PDA

View Full Version : D90 vs 5D Mark II thread



dvxusr
12-31-2008, 12:07 PM
There seems to be a lot of info out there on the subject but Im not sure what to believe, there are some contradictory posts and even more so on the internet. Can someone who's used both cams draw up a simple table comparing the liveview mode in each? Pros and cons- maybe to start things like price, framerates, resolution, brands and types of lenses each cam can take-AF,MF etc, memory card types and limits, compression issues, availability of SD mode, overheating issues, manual focus, manual aperture, exposure, manual iso, size and quality of lcd, what can be locked, ease of transfer + editing, which has better picture modes+control over HD image, jello issue, stairstepping, contrast, blacks, color reproduction, handheld or not, overall quality and value, etc.

John Caballero
12-31-2008, 12:51 PM
There is no comparison between the two. I have the D90 and the results from it are very inferior to whats out there shot with the 5D. Maybe the next generation from Nikon will be better. The DMOVIE in the D90 isn't there yet.

acoelho1
12-31-2008, 01:07 PM
Canon 5d is much better even without 24p. However, I have seen some good work with the d90. Its a tool like anything else. Here is some quality shooting that I found on vimeo. It really shows the potential of the 5d for documentary work.

Link (http://www.vimeo.com/2560306)

Park Edwards
12-31-2008, 01:15 PM
there's no real point comparing the two...when the canon is 3x's that of the d90s price. and beside, that's what these threads are for....if you read them you'll see plenty of comparison from user experience

John Caballero
12-31-2008, 02:58 PM
The future of this technology is bright. When 24p/30p, manual controls, compression and rolling shutter problems are resolved is going to be an amazing tool indeed. The images from the 5D are pointing in that direction.

dvxusr
01-01-2009, 11:31 AM
relax Car3o :beer:, price doesnt mean you cant compare two cameras its just a pro for the nikon, and from what ive read the canon has limitations and issues that make it less suited for a filmmaker than the d90. anyway i just figured people new to video dslrs and new to either of the brands would find a simple comparison of all the common features useful since each brand has its own set of modes and names and it may be hard to follow

Park Edwards
01-01-2009, 12:10 PM
ohhh i'm relaxed man...but there's no comparing the two is all i'm saying. if they wanted to compare the two, it'd be easier to go to canon or nikons website and just seeing the specs.

bronxjragon
01-01-2009, 01:00 PM
of course you can compare the two why not?

NJ3118
01-01-2009, 01:50 PM
you cant argue over resolution...but you can argue over ease of use... custom settings when in movie mode and control over your video etc...

when trying to compare apples to oranges (24p vs 30p OR 720p vs 1080p) you wont get anywhere

mattsand
01-01-2009, 02:18 PM
yeah what's annoying is that pretty much everything is better about the d90 except, well, image quality. ;-)

Park Edwards
01-01-2009, 02:50 PM
neither have control over iso/shutter.

NJ3118
01-01-2009, 06:44 PM
neither have control over iso/shutter.

there are workarounds but ultimately no easy adjustments, yes.

Zak Forsman
01-01-2009, 06:52 PM
screw all this VS crap. get out there and SHOOT!!!!

here's some "inferior" D90 screenshots from last night.

second one shows fireworks making a bokeh explosion of color and luminance. looks amazing in motion.


http://www.isarapix.org/pix74/1230815533.jpghttp://www.isarapix.org/pix61/1230815498.jpg
http://www.isarapix.org/pix88/1230815573.jpghttp://www.isarapix.org/pix87/1230815554.jpg
http://www.isarapix.org/pix8/1230815801.jpghttp://www.isarapix.org/pix16/1230815709.jpg
http://www.isarapix.org/pix84/1230815619.jpghttp://www.isarapix.org/pix65/1230815597.jpg
http://www.isarapix.org/pix59/1230815750.jpg

bronxjragon
01-01-2009, 09:13 PM
screw all this VS crap. get out there and SHOOT!!!!

here's some "inferior" D90 screenshots from last night.

second one shows fireworks making a bokeh explosion of color and luminance. looks amazing in motion.


http://www.isarapix.org/pix74/1230815533.jpghttp://www.isarapix.org/pix61/1230815498.jpg
http://www.isarapix.org/pix88/1230815573.jpghttp://www.isarapix.org/pix87/1230815554.jpg
http://www.isarapix.org/pix8/1230815801.jpghttp://www.isarapix.org/pix16/1230815709.jpg
http://www.isarapix.org/pix84/1230815619.jpghttp://www.isarapix.org/pix65/1230815597.jpg
http://www.isarapix.org/pix59/1230815750.jpg


footage?

NJ3118
01-01-2009, 09:18 PM
yes it has to be footage...

on a side I agree...if you have enough time to debate on here your NOT doing enough shooting...lol

But on the flip, I really enjoy discussing things on this site which help me improve my work

Zak Forsman
01-01-2009, 09:21 PM
can't show footage, or i'll be disqualified from LossFest. you can see it with everyone else mid-march. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=153414

that link has podcasts with "test footage" shot on location with a stand-in and other "making of" goodies.

don't know if i'd post the actual footage in this thread anyway. :) i'm not looking for praise or criticism on the Nikon D90's inherent image characteristics. just hoping to remind folks to put this kind of debate in perspective and to stop waiting for the next great camera and make something NOW. i'd love to shoot ELOQUENT GRAFFITI on a DSLR with better imaging, but i'm not going to wait around for it. someone told me I should wait for Scarlet. Screw that!!! when that cam comes along, I'll buy it and make my next film, WANDERLUST, with it. but if it's not ready when I am, I'll shoot that with the D90 too. I love being able to go ultra guerilla and shoot where I otherwise could not.

Vinyl Stax
01-02-2009, 08:20 AM
can't show footage, or i'll be disqualified from LossFest. you can see it with everyone else mid-march. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=153414

that link has podcasts with "test footage" shot on location with a stand-in and other "making of" goodies.

don't know if i'd post the actual footage in this thread anyway. :) i'm not looking for praise or criticism on the Nikon D90's inherent image characteristics. just hoping to remind folks to put this kind of debate in perspective and to stop waiting for the next great camera and make something NOW. i'd love to shoot ELOQUENT GRAFFITI on a DSLR with better imaging, but i'm not going to wait around for it. someone told me I should wait for Scarlet. Screw that!!! when that cam comes along, I'll buy it and make my next film, WANDERLUST, with it. but if it's not ready when I am, I'll shoot that with the D90 too. I love being able to go ultra guerilla and shoot where I otherwise could not.



BOMB !!
I like the sound of that.

Robert Altman
01-02-2009, 11:14 AM
Your screen grabs convinced me to order the d90. Beautiful shots that I could never equal on my 3-chip small sensor HDV camera. I think that people underestimate the importance of light sensitivity and dynamic range over raw resolution in visual image quality. There are technical discussions of the MTF (mean transfer function) over pure resolution--and reaching into the shadows and highlights is the key here (from what I understand). Mark Schubin has written a lot about this in Videography.

Anyway, great work. I figure that the $850 I spend for the body is worth it for now, and when better SLR's come down the pike my lenses will come along with me.

--Robert A

Zak Forsman
01-02-2009, 11:18 AM
awesome, man. i look forward to the second coming of robert altman.

deedive
01-04-2009, 09:49 AM
I've used both at some point and to each his own. Neither will stop u from making a movie.:)


awesome, man. i look forward to the second coming of robert altman.

maybe its u? looking forward to the film.

Sumfun
01-04-2009, 07:19 PM
Great screen shots, Zak. Look forward to seeing your movie.

Matt Harris
01-04-2009, 09:48 PM
amen! great shots Zak, we can discuss specs all day but they have no relationship to actually shooting and comparing results. kudos.

Michael Carter
01-05-2009, 12:40 PM
And don't forget... at $850ish, it's simply a stellar SLR still camera. One that will give you pro results for YEARS as you eBay up a nice glass collection, and one that will hold a lot of resale value when the next body comes out (I tend to get at least 50% return on eBay when I upgrade, for cameras that paid for themselves in the first month). And someday you'll use that same glass on the next level of SLR, or maybe on a Scarlet with Nikon mount. (Heck, a lot of the recent Bourne flick was shot with Nikon zooms with Arri mounts).

I've been through the D100, D70, & D80. I've shot on 'em with pre-AI manual lenses that were considered legendary in the 70's, before AF - same gorgeous glass, jump through some "manual" hoops, but less than $100. I've got late 80's and 90's AF & D lenses that I've shot high-profile clients with (on film with N90's and 8008s and now digital). Consider the video icing on the cake. (And I'm sure the same goes for Canon gear).

taubkin
01-05-2009, 01:35 PM
I believe that none are on par for professional video making the way I like doing, not for aesthetics, but for practical reasons (and strong compression). - Don't flame me, it's a personal feeling, not absolute truth.

So, since they are still just for play (and stills), I'd rather get a D90 and save 2000 for my next serious camera purchase. (besides, I have a lot of Nikkors hanging around)

:D

Emanuel
01-05-2009, 05:40 PM
I believe that none are on par for professional video making the way I like doing, not for aesthetics, but for practical reasons (and strong compression). - Don't flame me, it's a personal feeling, not absolute truth.

So, since they are still just for play (and stills), I'd rather get a D90 and save 2000 for my next serious camera purchase. (besides, I have a lot of Nikkors hanging around)

:DOlha Júlio,

Eu vou com a Canon.

Pq estás pensando isso? Eu tb pensei assim mas tenho andado a mudar de ideias - no Vimeo vem mto + comprimido, o mm p/ o ficheiro disponível p/ download. Vê o link abaixo.


I am on the Canon 5D Mark II route though. Why are you thinking this? I've also thought the same but have changed my mind -- Vimeo is compressed, the same for the download file available there.

Follow the link:

Does the Canon EOS 5D Mk. II have a quality codec? (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/canon-eos-5d-mk-ii-hd/139464-does-canon-eos-5d-mk-ii-have-quality-codec.html)


Abraço e Feliz Ano 2009 (hope see more new work from you soon),
Emanuel :)


PS < aside the manual control thing > Plus, MPEG-4 @ circa 40mbps is more advanced and higher than MPEG-2 XDCAM. Is it not enough even for theatrical release? I've seen MPEG-2 HDV blown up to 35mm @ big screen (it goes very well).

Emanuel
01-05-2009, 05:55 PM
Here is another interesting couple of thoughts on the subject matter:

http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=402

EDIT -- I cannot be exactly the typical Lee Wilson's quoter despite it does seem to me the guy here is damn right :-)

http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33&p=407#p407

Marco.L
01-05-2009, 06:15 PM
Canon 5d is much better even without 24p. However, I have seen some good work with the d90. Its a tool like anything else. Here is some quality shooting that I found on vimeo. It really shows the potential of the 5d for documentary work.

Link (http://www.vimeo.com/2560306)


ohh man ...this is pretty impressive...

John Caballero
01-05-2009, 11:57 PM
I have been 100% in favor of the DSLRs shooting video since Nikon started it. I am passionate about it. I went out and purchased a Nikon D90 the minute they were available. I believe in the technology but unfortunetely the D90 is not it yet. I love it for the stills, and I have gotten back my investment, but for movies is just a glimpse of the future. The image quality is not there. No matter what some people say it is not there. It is a good practicing camera for future versions. You play with it now so when better versions come along you will be ready. The Canon 5D Mark ll is showing that it has much better quality. You have to take into account the sensor size as the biggest plus. The quality in a lot of the footage is outstanding. And a lot of it right out of the camera.
I love my D90 but I wouldn't invest a minute of my time in trying to do something serious with it. It ain't a good way to invest your valuable time.

Zak Forsman
01-06-2009, 12:01 AM
I have been 100% in favor of the DSLRs shooting video since Nikon started it. I am passionate about it. I went out and purchased a Nikon D90 the minute they were available. I believe in the technology but unfortunetely the D90 is not it yet. I love it for the stills, and I have gotten back my investment, but for movies is just a glimpse of the future. The image quality is not there. No matter what some people say it is not there. It is a good practicing camera for future versions. You play with it now so when better versions come along you will be ready. The Canon 5D Mark ll is showing that it has much better quality. You have to take into account the sensor size as the biggest plus. The quality in a lot of the footage is outstanding. And a lot of it right out of the camera.
I love my D90 but I wouldn't invest a minute of my time in trying to do something serious with it. It ain't a good way to invest your valuable time.

i guess we'll see, won't we.

John Caballero
01-06-2009, 12:14 AM
i guess we'll see, won't we.

Wish you the best. You know what you are doing. Best of luck. You will gain the experience for the next generation of Nikon video DSLRs.

mattsand
01-06-2009, 02:26 AM
this reminds me, well since i was just a baby i don't really remember it but whatever, of the 70's when everybody said 16mm and especially super 8 couldn't be used professionally. a lot of people showed that image sharpness is only a tiny part of it. hey people have been making great looking films on mini dv, and the d90 beats most of them by far (not the handling obviously).

(i'm also shooting a feature on the d90 in a couple of weeks btw. we could afford a lot more but for various reasons this is what we chose)

/matt

taubkin
01-06-2009, 05:41 AM
Olha Júlio,

Eu vou com a Canon.

Pq estás pensando isso? Eu tb pensei assim mas tenho andado a mudar de ideias - no Vimeo vem mto + comprimido, o mm p/ o ficheiro disponível p/ download. Vê o link abaixo.


I am on the Canon 5D Mark II route though. Why are you thinking this? I've also thought the same but have changed my mind -- Vimeo is compressed, the same for the download file available there.

Follow the link:

Does the Canon EOS 5D Mk. II have a quality codec? (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/canon-eos-5d-mk-ii-hd/139464-does-canon-eos-5d-mk-ii-have-quality-codec.html)


Abraço e Feliz Ano 2009 (hope see more new work from you soon),
Emanuel :)


PS < aside the manual control thing > Plus, MPEG-4 @ circa 40mbps is more advanced and higher than MPEG-2 XDCAM. Is it not enough even for theatrical release? I've seen MPEG-2 HDV blown up to 35mm @ big screen (it goes very well).

I'm not saying if the camera is or not capable of broadcast (or even cinema) grade images. I'm just saying that I don't have the time to play with camera settings and voodoo my camera like there's no tomorrow, just to get a proper and consistent shutter speed. Not to mention aperture.

Since the canon can't give me what I want: Manual controls first of all, I'm getting a D90. I just sold my D40 and feel like I'm upgrading my DSLR (for one that can meter with my manual nikkors) and getting a cool toy with it.

When the cameras are there, I can get my 2000 bucks I just saved and invest in a proper tool for my work.

[flame shields up]It's not that difficult to make a client pay for a RED rental, anyway... [/flame shields up] :Drogar-Evil(DBG):

Again, the first camera that comes out, that I think is practical and capable enough for my needs will get my order. Being it a Scarlet or a DSLR.

:thumbup:

Rick Horton
01-06-2009, 06:00 AM
I'm not saying if the camera is or not capable of broadcast (or even cinema) grade images. I'm just saying that I don't have the time to play with camera settings and voodoo my camera like there's no tomorrow, just to get a proper and consistent shutter speed. Not to mention aperture.

Since the canon can't give me what I want: Manual controls first of all, I'm getting a D90. I just sold my D40 and feel like I'm upgrading my DSLR (for one that can meter with my manual nikkors) and getting a cool toy with it.

When the cameras are there, I can get my 2000 bucks I just saved and invest in a proper tool for my work.

[flame shields up]It's not that difficult to make a client pay for a RED rental, anyway... [/flame shields up] :Drogar-Evil(DBG):

Again, the first camera that comes out, that I think is practical and capable enough for my needs will get my order. Being it a Scarlet or a DSLR.

:thumbup:

You and I are on the same page.

Emanuel
01-06-2009, 04:04 PM
I don't know how it works with both of you. To me, to deal with workarounds is part of any learning process as my own. I'm always going with the best picture for the buck.

Rick Horton
01-06-2009, 04:11 PM
Obviously the camera market is changing rapidly. I'd rather be stuck with a D90 and get the right camera in 1 or 2 years, than be stuck with the 5D Mark II and have to still buy the right camera in 2 years. The 5D is 30p, no manual controls, and is about 2 xs the price of the D90. It's a better image but at the price of 30p instead of 24p, and I can get footage out of the D90 that a lot of 5D Mark II owners will never be able to get out of their camera. So its a waiting game. I'm perfectly content with the D90, and my HV20+Letus set ups. The low light with the 5D is amazing to be sure, but it's not worth the extra 1500 bucks compared to the D90, which I'm getting fab results with in low light anyhow. 720p is turning out to be a very nice thing. It's making editing and delivery an easier work flow, and the results are beautiful.

filmmaker's gang
01-06-2009, 04:34 PM
shot on 5D mk2.. sweet.. sweet.

http://www.vimeo.com/2738188

Jim Klatt
01-06-2009, 04:49 PM
For me, the must-have features for the 5d is the full-frame format and much better low-light.

The D90 has 24p, though.....

Something tells me I am just gonna hold out and wait til there is a full-frame 24p camera with manual controls.

Ian-T
01-06-2009, 05:42 PM
I'm just waiting to see how the upcoming Panasonic Lumix G pans out.

artforme
01-06-2009, 08:56 PM
a four thirds video camera would be cool, but probably less ideal for someone who is trying to create creative advanced video.

It's harder to control DOF on the four thirds (or micro four thirds) because of their smaller sensor. Which means it would also not do as well in low light.

It would still be better than your typical handy cam, and could be really cool depending on your shooting style. As the colors would still be richer. Four Thirds glass is really nice if control of less DOF is not your main concern. Four Thirds glass is sharp and produces nice color contrast.

mattsand
01-06-2009, 11:19 PM
Oh come on, four thirds is double the size of 16mm and 2/3 video, and about the same as academy aperture 35mm. There's plenty of dof options. Full frame 35mm for motion pictures started with adapters and hopefully ends there too, in my opinion.

filmmaker's gang
01-06-2009, 11:43 PM
Oh come on, four thirds is double the size of 16mm and 2/3 video, and about the same as academy aperture 35mm.??

mattsand
01-06-2009, 11:51 PM
What's the question? Somebody said it had less dof control due to the "smaller" sensor so i thought i'd put it in perspective. Smaller than what? /matt

filmmaker's gang
01-07-2009, 12:46 AM
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/42362/1231317842.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/SensorSizes.png

mattsand
01-07-2009, 02:15 AM
i said academy aperture and 16mm, not super 35 and super 16. it doesn't really matter as far as my point goes though, four thirds is still a huge frame compared to most imaging methods used for film and video except 35mm, and it has that shallow dof that people seem to want so badly.

/matt

artforme
01-07-2009, 05:24 AM
Thanks for sharing the size sensor chart; its pretty cool to see all the area's compared.

Four thirds is great, don't get me wrong. But their sensors are always a couple generation's behind regular APS-C and FF sensors due to the smaller size. They always try to pack the sensor with megapixels which hinders their high ISO performance. (The first thing the consumer often sees is Megapixiels in the DSLR world)

Some times people want more DOF, so in that case it would become a benefit. As some people might want to add DOF like effects in post. And yes, it's still very possible to get some great bokeh with four thirds.

There also are not that many affordable primes for the four thirds system, so you would have to buy an adapter to use the older OM primes. Where with the D90 no adapter is needed.

Another thing that might be good or bad with four thirds is that they have a 'focus by wire' system. (Think power stearing) It means though that it might take alot more turns to go from one extreme of the focus to the other, which could be bad for pulling focus fast.

But four thirds camera's have twice as much DOF than the 35mm format.

I agree that it's still a very large sensor, and has alot of potential. It will be interesting to see what Olympus and Panasonic make. I think they are really gearing the micro Four Thirds for video. So we shall see, expect something anounced this year by June. (Just a guess, don't quote me... :) )

I like your info, so I'm not arguing, just sharing what I do know.

mattsand
01-07-2009, 07:34 AM
There also are not that many affordable primes for the four thirds system, so you would have to buy an adapter to use the older OM primes
or nikon, adapters are readily available and will most likely be so for the micro mount too. i'm not very interested in focus by wire lenses that open to f/4 either. :-)

But four thirds camera's have twice as much DOF than the 35mm format
since we're talking about video i just think it makes more sense to compare it to 35mm motion pictures than stills, in which case that simply isn't true. most movies you've ever seen were shot on a format called academy aperture and that's 21mm wide, movies in cinemascope use an even narrower frame, compared to 23 for the d90 and 17 for the lumix.

/matt

taubkin
01-07-2009, 08:27 AM
Yeah, micro 4/3's can be more than enough if the implementation is better than our current competitors. The Panasonic is very promising indeed.

dvxusr
01-07-2009, 11:45 AM
Boy this thread has really taken off since last time Ive been here, great stuff. Personally I wasnt looking to upgrade my D90 (which was an upgrade from an older nikon) but I thought others would find a thorough comparison useful, especially those new to video that are finding a new use for their DSLRs.

Im out there happily practicing shooting with the D90 and learning, my skills definitely dont necessitate the best hd dlsr out there, although for all you with 10+ years of video experience, im sure getting the best footage out of these new cameras is a lot easier since you know tricks from shooting and can invent your own workarounds. It is funny though, how everyone jumped on a new feature that was an innocent unsuspecting add-on to a dslr and now we expect it to equal if not surpass video cameras that have been around for a long time, nice going nikon and canon! Better give us what we want!

As for wasting time reading this board rather than shooting, i think many of us wouldnt be where we are without at least 100 hrs on dvxuser :). But going along with his idea, that was the original thought behind a complete comparison in one thread- so as not to waste days sifting through all the canon/nikon threads.

Emanuel
01-07-2009, 12:23 PM
I don't share 100% of the enthusiasm in any way other than as 35mm sensor size. My apologies for my Panasonic reservations but don't try above ISO 1600 (sample) or so. Or you shall not have a good surprise at all.

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/9481/1231359766.jpg

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/9481/1231359089.jpg

Courtesy by By John Mahoney

mattsand
01-07-2009, 12:33 PM
i think the reason we're looking forward to it is that it's supposedly made for video, thus it will probably be easier to control and shoot with (i'm not expecting full manual though), and avchd will make it easier to do something with it afterwards. then there's the flip out screen, large sensor, and interchangable lenses. for me it's ok if it's noisier than the nikon and canon slr's. it still looks better than for example the hvx200 and other video cameras.

/matt

Emanuel
01-07-2009, 12:40 PM
For sure. :) Although, this is the D90 vs 5D Mark II thread. No doubts, the larger (up to FF) the better.

mattsand
01-07-2009, 02:18 PM
i disagree. while there's currently a correlation between size and low light sensitivity if someone could build a sensor in four thirds that was as good as a bigger one i'd take the smaller. but i used to work as a focus puller so i'm biased. :-)

/matt

Emanuel
01-07-2009, 06:00 PM
I said up to full frame, not beyond.

Yes, focus pulling is the most delicate issue. For a great outcome, there is not much left behind except hard work.

Or, that's why some aid such as color peaking or magnification can be helpful tools indeed. And why I've been coming to defend an auto solution. Especially when there is new technology such as face detection coming from the DSLR realm despite all the usual quirk resistance (or perhaps not so odd, just often :huh:) matching wherever the same bias. Why so?

mattsand
01-07-2009, 10:05 PM
i only ever used a monitor to check framing to know when to pull, video taps just aren't sharp enough. the actual pulling i do with tape measure, my eyes, and gut feeling. did i mention that it's much easier on super 16 than on 35? :-) the d90 is actually much my first video camera. i have an hv20 but i've only really used it as a deck except a few times. i'm a film person.

/matt