D5000 on Nikon 's Sweden web site

recommended price (body only) by nikon sweden = 8990 SEK (=1100$ in this moment)

about 10% less than what they sell the d90 for
 
Last edited:
So it's offering basically the same rolling shutter problem as the D90 has. Wow, way to go Nikon!

I'm developing a batch program for Nikon D90 (and D5000) movie clips which will remove the "stair-stepping" and minimize the rolling shutter lag, outputing a lossless video file for further post-processing. I would need some original short video clips for testing and optimizing. More info here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=1608393
 
I'm not too disapoitted yet as it looks like they are just pushing the technologhy lower down the food chain onto their more consumer cameras. Therefore it opens the door to the d400 or another higher end model to have full HD. Thye can do 1080p so if they haven't it MUST mean they are saving it for a camera to directly compete with the 5D.

My only worry at this satge is the jello on this new camera. I was hoping they would of sorted it out even at the consumer level. Again my hope is they are just throwing this thing out to go against the Canon's latest not caring about the video thinking people that use it don't care., Hopefully they are preparing a high end model which will of sorted out the jello at least to the level of the 5D. Hopefully this will be in about 1-2 months.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
Well it looks like Panasonic is going to do very well with the GH1...
Click to expand...

Damnit, i was hoping to not have to go the 4/3rd system route. Can't take that amount of crop factor... The D90 is already enough as it is.. Damnit Nikon!
 
Ok the D-Movie on the D5000 is the same as the D90 but does the D5000 at least tell what settings D-Movie is using or are we shooting blind like the D90?
 
I'm interested to see if there were ANY changes to that D-Movie mode that have been officially been announced and not speculated.
 
Video is again compressed using the Motion JPEG system and stored in an AVI wrapper. The maximum file size is 2GB, although additional restrictions limit the HD mode to five minutes per clip and the lower resolution modes to 20 minutes. The D5000 will stop recording at whichever comes first: the time limit or file size. When we first reviewed the D90, Motion JPEG seemed like a backward choice compared to the more modern H.264 codec employed on Canon’s latest models, but while it’s less efficient, it’s also a lot easier to edit and playback on a computer. Many Canon owners have discovered H.264 to be very difficult to edit and ironically convert to an easier format like Motion JPEG for easier handling.
Click to expand...

Answered my question...:crybaby::crybaby::crybaby:Gonna have to wait till D400 then.
 
PaPa said:
Damnit, i was hoping to not have to go the 4/3rd system route. Can't take that amount of crop factor... The D90 is already enough as it is.. Damnit Nikon!
Click to expand...

I felt the same way initially but then when I read this I reconsidered-

"No matter how the GH1 sensor size really pans out, it'll be between 1.2 to 1.4 crop factor compared to cinema film. If a crop factor of 1.6 means 1 F-stop (see page 1 of this thread), then the GH1 crop factor of around 1.3 is roughly half an F-stop.

It was written earlier that the Godfather was filmed on T2.8. With the lenses at that time that will equal around F2.5. Open your lenses to F2.0 on the GH1 and you can get the shallow Godfather DOF. There are plenty of F1.4-F1.8 photo primes from 35mm and up. For the 20mm you can use the Panasonic F1.7 pancake lens announced and for wider shots DOF is not such a big issue."

and this-

"The films you mention were all shot on 35mm, but on 35mm cinema format where the image area is about to half of the FF35mm stills camera that 5D2 replicates.

5D2 is closer to vistavision 8 perforations v 4 perforations that 35mm cine format has. The DOF is much shallower, focus is much harder to control and in a real world production environment, more time consuming and expensive. Just to maintain a decent DOF of few centimeters, no more that 0.5m, to keep dialog scenes in focus requires to stop down the lens a bit. Most of the films you mentioned in your post were shot at apertures of 2.8 - 4, rarely above 5.6. (Citizen Kane, Paper Moon - as exceptions, Godfather at T2.8). You have to stop down a little bit, not only to manage the DOF for some complex action scenes, but also to get the optimum contrast, definition from the lenses in use.

Stop down a lens and you'll increase the lighting level and from here, the budget and crew size in no time at all.

I am totally for DOF control, it's a major part of the arsenal a filmmaker has in telling a story, but only one of the tools.

5D2 is a great stills camera, but lack of consistent manual control over movie mode exposure parameters puts it out of contention for me. I was even considering it when it was released to shoot my last feature. I tested it and it was a NO GO big time. I have a nice set of some of the best Canon L glass but couldn't use it. We went in the end with RED ONE and Nikon manual focus lenses I used and collected through the years. I am still hoping that Canon will do something about it but I doubt it. Even the newly released 500D has the same issues.

I want one for personal and smaller projects, but the only hope for something like this looks the Panasonic G1H, with a sensor only marginally smaller than RED ONE, twice larger than S16, 2/3". I presume that its pixel size of 4.5µm will deliver also pretty good pictures with low noise and decent dynamic range. Not to mention the possibility of using almost any lens one can imagine (except the Canon EF - bummer)."

The only thing that concerns me about the GH1 is whether it can match the D90's low light performance.
 
Taken into context. The specs on the D5000 is actually pretty impressive, it really is a miniature D90 in an amateur body. Its also a huge jump over the D60 that it replaces. They even put in the 11-point AF in this camera, instead of using the 3-point AF from the older cameras.

Considering the information leaked prior to this we shouldn't have expected any real improvement in video over the D90. This is first-and-foremost an entry level camera that is suppose to bring new people into photography.

Usually before a dSLR with a different sensor is released from Nikon, Sony usually puts out a press release for the new sensor and announces samples being available to third-parities. This was the case for the D300 and the D3x. The next-APS-C sensor will very likely be a back-lit sensor with video-capabilities as a priority, and be ready for the Sony alpha-700 sucessor or the Nikon D400.

The life-cycle for the Dxx line is around 2-years, D200 was released in November 2005, D300 was around Nov 2007, so logically the D400 should come-out at the end of this year. Hopefully, this economics-crisis hasn't thrown a wrench in Nikon's product release schedule.
 
If the price is going to be almost $900 then either the D90 is going away or there is going to be a big price drop. B&H had a kit with two lenses.
The body only is still out of stock.

We will probably see something new.
 
Zim said:
If the price is going to be almost $900 then either the D90 is going away or there is going to be a big price drop. B&H had a kit with two lenses.
The body only is still out of stock.

We will probably see something new.
Click to expand...

The body lists for $729.95. If it follows the trend of the D60, the price should drop significantly over time. The street price of the D60 for instance has been around ~$500. Overtime, its probably safe to assume the D5000 will drop to around $500~600 with a kit lens.

The D90 will stick around, for entry-level consumers that these cameras are aimed at, $200 is a big difference. Nikon does tend to put their camera capabilities uncomfortably close, like the D700 and D3, but the extra-controls on the body and the prosumer-body of the D90 will be important to the right people.
 
Its not the Fstop that makes me worried, or the depth of field, cause i would be more than happy with a 4/3rd system, its really the crop factor for the focal length of lenses. It would be impossible to find me a decent fast wide lens for under 2000 dollars....

squig said:
I felt the same way initially but then when I read this I reconsidered-

"No matter how the GH1 sensor size really pans out, it'll be between 1.2 to 1.4 crop factor compared to cinema film. If a crop factor of 1.6 means 1 F-stop (see page 1 of this thread), then the GH1 crop factor of around 1.3 is roughly half an F-stop.

It was written earlier that the Godfather was filmed on T2.8. With the lenses at that time that will equal around F2.5. Open your lenses to F2.0 on the GH1 and you can get the shallow Godfather DOF. There are plenty of F1.4-F1.8 photo primes from 35mm and up. For the 20mm you can use the Panasonic F1.7 pancake lens announced and for wider shots DOF is not such a big issue."

and this-

"The films you mention were all shot on 35mm, but on 35mm cinema format where the image area is about to half of the FF35mm stills camera that 5D2 replicates.

5D2 is closer to vistavision 8 perforations v 4 perforations that 35mm cine format has. The DOF is much shallower, focus is much harder to control and in a real world production environment, more time consuming and expensive. Just to maintain a decent DOF of few centimeters, no more that 0.5m, to keep dialog scenes in focus requires to stop down the lens a bit. Most of the films you mentioned in your post were shot at apertures of 2.8 - 4, rarely above 5.6. (Citizen Kane, Paper Moon - as exceptions, Godfather at T2.8). You have to stop down a little bit, not only to manage the DOF for some complex action scenes, but also to get the optimum contrast, definition from the lenses in use.

Stop down a lens and you'll increase the lighting level and from here, the budget and crew size in no time at all.

I am totally for DOF control, it's a major part of the arsenal a filmmaker has in telling a story, but only one of the tools.

5D2 is a great stills camera, but lack of consistent manual control over movie mode exposure parameters puts it out of contention for me. I was even considering it when it was released to shoot my last feature. I tested it and it was a NO GO big time. I have a nice set of some of the best Canon L glass but couldn't use it. We went in the end with RED ONE and Nikon manual focus lenses I used and collected through the years. I am still hoping that Canon will do something about it but I doubt it. Even the newly released 500D has the same issues.

I want one for personal and smaller projects, but the only hope for something like this looks the Panasonic G1H, with a sensor only marginally smaller than RED ONE, twice larger than S16, 2/3". I presume that its pixel size of 4.5µm will deliver also pretty good pictures with low noise and decent dynamic range. Not to mention the possibility of using almost any lens one can imagine (except the Canon EF - bummer)."

The only thing that concerns me about the GH1 is whether it can match the D90's low light performance.
Click to expand...
 
Well I'll be waiting for the D400 to see what that has to offer. If it really happens. There will always be another camera!!
 
PaPa said:
Its not the Fstop that makes me worried, or the depth of field, cause i would be more than happy with a 4/3rd system, its really the crop factor for the focal length of lenses. It would be impossible to find me a decent fast wide lens for under 2000 dollars....
Click to expand...

Staying within the Four-thirds system the Olympus Zuiko 12-60mm f/2.8-4 is probably the most affordable wide/fast lens available. Its around $700-800. In full-frame equivalent it'll be a 24mm F2.8, which is given the focal length is fast enough.

It compares favorably with the its rivals on other mounts like the Zeiss 16-80mm F3.5-4.5 or Nikon 16-85mm F:3.5-5.6. APS-C being 1.5/1.6 crop the 16mm lens will be equivalent to a 24mm f/3.5 on a Nikon system.

There are wider lenses at that price-range like the 8mm Olympus, but you lose half-a-stop.

It should be noted that the micro-four thirds lenses are incredibly ideal for wide-angle lenses due to its short flange focal distance(FFD). Since the popularity of SLR cameras, one of the the biggest hurdles for wide lenses has been increased FFD due to adding a mirror-box assembly. Most wide angle lenses are based off of the original Angénieux retrofocus lens design, the larger flange distance means retrofocal optical schemes had to be used to reduce the back focal distance of the lens to a figure shorter than the focal length.

With the micro-four thirds FFD being an insanely short 20mm, the retrocal optical schemes can be avoided allowing for faster-wider lenses. The 20mm f/1.7 that's already been shown should be just the start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top