Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by skiphunt

  1. I didn't get the 18-55 kit lens with my D5300, though I sort of wish I had. I got it with the D5200 and didn't think it was anywhere near as bad as many on the forums made it out to be. The VR worked well and it seemed plenty sharp enough. It was also very lightweight and did an impressive macro ratio. The only kit lens offered when I bought mine was the 18-140, so I just went for body only since I already have the 18-200VR. If they bundle it after the holiday with the 18-55, and it's still inside my 45 day return period, I may swap it out for one with the short kit zoom. Going to test what I have a bit more and see where I'm lacking the most. The main thing I don't like about my 18-200VR is that it's manual focus isn't very smooth.. and, it's a little heavy for walking around. Thanks for the info. I'll be looking at it more closely over the next few days and seeing what's available at KEH :)
  2. Matt: I think I might be more interested in the Nikon route, but figured those Rokinon cine's were somehow better because they're newer and potentially tuned/coated for cine? I have nothing to base that on, but yes... I'd love to have your thoughts on this since I know we have a similar aesthetic taste and we both have the D5300. Had an 85mm f2 that I loved, but sadly sold about 5 or 6 years ago. Would've been perfect now, and as I recall, the focus was buttery smooth on it. I'm ashamed to admit it, but I'm always confused with all the different Nikon lens names, i.e.. AI-s AI, D, etc. Which ones do you recommend for the D5300 for me to keep a look out for? Please tell me which 2 or 3 you would take if that's all you could have. I just pulled the trigger on a ticket to the Yucatan, Mexico. Leaving in 2.5weeks. Won't likely invest in lenses before I leave, but I think I can find a couple within what I have that should suffice. Regarding tripods, I just picked up this for travel: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BFDBO2E/ref=oh_details_o05_s00_i02?ie=UTF8&psc=1 It's VERY compact and seems sturdy enough. The panning isn't fluid level, but very smooth. I think because the D5300 is so light, I may be able to get fairly smooth pans with it. We'll see about that, but it'll fit inside a daypack being only 12in long collapsed, and is reasonably lightweight.
  3. I got decent results out of this lens on a D300, but I do recall having sharpness up and smart-sharpening just about everything. Half of these where shot with the 18-200 (the 16:9 images mixed in were the compact Panasonic LX3) http://www.kaleidoscopeofcolor.com/galleria/go-west-color/ All of these where the 18-200 on the D300 as well: http://www.kaleidoscopeofcolor.com/galleria/guatemala-2008/ I think for stills, I prefer my newer Nikon lenses, 35mm f1.8 50mm 1.8, the the 18-200VR for carry around. But for video, I'm liking the look and color I'm getting from an old Nikkor 135mm f2 and a 36-105mm f3.5. It must be the coating as you say, but the video clips just look more organic. The 50mm 1.8D looks very good for video on the D5300 as well. Seriously considering just getting a wide cine Rokinon and the 85mm cine Rokinon. It looks like Brandon Li does nicely with that combo on the 5D3 and his previous D5200 stuff. The cost of those lenses is about all I'm willing to spend at this point though. Are there other's in that price range you'd recommend if I'm going with primes only?
  4. @Henry, Reaper isn't actually free, but the trial lasts 60 days. After that, it's $60 for a non-commercial license. Does it keep working after the 60 days? I've only been playing with it for a couple weeks. So far, it's been somewhat intuitive. @Zach, that's just it... I don't really think so. I've been out of the motion game for a few years. The last version of FCP I used was V6 and I can't say I was ever that proficient in it to be honest. I got the job done, but it was always a struggle. So now I'm just getting back in slowly. Just bought FCP X and am finding much more intuitive. I used Soundtrack Pro before, but never felt very comfortable with that one either. Was wondering if Logic had some FCP X specific functionality for roundtrip editing that makes it the best option. However, as I asked in my post... I'm not certain that I really need anything more than what FCP X comes with. From what I've read, the latest Garageband is actually fairly impressive as well. I think I'll just keep playing with Reaper and see if that would take care of any fun soundscape stuff I might want to play with. If so, it's seems well regarded and at $60, it's an easy sale. :)
  5. Wow! Hadn't ever thought of that. I already have the Gorrilla SLR with a heavy-duty Sunpack head that came bundled on it from B&H a couple years ago. That's perfect and I'd be taking that along anyway for time-lapse stuff. Thanks for the tip! :)
  6. Quick question: I recently bought the latest FCP X and was thinking about getting Logic Pro X as well. However, I've also been playing with Reaper and like it. It's only $60 for a license and Logic is $200. The more I delve into DAW software reviews, the more it's clear they're mostly targeted and designed for musicians. For filmmaking, are the audio tools already built-in to FCP X sufficient? Perhaps Garageband and FCP X are really all most of use ever need? Or, are there very compelling reasons to also have Logic Pro or Reaper DAW software? ProTools is out due to the higher cost. I could go for Logic Pro, but I'm beginning to think it's likely more than I really need. Thoughts and opinions for indie filmmaking sound design software?
  7. @Danyyyel, I hear ya about being frustrated regarding the lack of interest from 3rd party testers, but they're function isn't necessarily at the whim of the few of us interested in a particular camera. ;) I saw enough that I was willing to take a chance and am glad I did. It's not perfect, but for the money I think it's a darn good image with lots of potential, especially in low light. Regarding the lenses, my testing has been all over the map. The 18-200 isn't horrible and I can get VERY sharp images/video with it. What I wasn't paying close enough attention to is the ISO. Detail and sharpness drop of course when you're at higher ISOs, add to that.. your shutter speed and amount of motion, etc. From what I've seen, the older Nikon glass isn't really that much sharper, they might be a little sharper but they also handle color and contrast differently as well. Overall, I like the look from the older glass but I also like to be able to shoot handheld. What I'll likely do is go back to using a tripod/monopod and my older glass. I'm mostly just trying to get a very basic kit together very quickly because I'm toying with backpack traveling in the Yucatan of Mexico in a couple weeks or so. I don't have anything in particular I'm shooting but want to try and have myself covered for a variety of shooting situations, still images, etc. without having to lug a bunch of gear and lenses with me. So... I'm in a bit of a hurry, though the hurry isn't about anything all that vital. At the end of the day, what I'll likely do is pack what I want to take, then check the weight, then decide what I really have to have and what I can get by without.
  8. I like the look too Matt. At some point, I think people should take off the pixel peeping googles and start evaluating, and crafting images based solely on aesthetic taste. It's fine to try and figure out what your tools are capable of, and whether or not they can deliver the look you're after via grading, etc. But after you've figured out if the tool is capable enough, it's time to focus on the artistic part. On pretty much all of the camera enthusiast sites, you read post after post that imply some users get stuck in eval mode... they can't see anything other than noise, corner focus, dynamic range, resolution, moire, etc. I do the same thing, but try to recognize when it's time to just start using the tools with the knowledge you've gained in the testing phase, i.e. "This camera's noise is acceptable to me up to about 3200, so I need to make lens and lighting decisions to compensate." or, "This camera tends toward a softer image, so I need to use the sharpest glass I have, and plan on a little sharpening in post when needed." etc.
  9. Here's some D5300 test clips under artificial fluorescent at the mall. Used a 18-200 DX VR lens. Not my sharpest lens, but the VR makes handheld tolerable.
  10. I think Matts most recent test looks very good. Could be sharpened a bit, as could mine... but, I'm trying to find a balance of organic vs being too sharpened and digital looking. I've only had my camera a couple days now, so I'm still figuring out what I want to set the incamera parameters to, and how much to do in post. To be clear though, I'm not trying to emulate any particular look at the moment... just adjusting until I find the look I like. Some of you might prefer trying to get close to the sort of RED-camera-inspired very fine, high res footage... and there's nothing wrong with that if that's what you like. Some of the RED stuff is decent, some brilliant even, but most of it looks too cold and sterile to me. I'm looking for something different that I find aesthetically pleasing and doesn't call too much attention to itself.
  11. I can say I'm happy with the D5300 personally. Handling is awkward and I wish it had focus peaking as well as being able to change the aperture without backing out of live view, but I can accept those faults for the pure image quality. No, it's not as nice as some of the raw stuff I've seen, but it's close enough and doesn't require all the extra workflow hassles. It actually even looks pretty decent edited and output from an iPad. I know, sacrilege to even mention that footage that's not raw and is edited with an iPad might be acceptable, but to my ol' eyes, it's pretty dang close. Quick audio question... I bought a Sony PCM-M10 recorder. I know, for dslr stuff I should've got something with XLR inputs, etc. but for what I want to use it for, I VERY happy with it. Just curious... what is the difference between recording with mic sensitivity set to high and backing off levels manually, with recording with mic sensitivity set to low and compensating with a higher manual level setting?
  12. Ah! Ok. Vaguely remember that. Been awhile. ;) No matter... I'm about finished with sharing test clips anyway. Just figured I'd upload a 2 or 3 for others considering this camera. I know it was so difficult to find anything to judge it's image quality by, so I thought I'd pay back a little. Also, trying to figure out a combination that's as minimal as possible for taking on my next travels. Will be carrying backpack so I need to keep it sparse. Carrying a portable audio recorder, Sennheiser ME66, a very compact but sturdy tripod, the D5300, maybe a couple small LED lights with collapsible scrims for basic lighting setups, and just one lens. Will likely just take the 18-200VR since it gives me a good range, macro, seems sharp enough, and the VR actually works fairly well smoothing out handhelds. Just is a bit awkward to manually focus and I can't change f-stop manually with it. I like the look of the older Nikon glass I just tested, but it won't be practical as my only lens, especially for stills, and no AF for street stuff. This isn't all perfectly ideal, but I think there's enough potential in this setup while also being able to carry it all in my backpack and daypack with the rest of my travel stuff.
  13. I'm not sure why the Vimeo version is only displaying a SD resolution and not even a 720p version like the last one I uploaded. Am replacing the file now, just out of curiosity.
  14. Second compilation of test clips using the Nikon D5300, standard profile, at 60p with old Nikkor Full-Frame 35-105mm f3.5 lens. Acquainting myself with the new Final Cut Pro X 10.1 as well, so all handheld clips stabilized with default settings, mild grading, vignettes added to last clips, conformed to 23.98, and all slightly sharpened. Vimeo version with download enabled here:
  15. Matt: Based on what you have now, I'd agree it's time to upgrade. But, I wouldn't recommend my setup. The MBP 13in doesn't have a fast graphics card. I was just using it as an example regarding my comment about not investing in more than you really need right now. I'm only playing with short-form stuff with the D5300. When I move on to my longer, feature-length projects I'll be upgrading my hardware. If I didn't want to keep my main machine mobile, I'd go for an iMac. More bang for the money. Chrisso has a good point about never buying the first new product until the early adopters shake out all the bugs. When I upgrade, I'll still want to stay mobile, so I'll be getting the 15in MBP with the GX750 graphics card, solid state drive, max'd RAM, with an external thunderbolt solid state dedicated to video projects only. I've got a thunderbolt 27in now, but will likely daisy chain a second one at some point. If you don't need to be mobile, I'd lean toward the iMacs. If you're on a budget like me ;) I'd get the 21in iMac with the fastest graphics card available, max out the RAM myself, buy it with a solid state drive already installed since they're a pain to do yourself, add an external thunderbolt solid state drive, and add another thunderbolt monitor as my second display. You can assign either display as your main screen with Mavericks. I'd set the 27in thunderbolt as my main display, and use the iMac 21in as my secondary display. I'd buy the iMac and thunderbolt displays as refurbs from Apple since they have the same warranty as the new stuff, and use your savings to buy the external thunderbolt drive and extra RAM. As far as calibration, the mac stuff gets close enough. People get all anal about perfect calibration, then forget that none of the screens that will be viewing their work will be calibrated. They'll be on displays that are all over the map. Just get it close and that should be perfectly fine for most applications.
  16. Personally, I think it's a mistake to be thinking in terms of "future proofing". The reality is, you simply can't do that anymore with anything. The manufacturers across the board have completely adopted a model of planned obsolesce. That's with computers, cameras, etc. If the investment in your gear isn't showing an immediate return on that investment, you're foolish to spend any more than the bare minimum of what you really need right now. Now, if you've got the money to blow and you want a lighting fast system that will allow you to create more, faster, and give you more free time to spend with your friends and family, then by all means... splurge. If you have paying clients right now who demand faster turnaround and that faster turnaround will get you even more clients, then certainly invest in the state of the art right now, ie. Mac Pro & a couple $3,500 4K monitors. My current 13in MBP setup with thunderbolt 27in is tolerable for what I'm actually doing at the moment. Just bought FCP X 10.1 when it was released yesterday and it does seem faster and more stable than the demo I was trying out, even on my very basic setup. I'd like a little more speed, but a nominal investment in an external thunderbolt solid state drive and more RAM will likely tide me over for the reality of what I'm actually doing at the moment. If I was farming myself out to shoot projects for other people and they demanded raw footage that was carefully graded with Resolve, etc. and my livelihood depended on quick turn-around, I'd certainly invest in the best and fastest I could afford. In the past couple of decades, I've seen people go into debt buying the state-of-the-art gear, thinking this would get them into the big leagues and bring more clients. The ones who have been the most successful, did the best and most creative work with very little, and then upgraded only when increased client load demanded it. Those who invested first, usually end up paying out huge loans with interest on gear that's obsolete and can't even be sold off for a fraction of what they paid. Think of those in the past who spent over $250K on digi-beta gear and editing bays... only to compete with $2k DV cams and $3k Macs running FCP that produced a better final product only 4 years after they went in debt for what was considered state of the art at the time. Some who already had the clientele, paid of that gear inside of the first quarter of ownership. Unfortunately, many others did not. Don't get me wrong... I'd dearly love to have a max'd out MacPro for $10k and a couple of those sweet $3,500 Sharp 4k monitors to go with it. But, I wouldn't kid myself that my sweet-a$$ work-station was "future proof". It'd likely be all the rage for just a little over a year before something twice as fast and half the price was available. I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes out with a viable video box that's thunderbolt based and uses something as nominal as an iPad to control it. ;) Does your current system have thunderbolt? If so, I'd first see how much more performance you could squeeze out of faster drives, faster-thru put, and max'd out RAM. If that doesn't suffice your current needs, then at least the drives would be viable investments for at least another 5 years I'd guess and max'd RAM is always a good idea anyway.
  17. Another thing I noticed about 3rd party batteries and the D5300. Figured because the most recent firmware updates to the D5200 and P7700 compact to make them compatible with the new EN-EL14a battery, made 3rd party batteries useless after the update. I have a couple of normal 3rd party EN-EL14 batteries, one MaximalPower and the other is a no-name generic. Both of these batteries work fine in the D5300. I'm assuming the firmware in the D5300 I received just yesterday is the latest since Nikon doesn't list any D5300 firmware on their site at the moment. Here are the two 3rd party batteries I can confirm work fine with my D5300: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0090878BW/ref=oh_details_o05_s00_i01?ie=UTF8&psc=1 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009IESFZQ/ref=oh_details_o03_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
  18. Here's the Vimeo version. Unfortunately, you can't even download a 1080 version with a free account. Here it is anyway:
  19. My D5300 late today, but I managed to get a few clips shot. I'm just getting re-acquainted with FCP X, so there's not much done to these except for conforming 60p to 24p. No grading or sharping. First test clips from my D5300. Didn't have much time so I tried to check several things out at once. Wanted to see 1. how the 1080 60p conformed down to 24p 2. How well I could focus on the fly by the LCD 3. how well the lens VR worked to stabilize 4. how it looked with no sharpening or grading I had a D5200 for about a month 2 moanths ago. I can say that although on paper it's not that much smaller or lighter, but it feels significantly smaller and lighter. I like the way it feels in the hands. It was easier to focus with the new LCD screen, but it's still a bit rough and will require more practice. Definitely doable, but I'd much rather have focus peaking for run/gun stuff. Nailed focus more often than I missed. AF on this camera in video mode is pretty much useless. The colors look good straight out of the camera. This is the Standard color profile with the sharpness 1 notch more than default. Most of the shots where made with the Nikon 18-200 VR lens, and a couple were made with the Nikon 35mm 1.8G. All handheld. I don't have a paid Vimeo account, so I put it on YouTube. Will put it on Vimeo too with downloading enabled.
  20. Matt, looked again... replayed about 10 times and didn't see it at :53. Sure you're not talking about the little bird that flies through the shot, left side of roof in shadow at :54/:55? I do recall sharpening up my D5200 a fair amount in-camera when I had it. Always looked good and never any artifact or over-sharpening halos as long as I didn't go too far. In practice would just sharpen in post. It's looking good so far. Thanks for testing and feedback!
  21. Matt, I really don't see what you're talking about with moire. Can you tell me exactly what you're seeing and at what time mark? It looks fine to me. Regarding softness, are you sure you don't have a focus problem? Your footage does look a bit soft, but to me it looks slightly out of focus or possibly a back focus problem? Some on dpreview were sending D5300s back for focus issues. Your recent clip looks decent though. Regarding G6, yes... would get a SB, but possibly the cheaper copy-cat one as long as it has the clickless aperture ring. I've since seen plenty of compelling footage from the G6. The image is very good, and with the focus peaking, touch screen, handling, etc. it appears to be almost everything I want. I do think the D5300 may have the potential for a more "filmic" looking image, more DR, and possibly significantly better low light performance. Also, I don't have that much Nikon glass. Sold off some of it a couple years ago. Just have 3 old Nikkor FF lenses, and 3 Nikon DX lenses. Very curious about this moire problem you believe you have... I don't see any evidence of that in the full res original download of your most recent clip. Perhaps I'm missing something or this Apple Thunderbolt monitor isn't that great to evaluate on?
  22. It still looks pretty good. I saw some subtle color shifting/shimmering in the roof tiles that might be a nominal bit of moire, but didn't really notice it in the full res download. Mine still isn't here, but I'm starting to watch for last minute price drops on the G6. Was obviously a great deal when it was recently going for $500 here, but now all vendors are back up to around $750. Hoping there's some blow-out sales after the holiday. Matt, I know you got the D5300 primarily for the low light performance. Since you have both the G6 and D5300, can you tell if it's really all that much better? Now that you've got it in your hands and have shot a few things, is it really enough low light performance to justify having both cameras? Or, still too early to tell? I don't think it was that far over exposed, and plenty good enough for going off the LCD. It's actually balanced enough that dropping the exposure in post a bit would be fine. I only added that last bit about exposure because you asked for critique. ;) You've told me that given a choice of one or the other, you'd take the G6 hands down for it's overall usability, etc. Does the D5300 excel in enough areas that justify keeping it as a companion with the G6? Or, if you could easily just hand it back for a refund... would you pass on the D5300 for now? Just found this clip on YouTube shot with the D5300 at 60p. Not pertinent shooting info... but it does looks nice. However, I wouldn't say it looks any better than most of the G6 footage I've seen:
  23. Will have to look on another monitor, but I don't see any on my laptop screen at all. What shutter speed is this? Looks good on large plasma HD via Vimeo on Apple TV, though... it looks a little over-exposed. Otherwise looks pretty good. Just checked out the downloaded full res, looks good.
  24. Mine has been perpetually delayed for delivery. Was supposed to be here over a week ago, then delayed due to storms, then finally made it to Austin this weekend, but got delayed again for some reason. Likely backlog. Getting nervous about the purchase. Of the professional reviews I've read so far, no one seems to be raving about this camera... and most seem to favor the Canons, while admitting the Nikon has a better image. Thom just published his review of the D5300 today: http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/current-nikon-dslr-reviews/nikon-d5300-review.html Not too nervous since I have plenty of time to return it, but I wanted something to take on the road in January, and the G6's are now priced back up around $750 instead of $500. Man, I freakin' HATE all the little games the manufactures play, especially with pricing. Honestly, I'm really not that thrilled about ANY of the sub $5k options. But, when the G6 was $500... I think that was a great value. I'm hoping that I'll be pleasantly surprised by the D5300, but I'm not seeing any evidence that'll be the case from anyone. Matt, you're the only person I know of who has both the G6 and D5300. Are you thinking you'll keep the D5300?
  • Create New...