tpr

Slow motion test shot with D5300 this weekend.

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  ;)

Well, it's not unusable. I actually really enjoy using it, particularly when I have plenty of time and my subject matter is not of the run & gun variety. 
 
My use of the word nightmare is partly an attempt to bridge the gap between the polarizing that, as you say, is going on here. I don't want to get in a Nikon vs Panasonic war. I'm really just trying to talk from an objective point of view. If the people here who have problems with the D5300 feel the need to use words like "nightmare" to describe the design of the Nikon, then I'm happy to go along with that in order to establish some middle ground. It is really annoying to shoot video with compared to a Panasonic. But it's a bloody DSLR, not a mirrorless! Andrew just hates mirrors, and he's picked on the D5300 to show that yet again. Personally I agree that the future of low budget filmmaking cameras is in mirrorless, but at the moment there is not a Panasonic camera that matches the D5300's image.* Yes they are sharper, but low-light, DR, colour, S35 sensor, organic image all add up to an image that for me is sometimes more appealing than for example my G6. But ultimately that's a personal thing. I just like the 5300's image a lot. But I do wish it had peaking, a histogram, zebras, aperture control in LV, autofocus that doesn't suck, buttons in the right place, an EVF. But at the end of the day it's what's on the screen that matters, and with practice and perhaps a few add-ons you can shoot whatever you want with the 5300. It's a bloody brilliant video camera. 
 
Without question the GH4 is going to force a change in the low budget ILC video market. I just hope that either Nikon decide to build on the lovely image the 5300 has and go for broke with video in some way or other, or the GH4 and its successors give us an image that is more than just super-sharp - I want the organic, low-light, great dynamic range quality of the D5300, just with a little more sharpness and ease of use. I worry though that MFT sensor will never look quite so filmic, even with a Speed Booster. We'll have to wait and see. If the GH4 is all of those things, I'll be over the moon.
 
BTW, I will be looking seriously at buying a Ninja - but it seems daft to loose 60p wit the 5300 ATM.
 
* I haven't seen enough of the GX7. I'd love to see some low light footage shot with a GX7 and Speed Booster. And some dynamic range examples with the same. That might give us a ballpark idea of what the GH4 image will look like. I believe FuzzyNormal has a GX7 (not sure if he has a SB though) - any chance of a few example shots Fuzzy?

When you reviewed the D5200, you tested it alongside the 5d mk3 and posted some comparison video that impressed me at the time. If I remember correctly, your opinion was that they were almost on a par for image quality. I've now tested the D5200 and D5300 alongside each other and the improvement in the D5300's low light capability is quite obvious to me, so I wouldn't be surprised if it surpasses the 5D mk3 with original firmware. Of course the 5D mk3 has a greater feature set and all that, but I'm just talking about image quality.

I've tested them side by side and found that for video, the noise handling on the D5300 is definitely much better than on the D5200, especially at higher ISOs. The improvement appears to be specific to video though because the stills are about the same in that regard. I suspect the faster processor in the D5300 has allowed more sophisticated down-sampling algorithms to be applied to the signal coming off the sensor at the speed needed for video.

Reminds me a bit of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpUNA2nutbk

Reminds me a bit of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpUNA2nutbk

Steps to becoming a fanboy/girl (or any kind of ideologue):
1. Invest time, money or effort into something
2. Ignore all evidence that might subsequently call the wisdom of that investment into question so as to maintain faith in one's own judgement
 
This doesn't work for people who would rather weed out the mistakes in their beliefs than cling to an illusion of infallibility.

Steps to becoming a fanboy/girl (or any kind of ideologue):
1. Invest time, money or effort into something
2. Ignore all evidence that might subsequently call the wisdom of that investment into question so as to maintain faith in one's own judgement
 
This doesn't work for people who would rather weed out the mistakes in their beliefs than cling to an illusion of infallibility.

But they do show aesthetic aspects, just not directly. Things like sharpness, noise and dynamic range are trivially correlated with aesthetic judgements, so controlled measurements of these properties are much more useful for comparisons than trying to generalize about the character of different cameras by watching finished films produced under different conditions by different film makers.
 
In principle, any aesthetic quality that is sufficiently well understood can be measured scientifically.

"This is all you have to say about this camera" and yet you only mention the prores shooting mode of a raw shooting camera, aren't you kind of missing the point?
You also keep basing its performance on the original BMCC camera, even though it's a different sensor.