Am I the Only One Jonesing for a High Quality Video Nikon DX Camera?

BobbyMurcerFan

BobbyMurcerFan

Well-known member
I like the idea of the DX sensor size. It's very close to S35 and uses smaller lenses than are required by full frame cameras.

But the D5100 does not have full manual controls while shooting video. And the D3200 footage I've seen has been undwhelming.

I realize the GH's are good video performers, but I'm not sold on the idea that m4/3 is going to be around for a long time. So I'd rather build a set of Nikon DX lenses than a set of m4/3 lenses.

I would love to have a really good DX camera from Nikon, but I just don't see one. :(
 
BobbyMurcerFan said:
I like the idea of the DX sensor size. It's very close to S35 and uses smaller lenses than are required by full frame cameras.

But the D5100 does not have full manual controls while shooting video. And the D3200 footage I've seen has been undwhelming.

I realize the GH's are good video performers, but I'm not sold on the idea that m4/3 is going to be around for a long time. So I'd rather build a set of Nikon DX lenses than a set of m4/3 lenses.

I would love to have a really good DX camera from Nikon, but I just don't see one. :(
Click to expand...
Yes where is that D400?
 
BobbyMurcerFan said:
but I'm not sold on the idea that m4/3 is going to be around for a long time
Click to expand...

...But the m4/3 format keeps gathering momentum with each passing year. I see no evidence of it disappearing anytime soon.

- Lots of high performance lenses are out, with more on the way. ( even Schneider is jumping into the high performance m4/3 lens game )

- BMC has a passive m4/3 body coming out later this year, and there's a rumor of a fully electronic BMC m4/3 body coming out next year.

- Olympus also has a pro body in the works, though it sounds like it won't be out this year.
 
I don't see m4/3 going away any time soon. But I do see Nikon's mirrorless (J1) going away (soon I hope :p
I'd like Nikon to develop more on the DX. But what we're seeing is upping their game on video for the FX—and everything else into that J1 :/

btw, there's a new red-color 1 lens...kill me now
 
Last edited:
Dingo,

I agree that the BMCC is giving new life to m4/3. But probably the main complaint of the BMCC is the sensor size. Lot's of "I wish it were S35 posts."

On the other hand, I think FF is a difficult adaptation for cinema b/c there is so much quality cinema glass out there that can't cover the 24mm X 36mm frame size. Red has promised a FF camera for awhile now, but so far have offered and announced only marginal increases in size over S35.
 
BobbyMurcerFan said:
I like the idea of the DX sensor size. It's very close to S35 and uses smaller lenses than are required by full frame cameras.

But the D5100 does not have full manual controls while shooting video.
Click to expand...
I actually find the D5100's semi-manual video controls to be very convenient. I preset the shutter speed in the ISO Sensitivity Settings, put the camera in Aperture Priority mode, and set Auto-ISO to allow the light sensor to adjust ISO for the correct exposure. If I want to alter the exposure, I can use the Exposure Compensation button to do so. Press the AE Lock button, and the camera maintains my preset exposure for the duration of the video take.

Since the D5100 (as well as the D7000 and D600) lacks a Live View histogram, I wouldn't have any way to determine the correct exposure, even if it did have full manual exposure controls. But in my experience, Nikon's exposure metering does such a good job that I'm happy to leave the ISO setting to the D5100 to determine. It's one of the few video DSLR's with a broad enough usable ISO range to make auto-ISO a practical option.
 
BobbyMurcerFan said:
But probably the main complaint of the BMCC is the sensor size. Lot's of "I wish it were S35 posts".
Click to expand...

...I think this is a knee-jerk reaction, and I doubt that many of these people have experience shooting with a similar format. ( like M4/3 or Super-16 )

I also think there are too many people with "Full-Frame" fever on the brain.

The Full-Frame 35mm still photo format makes total sense when it comes to shooting stills, but not so much when it comes to shooting video. The FF DOF is far to shallow most of the time, so you either stop down 2 extra stops to achieve a motion-picture DOF look, or create these "myopic" looking visuals with tiny slices of your subject in focus.

The S35 format is a much better fit when it comes to creating images with that common motion-picture DOF look, and the m4/3 format ( or even the BMC format ) can create very similar looking images, so your audience won't be able to see much if any difference with these formats.
 
morgan_moore said:
I disagree, most people cannot access good S35 glass but most can access FF glass that performs at 5.6 - rendering the S35 look :)
Click to expand...

...But I see so many people shooting FF video with their lenses close to wide open and the DOF is way too shallow.

FF at f/5.6 is the same as m4/3 at f/2.8, which is a pretty common F-stop for many GH2 shooters.
 
lpowell said:
I actually find the D5100's semi-manual video controls to be very convenient. I preset the shutter speed in the ISO Sensitivity Settings, put the camera in Aperture Priority mode, and set Auto-ISO to allow the light sensor to adjust ISO for the correct exposure. If I want to alter the exposure, I can use the Exposure Compensation button to do so. Press the AE Lock button, and the camera maintains my preset exposure for the duration of the video take.

Since the D5100 (as well as the D7000 and D600) lacks a Live View histogram, I wouldn't have any way to determine the correct exposure, even if it did have full manual exposure controls. But in my experience, Nikon's exposure metering does such a good job that I'm happy to leave the ISO setting to the D5100 to determine. It's one of the few video DSLR's with a broad enough usable ISO range to make auto-ISO a practical option.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing how you've gotten the system to work. If I understand correctly, you lock the shutter speed and adjust the aperture as needed. But as you adjust the aperture, the camera can change the ISO according to what it feels the correct exposure should be... and it ususally does a good job of this. But if you want to alter the exposure the camera has chosen, you can use the Exposure Compensation button to increase or decrease the exposuse which in turn increases or decreases the ISO.

So two ?'s. Does the camera display the chosen ISO (and does it display the adjusted ISO if you've used the Exposure Compensation button)? And how fine are changes with the Exposure Compensation button, e.g. one stop increments?

Oh, and one more ?, and this is really the most important I guess, how would you compare the image from the 5100 to what you're getting from your GH's?

Thanks much!
 
Last edited:
I would say the FF camera gives you more options for DOF. You can use f4 lenses which are a lot cheaper and you are not always shooting at the extreme a lens offers which means better detail.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I would say the FF camera gives you more options for DOF
Click to expand...

...I definitely agree with this provided everything else is equal. ( i.e. resolution, sensitivity, very little aliasing, very little moire, large dynamic range, etc... )

The GH2 is a very contrasty camera ( limited dynamic range ) and has a usable sensitivity range up to about 1000 ISO. Most of the time I can work within these restrictions, but it would be nice to have a camera that can produce professional quality images when shooting up to 3200 ISO, and can handle contrasty lighting situations better. I am on the fence with the GH3 right now, as it looks like it does most of what I need, but I am concerned about the aliasing and moire that is showing up in the sample videos so far. The GH2 produces an extremely sharp/clean image, which is something I don't think I could give up on. I would be happy to add a Nikon or Canon body to my kit provided they can produce a sharp/clean image like the GH2 does.

I am also hoping that the rumor of the BMC with electronic m4/3 mount holds up, as this would be a killer lower cost camera for people already used to using the m4/3 format. ( the difference between m4/3 and BMC formats is not huge )
 
Yes. It seems the GH3 is not the slam dunk everybody wanted so far. The video I have seen has not urged me to move from the GH2. For me, the mud in the low mids to shadows is about the only strike against the GH2. I have to do a massive post lift to get the images I want. If the GH3 three addresses this it will be easier to upgrade. I have looked at going to a Nikon D800 as I think they have winner in regards to detail but hearing about the green cast puts me off along with the lenses focusing in the opposite direction from video. I was all set to go the 5D MKIII route until it was released! Seems like we are still waiting for one company to just nail it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top