Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

Nikon D5300 Review and why DSLRs are dead for video

Recommended Posts

I think the odyssey does, but I don't know if it is not too costly. I find it strange that they did not put 60p recording in 1080p for the Ninja. With all the camera coming out with 60p. They seem fixed on the Canon now, with the 5d and C100. They will be missing some market with all the cheap Nikon's coming out with clean hdmi. Now what we can hope is that the Nikon hack can bring higher bitrate to the 60p. That would be very nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

I don't get these external recorders.  I haven't seen any video comparison where the HDMI out looked better than the internal CODEC.  From what I understand, the HDMI out is essentially after video compression.  

 

In dynamic range, there is no comparison between the video of my Blackmagic Cinema Camera compared to my D600.  

 

Obviously, if you don't have $1,000 lying around, the video out of the Nikon cameras seems very good to me.  Whatever problems aside, I like the colors and DOF of the Nikon videos shown in this thread (though I would prefer the G6 for ergonomic/video shooting simplicity).  

 

Or maybe I'm saying, if you had the money for an external recorder why not buy a BMPCC and a $15 Nikon to MFT mount adapter?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get these external recorders.  I haven't seen any video comparison where the HDMI out looked better than the internal CODEC.  From what I understand, the HDMI out is essentially after video compression.  

 

In dynamic range, there is no comparison between the video of my Blackmagic Cinema Camera compared to my D600.  

 

Obviously, if you don't have $1,000 lying around, the video out of the Nikon cameras seems very good to me.  Whatever problems aside, I like the colors and DOF of the Nikon videos shown in this thread (though I would prefer the G6 for ergonomic/video shooting simplicity).  

 

Or maybe I'm saying, if you had the money for an external recorder why not buy a BMPCC and a $15 Nikon to MFT mount adapter?  

 

They're useful for cameras that can actually output unprocessed 10bit 422... most cameras don't. 

Something like the GH4 should compare very favorably -- even better than -- the blackmagic prores. The sensor should support it.

 

Of course it probably won't beat raw, because it doesn't offer... raw.

The d600 would easily beat the blackmagic if it could output raw or prores 422

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Derek, I haven't seen any comparison videos of external recorders making consumer DSLRs significantly better.  If there are any, can you point the way?  I've always been curious how they stay in business.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get these external recorders.  I haven't seen any video comparison where the HDMI out looked better than the internal CODEC.  From what I understand, the HDMI out is essentially after video compression. 

This would be  partially correct.  The data is usually 8 bit, and it has gone through the debayer, so it is color sampled down to 422 or 420, whatever the camera supports.  What it hasn't done is gone through h.264 compression.

 

Here's Andrew's take on external recorders with the D5200 compared to the BMCC.

 

http://www.eoshd.com/content/9730/prores-vs-prores-a-first-look-at-uncompressed-hdmi-with-the-nikon-d5200-vs-the-blackmagic-cinema-camera

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be nice: How about a 'video form factor' camera with a removable lens mount featuring a 'real' rubber cupped viewfinder (plus a flip out/upside down touch screen) with an almost Super 35 sized a 16 Megapixel (APS-C) sensor which doesn't overheat and shoots unlimited length HD to SD cards but also captures RAW 5K stills and excellent audio too with full manual control yet offers a 'clean' 4:2:2 HDMI output and shoots 50/60P at up to 28Mbps, unhacked. How about we add focus peaking, focus expansion and adjustable 75% or 100% zebra, all on/off at the same time with full manual iris/gain/ISO/shutter control? Body only price? Around $1.5K. Interested?

 

Sorry DSLR guys, you're too late! It's been available for nearly two years. Sony's NEX VG20.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Derek, I haven't seen any comparison videos of external recorders making consumer DSLRs significantly better.  If there are any, can you point the way?  I've always been curious how they stay in business.  

 

There are a couple D5300 clips recorded to the Atomos on YouTube. They look very good, but nothing A/B to prove it's significantly better than what you can get just sticking with recording in-camera.

 

Most of what I got in Mexico, recorded in-camera using a pretty average lens (18-200VR) still looked about as good as they got with the Atomos using slightly better glass. Some of them do look a bit sharper than what I got, but it could be they were just using the slightly better glass. 

 

The only real reason I'm somewhat interested in adding something like the Atomos is that it would give me focus-peaking, zebra, etc. Though, I don't really want to pay $1000 for that. If the quality was actually improved as well, it could convince me. However, I'm really liking playing with 60p, so since they don't record in that, it could be a deal breaker for me. Unless, the quality is significantly improved of course, but I haven't seen any evidence that it is improved significantly for cameras like the D5300.

 

Has anyone else? And if you were to add an external recorder to the D5300 to gain focus-peaking, zebras, etc., is the Atomos pretty much the only game in town?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Derek, I haven't seen any comparison videos of external recorders making consumer DSLRs significantly better.  If there are any, can you point the way? 

 

Here is one that shows the difference:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"When you're a hammer you treat everything as a nail."  That's the way I look at every new H.264 camera.  The only difference I've seen in Vasiley's GH hacks and this HDMI capture stuff is the reduction of motion artifacts generated by the video compression.  I've done tests myself, could never see a difference.  So I step back and ask myself, 'what artifacts ever bothered me in my videos?' 

 

The only time macro-blocking annoys me is when I'm watching a video on Amazon, which I paid for, and it slows down to a lesser compression and I see it :)

 

Everyone has their aesthetic.  I have not noticed any H.264 that I thought much better than another camera's H.264 in a similar price range.  Of course, there are DOF differences.  The Panny cameras are a pleasure to use (but that is ergonomics, not what I see on the screen).  I could see the differences in Matt's video above, but I think more a DOF difference between cameras.  I do see better color saturation in APS-C cameras vs MFT, but the larger sensors also create worse moire (because of the line skipping).  That's mostly a physics problem.  Anyway, the difference isn't big enough that it would stop me from filming my Citizen Cane :)

 

Even H.264 with all I-frames and a 4:4:2 color space is not that much difference from the stock video I get out of my used GF3 body.

 

Many people, like Skip, get fantastic results from H.264.  Getting that quality has to do with photographic skill to me, however.  

 

Just my conclusion so far.  There are two major video technologies.

 

1. ) Compressed video in an 8-bit channel color space

2. ) RAW sensor-data sourced video

 

There is no in-between.  If there was Panasonic would be offering RAW.  Why aren't they?  The cameras create RAW images in photo mode?  Why not just string 24 of them along every second?  Why do 4K instead?  If you find the honest answer to that question you will see, again, there is no in-between.

 

I strongly urge everyone to get their hands on a RAW based camera, Blackmagic, or Magic Lantern.  Shoot a couple of clips.  Ezra Pound said music criticism was pointless because 10,000 pages couldn't describe the first 4 notes of Beethoven's 5th.  

 

Shoot some RAW.  Shoot some H.264.  Pick which works best for your aesthetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be nice: How about a 'video form factor' camera with a removable lens mount featuring a 'real' rubber cupped viewfinder (plus a flip out/upside down touch screen) with an almost Super 35 sized a 16 Megapixel (APS-C) sensor which doesn't overheat and shoots unlimited length HD to SD cards but also captures RAW 5K stills and excellent audio too with full manual control yet offers a 'clean' 4:2:2 HDMI output and shoots 50/60P at up to 28Mbps, unhacked. How about we add focus peaking, focus expansion and adjustable 75% or 100% zebra, all on/off at the same time with full manual iris/gain/ISO/shutter control? Body only price? Around $1.5K. Interested?

 

Sorry DSLR guys, you're too late! It's been available for nearly two years. Sony's NEX VG20.

Are you talking about the 1.500$ nex5 disguised in a "pro body" which has worse video quality than a 500$ dslr?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do see better color saturation in APS-C cameras vs MFT, but the larger sensors also create worse moire (because of the line skipping).  That's mostly a physics problem.

The D5300 with its APS-C sensor appears be the exception to this.  Nikon has somehow figured this out, because the D5300 seems to have zilch moire and aliasing, while retaining a sharp image.

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello EOSHD,

 

I understand that this site is meant for film-makers but as you test video capabilities of the cameras, it would be also interesting to read how a camera would suite for a consumer. A consumer would also like to have a camera that is able to make a good quality photos and good quality video. The camera is probably used most to take pictures of the family and by travel.

 

When you make a two-week trip then video compression is a must. So BlackMagic and Magic Latern are not options for a consumer.

 

When you want to catch running children then you probably need normal auto-focus. Considering that: would D5300 be really a better choice than 70D?

 

And what about colours? I have looked several test videos and photos of Panasonic GH3 and Canon cameras at the internet. I agree that video of Panasonic is much sharper. But the colours of GH3 feel quite strange to me. Canon colours seem much more natural.

 

Finally, I am sure that 4K is a future, but maybe a consumer could wait couple of years and buy a 1080p camera today?

 

Thanks,

 

Marko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you talking about the 1.500$ nex5 disguised in a "pro body" which has worse video quality than a 500$ dslr?

 

Call it what you like but the secret to getting excellent video from the Vg20/30 is 1) knowing what you're doing and 2) selling the stock 18-200 lens. I have been shooting stills, corporate videos and TV commercials professionally for thirty years and using a PAL NEX VG20 for eighteen months. My camera is equipped with a genuine Metabones CY-NEX Speedbooster which I use with a large collection of vintage Carl Zeiss 'Contax' prime lenses. The broascast television requirement here in PAL land is 50i so my native AVCHD files have been subjected to and passed, stingent quality control checks by broadcast engineers with state of the art test equipment, not as a result of some dubious and highly compressed internet streaming from pre-release demo models. The Vg20/30 series have always offered a clean, uncompressed 8 bit 4:2:2 HDMI output which I have test recorded to 50i ProRes/DNxHD on the BMD 'Shuttle' for even better picture quality.

 

Sure, the VG20/30s have 'Handycam' writ in large letters down the side so I certainly would not call that a 'pro body' however, if my modest outlay continues to satisfy broadcast television luminance and chrominance standards and earn a tidy income, then I'm not complaining!

 

PS: my future upgrade path will be to a 4K camera, either BMDs Production Camera with the Super 35 sensor and global shutter or the Panasonic GH4, both of which will accept my valuable collection of Zeiss primes via suitable adapters but in my opinion, neither camera is the correct 'form factor' for broadcast television acquisition. Perhaps Panasonic's new 4K Varicam 35?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

So what you actually meant to say originally was that the VG20 is a perfectly passable TV camera, and that DSLR-type cameras don't have a great form factor for TV work. That's useful information to bring to a filmmaking forum ...  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I would think any unbiased, informed opinion from an engineering perspective, can be helpful in any HD camera Forum. Even if the logo at the top of the page says: 'DSLR Video Forum'

 

Thank you for your interest.

Yes I agree. I was just being cheeky ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...