with grading. Not completely happy with my skill level with grading, so I figured it was best to just show the flat stuff mostly untouched. The problem with shooting those extremely flat profiles... is that if you're going back and forth from video to stills, it becomes a real pain. I'll have to see if there's a way to quickly go from completely different custom setups without having to go into menus. My little Nikon compact has a plethora of customizable settings I can quickly change to with one flip of a knob. It'd be nice if I could find a way to do that with the D5300.
 
It doesn't bother me in the slightest that Andrew doesn't like the D5300 so much. What's odd is that it seems to matter to others so much. People have different needs and what they're willing to put up with to get the image they're happy with. Andrew does a good job of stating why he likes this or that and why he doesn't like something, though... it didn't really seem like a "review" that he did of the D5300. More of an opinion piece to call out just how much he doesn't care for it. So be it. I personally don't need anyone to validate my purchase. If it had not lived up to my expectations, I would have simply returned it. So far, it has surpassed my expectations and I'm looking forward to getting better with the camera and grading. So far, considering I haven't even tried grading anything from Mexico yet, and shot for a month handheld under a variety of often difficult conditions... my purchase has been self-validated to my liking. :)

Hi, I'm not really going to defend Nikon on the way they design the D5300, yes controls are real shit.
 
But over all I'm going to point out that image quality is really nice and you can shot a feature with it if you want to. SHIT I'M SHOOTING MY LAST FILM ON  A D7100 AND D5200!!!
 
Here I share a TEASER of it (IM SORRY IT STILL DON'T HAVE ENGLISH SUBS), its still private, the password is: teaser.

 
Enjoy  ;)

Wow really thank you guys!!! Nice u liked the teaser of "Black or White" (that is the english title)
We are almost 70% of finishing shooting the film and I'm extremely happy with the overall results. 
 
Here a got a frame grab of what we shot this saturday:

 
This Nikon are powerful, yes they have their flaws but is the same way when first canon appeared, just try a little bit and you can get something nice.
 
PS: obviously next time I'll try the GH4 :)

This really is NOT the same as "truncating" to 8 bit and then re-inventing data to get 10 bit.    More data really is there to begin with!
 
David lays the math out neatly:   4,  8-bit values combine to make one 10 bit.  Easy math isn't it?      (256+256+256+256=1024).  In other words you have 4 pixels each with a value between 0 and 255, which gives you 1024 possible combined values.
 
I asked David Newman the same general question about downsampling earlier in the week and got this reply:
 
"Very nicely, overkill even. 4:2:0 maps to an effective 4:4:4 with root-2 the image size. So 2.7k 4:2:0, is a nice 1920x1080 4:4:4 -- notice 2.7K is one of GoPro video modes partly for this reason."
 
For those who don't know, David Newman is not just "some software guy from Gopro" -  He invented the Cineform Codec and is clearly technically/mathematically gifted.
 
I don't think the workflow needs to be complicated either.  Set up your NLE with cineform codec installed (free from GOPRO) and then render an intermediate file with the correct resolution/luminance bits/colour sampling specified in the codec dialogue box.
 
Looks to be a really good camera!

What camera does real acquired 4:4:4 though? Not many, especially not at $1999.
 
Let's see the end results and compare to 10bit 1080p 4:2:2 on other cameras and then judge it.
 
The theory holds tight mathematically.

Pros are wondering what the benefit of 4K is to them in terms of overall image quality, when mastered and delivered for 2K / 1080p. A lot of work is still shot in 1080p and cameras like the Canon C300 are the workhorses of the moment.

In the case of the GH4 it may appear from the specs that it's just an 8bit 4:2:0 camera internally.

Actually the theory is 8bit 4:2:0 4K material from this camera can be taken through a workflow in post that converts it to 10bit 4:4:4 1080p - with all the smoother tonality, better colour and workflow advantages that format brings. This is a big leap for 1080p based on the much more expensive C300 which only does 8bit 4:2:2.

I asked Go Pro's David Newman (Sr. Dir. Software) whether this theory was correct...

Read the full article here

To be honest, I'm having a pretty difficult time interpreting your metaphor... But if I understand correctly, you're saying 1080p is a bit on the way out? Otherwise you may need to provide me with a new metaphor :P
 
I'm worried that the 4K footage will show compression artefacts, even if it's shot at 100mbps.  

When the GH4 comes out it will likely be available for £1500 used after a few weeks and not that much more in the shops. If you spend half that now, £750 on a D5300, be prepared to regret not waiting and spending the extra £750.
 
For those who can only afford the D5300 then OK I can understand it.

I haven't tried the GH4 yet, but two points you may take into consideration;
 
1. I think you can get a speedbooster for your Contax Zeiss lenses. If you do, it makes the crop factor much closer, and the added light sensitivity will likely make up for most of the advantage a larger sensor would have with the same lenses.
 
2. By downsizing 4K signal to 1080p in post, theoretically it should boost the picture to something like 10bit 422 or better and I would expect it would hold up very well in grading.
 

I don't think this site is aimed too much at producers of content to big budget productions. Correct, you won't find GH2/GH3/Blackmagic, or D800 or Canon 5d mk3 there for that matter. (maybe any of these as funny experiments or very limited scenes where they don't want to risk more expensive equipment).
 
 
The nice thing about a camera like the Blackmagic, is that it affords filmmakers who can't afford a big crew of lighting people etc to still end up with good footage.
 
So:
 
Nikon 5300 - soccermoms
Blackmagic/GH2/GH3/GH3 - indie, smaller productions
Arri (mostly) - large budget digital
 

I've re-written the review based on ScreensPro's suggestion:
 
***
 
The undoubted highlight of the camera is the Baby Photo Mode which produces optimised, colourful JPEGs of your children for uploading to Facebook, though one major downside of the camera is the inability to make calls on it and upload directly to Facebook, it does include WiFi. Of less interest is 1080/60p, which is good for that 'smooth home movie look' but is really designed for slow-mo. Unfortunately slow-mo requires very expensive and complicated editing software like Adobe Premiere. The D5300 benefits from not having 10bit 4:2:2 or ProRes because you can store a year's worth of heavily compressed footage on mum's iMac from 2008 with a 120GB hard disk.
 
*12 pages of in-depth scene mode coverage*
 
Conclusion...
 
The D5300 is perfectly suited to making shitty home movies with because it lacks any kind of innovation whatsoever.
 
The Super 35mm Toshiba sensor is completely wasted on a low-end camera, but it shouldn't bother THE FAMILY MARKET, the main target of this camera, and therefore top marks 10/10.

The Pocket workflow for ProRes doesn't require a greater outlay in anything aside from fast SD cards.
 
You can grade it in Premiere like DSLR footage and even just put Film Convert on it.
 
If you mean raw than yes I agree with you, it does invite a lot of time spent grading in post and a lot of storage space.