Nikon D3s has full manual control in video mode. Confirmed!

[Martin Koch]

Slashcam.de (http://www.slashcam.de/news/single/Nikon-D3s-mit-manuellen-Einstellungen-fuer-Video-of-8056.html) reports today that the Nikon D3s has full manual control in video mode. This was confirmed to them by Nikon professional service.



„Sobald die Live-View-Betriebsart im Aufnahme-Menü auf „Stativ“ und die Kamera in den manuellen Modus (M) gestellt wurde, ist es möglich vor und während der Videoaufnahme Blende, Belichtungszeit und ISO-Wert manuell einzustellen, bzw. zu verstellen. Ein automatisches Fokussieren ist über die AF-ON-Taste möglich (auch während der laufenden Aufnahme).
Zudem steht Ihnen zur optimalen Belichtung des Videos auf dem Kameramonitor am rechten Bildrand eine Belichtungsskala zur Verfügung.“

Just write to your local Nikon support to get this in your language. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG) It's not even mentioned in the manual.

[damonb]

Umm, this has already been the source of considerable controversy here. Does the D3S manual instruct the user that the camera can take stills? And use Nikkor lenses?

[ProfD]

Nice..I did notice that the D3s is twice the cost of the 5D M2.

[mhood]

Yea, it gave me a pretty bad case of sticker shock too.

[damonb]

It's also twice the stills camera.

[iHartVideo]

It's also twice the stills camera.

No it isn't.

[killacam]

the d3s is probably more directly comparable to the 1dmarkiv- they both have an iso of about 102,800 (which is ridiculous) and are both incredibly expensive. the d3s is a full frame though while the 1dmarkiv is a 1.2 or 1.3 crop. the 1d4 has 60p and 1080 going for it (although some say the nikons resolve as much at 720 as the canons do at 1080). unfortunately the price of both is possibly mainly due to their photographic features more than their video features. they're both pretty lust-worthy though.

[morgan_moore]

Gazzillionaire ?

A D3s would be 125UKP per month paid of over three years at 8%

S

[squig]

It appears the D900 is going to be out in February with 1080p video and a 5D MKII sticker price, there's no info yet about manual control and whether it has mjpeg or H.264. A couple of rumours claim it has H.264 which I think is a step backwards. A higher bit-rate mjpeg codec would be a much better option for DSLR filmmaking, it just looks more filmic IMO.

It's great to see new improved DSLRs coming out every couple of months. The D90 was good, the MKII is great, and the next one should be amazing.

[killacam]

Gazzillionaire ?

A D3s would be 125UKP per month paid of over three years at 8%

S

well obviously I was exaggerating and I think it would be worth it if you could afford it. I'm not trying to bash it at all although that much over 3 years is more than a lot of people pay on their car leases. still, full frame + manual control + crazy low light performance combined with nikon's color rendition or more 'organic' look probably justify a purchase for anyone considering it. it's definitely at the high end for an HDSLR though (although people have paid similar for prosumer type camcorders). I don't actually think it's overpriced and if it's within your budget I would say it might be the camera to get.

anyway I agree with squig that MJPEG might actually be better for these HDSLRs since none of the others seem to have any B-frames when using h.264. an I-frame only codec like MJPEG might actually be helping the nikons get that organic look since film would be mostly equivalent to a series of I-frames.

[damonb]

No it isn't.

You're not serious, are you?

[iHartVideo]

You're not serious, are you?

I am absolutely serious.
What possibly makes it twice the camera?

[Zim]

Believe it or not people use these to make a living and need something that will take the daily use a working camera goes through. I think "lustworthy" is the wrong word to use.



the d3s is probably more directly comparable to the 1dmarkiv- they both have an iso of about 102,800 (which is ridiculous) and are both incredibly expensive. the d3s is a full frame though while the 1dmarkiv is a 1.2 or 1.3 crop. the 1d4 has 60p and 1080 going for it (although some say the nikons resolve as much at 720 as the canons do at 1080). unfortunately the price of both is mainly due to their photographic features more than their video features. they're both pretty lust-worthy though if you happen to be a gajillionaire.

[Zim]

Wouldn't H.264 be better than what the D90 and D300s use now? Isn't the 7D H.264?

It appears the D900 is going to be out in February with 1080p video and a 5D MKII sticker price, there's no info yet about manual control and whether it has mjpeg or H.264. A couple of rumours claim it has H.264 which I think is a step backwards. A higher bit-rate mjpeg codec would be a much better option for DSLR filmmaking, it just looks more filmic IMO.

It's great to see new improved DSLRs coming out every couple of months. The D90 was good, the MKII is great, and the next one should be amazing.

[killacam]

Believe it or not people use these to make a living and need something that will take the daily use a working camera goes through. I think "lustworthy" is the wrong word to use.

I didn't mean lustworthy as a bad thing. I guess I just meant personally for myself, I would love to have a d3s but it's not something I could afford right now. For video professionals looking for another tool in their toolkit, or even to use as their main camera, I'm sure it'd be worth it. It probably won't be as popular as it could be, mainly because of its price is all I was trying to say (not trying to say it's overpriced or anything either though, just that it is relatively expensive). I feel like just deleting out my whole post now, gosh.

[killacam]

Wouldn't H.264 be better than what the D90 and D300s use now? Isn't the 7D H.264?

the codec in the 7d's (and 5d, gh1 etc.) is not a full h.264 though since they lack B-frames. I forget what it actually is, but I think it is something like one I-frame and then about 20 or more P-frames (predictive). It is basically one true image and then the other frames are predictive frames that reference the others. h.264 is a much more efficient codec than mjpeg (mainly as a delivery codec) but maybe not in the way it's implemented on some of these cameras. AVC-Intra (I-frame only) is used on higher end camcorders over AVCHD for that reason.

[Zim]

It is not in my budget either!



I didn't mean lustworthy as a bad thing. I guess I just meant personally for myself, I would love to have a d3s but it's not something I could afford right now. For video professionals looking for another tool in their toolkit, or even to use as their main camera, I'm sure it'd be worth it. It probably won't be as popular as it could be, mainly because of its price is all I was trying to say (not trying to say it's overpriced or anything either though, just that it is relatively expensive). I feel like just deleting out my whole post now, gosh.

[damonb]

The thing at this top end has nothing to do with video. The D3S is the latest in a looong line of pro still cameras. What makes it so good is not really its speed or sensor or ISO abilities, but its lens compatibility stretching back decades, its build so that you could accidentally drop it from a moving vehicle and it'll still work, and its performance at very low and very high temperatures and varying humidity. It'll keep working and working. That's what makes it twice the camera as something like the 5D mkII. It goes longer, lasts longer, and keeps shooting in conditions where non upper end cameras have long since stopped working altogether. Photojournalists who use these cameras could fill in all details. They're not shooting in studios or making shorts; they're all over the world and they need a camera that will always work when they squeeze that shutter, even after they've dropped it out of that car window. The new Canon 1D adheres to much the same rules.

But me too ain't got the budget!

[iHartVideo]

Photojournalists who use these cameras could fill in all details. They're not shooting in studios or making shorts; they're all over the world and they need a camera that will always work when they squeeze that shutter, even after they've dropped it out of that car window.


So all that matters in your determination of "twice as good" is how photojournalists use it?
I am a studio photogrpher. I could not care less how photojournalists use it. In studio photography the higher MP actually make the 5Dm2 twice as good. The m2 also performs very well at high ISO.

You can't base a cameras relative worth on how just one segement of the market thinks it's better. If it's not twice as good in all segments, then its simply not twice as good.

Is it better than the m2 in some aspects? Yes.
Is the m2 better in some aspects? Yes.

[John Caballero]

Nikon DSLRs are excellent. As a still photographer doing studio, photojournalism and commercial photography I prefer Nikon over Canon anytime.

[damonb]

So all that matters in your determination of "twice as good" is how photojournalists use it?
I am a studio photogrpher.

You're cherry-picking, mate.

I gave all the reasons why the D3s is twice the camera right up until the point you decided to quote one sentence.

If you're a studio photographer, why not get a D3x? Better resolution, better functionality, etc. The D3s is not bested by the 5D Mk II in any area, including video.

e.g. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=33901347

(and there's more, if you want it).

For shooting, in any field, at this level the D3s is the best all rounder, and yes, twice the camera. Now, if you'd said "I shoot with a Phase One..." or "I shoot with film" maybe that'd be worth a discussion. But it's obvious, isn't it? Is the Canon 1D Mk IV inferior to the 5D Mk II? Is it twice the camera in terms of functionality and reliability? I hope so. It should be. Is the 5D Mk II suitable for you? Apparently, yes, and great. Does the camera make the great photo? No. But don't think the Mk II is the end of the line just cos you have it, ya know? Get some perspective. You know what I'm saying.

[iHartVideo]

You're cherry-picking, mate.

I gave all the reasons why the D3s is twice the camera right up until the point you decided to quote one sentence.


Your reasons all centered around photojournalist use.



If you're a studio photographer, why not get a D3x?

Simple: 4 times the cost for a camera that is about 1.5 times as good.
I'd rather buy the Sony a850 and a ton of Zeiss glass than the D3X




The D3s is not bested by the 5D Mk II in any area, including video.


LOL. Come on.

[morgan_moore]

Stillswise the 5d2 and is a great camera and fantastic value but sluggish and a POS in the handling dept compared to a D3 IMO (I have them both) - the D3 is IMO the pro choice for getting the shot under client pressure of whatever nature

Video wise - we dont know about the D3 quality yet

Im onto some resolution tests

What we do know is that the 5d2 aint 1080, more like 720 so if the d3s is actually 720 is a close race

handling for video the D3 has controllable sound and manual so its kind of a winner on the sound at least

Of course the 5d remains 'cheap' as does the 7, compared to the D3s, of course if it packs up in the rain (your canon) the nikon would seem cheap compared to a lost client

and of course 24 v 30 is a winner for the next X months..

S

[Lammy]

The 5DMkII is the best all rounder if you're into studio photography and video. No questions asked, the megapixels, the full frame, the gorgeous 1080p video.

It's also a better camera ergonomically for one handed use IMO. Plop it on a tripod, or use a handgrip, and you can use your free hand to hold a beauty dish or gesticulate to your subject.

Oh and I prefer the look of the D3s video....

[damonb]

I'd rather buy the Sony...

OK, there's no need to be offensive!