D600 is out

Samuel H said:
If what you wrote was not a typo, and you want the same depth of field but with a wider field of view, then you have to use the same lens, but go even wider aperture (divide by 1.5) when you're using the FF camera (for example: 35mm f/2.1 on APS-C has the same DoF of 35mm f/1.4 on full frame). http://www.similaar.com/foto/dof/dof.php?f_x=1.5&f_r=1.77&f_mm=35&f_f=2.1&f_d=2 http://www.similaar.com/foto/dof/dof.php?f_x=1&f_r=1.77&f_mm=35&f_f=1.4&f_d=2 The advantage of full frame is that, if you wanted to take that same second shot with an APS-C camera (i.e. wider FoV and just-as-shallow DoF) you'd need a 24mm f/0.95!!! ------------ But you're bound to be disappointed in any case: DoF is only half of the equation, perspective is the other half. If you take a picture of a face, the size of stuff on your background will change dramatically if you go from 17mm to 180mm. And that affects bokeh big time: at 17mm, you'll see a whole building behind your subject, and it will be out of focus but you'll know it's a building, and recognize its features; at 180mm lens, with the background at the same distance, all you see behind your subject is a small patch of wall, so it will not be just out of focus, it will be blurred beyond recognition. If you take both shots at the same aperture, and the subject has the same size in both pictures (i.e. you back up when you switch to the longer lens), then depth of field is the same, but the background will be a lot softer on longer lenses. Example here: http://www.similaar.com/foto/tuten/320.html
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for taking the time to explain that. It makes sense to me now. Can you tell me what far focus is on that web page? Is that the point at which every thing becomes in focus (approaching infinity focus)? Sorry also to derail the topic. Last question, i promise...
 
The difference between far focus and near focus is the depth of field: between those two distances, at the circle of confusion that I've defined in the calculator, everything seems to be in focus. If far focus is shown as 999999m, you're focusing beyond the hiperfocal distance, and the infinite will be in focus.
 
that cinematic look

that cinematic look

L1N3ARX said:
Nikon makes great cameras. For professional video, I'm not totally sold yet. The video does look pretty nice overall. From the D7000, D5100, D800... all of them have just been, "nice". I think this would make the ultimate travel cam; mind blowing pictures & solid HD video- a great combination really. But for indie / narrative filmmakers, it seems to lack that cinematic / filmic vibe that other DSLRs have. I just couldn't see myself using this seriously for something more narrative based. For pictures however, I'm practically salivating. Really thinking of picking this up as my first serious DSLR for photography.
Click to expand...

I have been a Nikon shooter for years and thus have a lot invested in Nikon glass. When I started shooting video with HDSLR several years ago, my goal was to get footage that looked cinematic. The only HDSLR footage that I saw on the web that had that look came from the Canon 5D II. Even now, shooting with my D7000, I cannot achieve that 'look'. I'm wondering what about the 5D II allows for the cinematic look. Is it more a matter of color grading and frame rate (24fps) and technique rather than a specific camera? I wonder if a FF HDSLR like the D600 would get me closer. Here is an example of the kind of look/feel that I want to achieve. The Sartorialist
And here is a recent 60 second piece that I made utilizing my Nikon D7000, 70~200 2.8 VR, shot at 1080p 24fps, audio recorded into a Panny HMC40 (which I basically use as an audio field recorder) with a Senn G3 wireless kit. Edited in Final Cut Express. Jenn
 
droliff said:
I have been a Nikon shooter for years and thus have a lot invested in Nikon glass. When I started shooting video with HDSLR several years ago, my goal was to get footage that looked cinematic. The only HDSLR footage that I saw on the web that had that look came from the Canon 5D II. Even now, shooting with my D7000, I cannot achieve that 'look'. I'm wondering what about the 5D II allows for the cinematic look. Is it more a matter of color grading and frame rate (24fps) and technique rather than a specific camera? I wonder if a FF HDSLR like the D600 would get me closer. Here is an example of the kind of look/feel that I want to achieve. The Sartorialist
And here is a recent 60 second piece that I made utilizing my Nikon D7000, 70~200 2.8 VR, shot at 1080p 24fps, audio recorded into a Panny HMC40 (which I basically use as an audio field recorder) with a Senn G3 wireless kit. Edited in Final Cut Express. Jenn
Click to expand...

It's a combination of things, shallow depth of field (too shallow a lot of the time), Canons neutral profile is good for a filmic grade, the MKII and MKIII resolve less detail than most other cameras which actually gives it a softer filmic look. Now a lot of people argue that film resolves around 8k but numbers don't equate to what you're seeing in a completed film. Some films are very sharp but most of the cinematography I like is deliberately quite soft and heavily graded. Lighting and grading have a lot to do with it too. Lenses have a big impact on the look too, I shoot with vintage Leica-r glass and Iscorama anamorphics.

I watched both videos. The difference is lighting, colour grading, and focus choices. See how the girl is in very sharp focus with very shallow DOF and blurred background and the lighting is flat, it's looks really unnatural. In the Sartorialist the DOF is shallow but the actors face is soft too and it is lit well. In the street scenes the DOF is deep and again the light is good. It's also heavily graded but feels right. Start by trying to shoot everything at magic hour and dial the sharpness and contrast settings all the way down. Lighting and grading is an art and takes a lot of practise.

https://vimeo.com/10175596 Iscorama anamorphic lenses @ magic hour 5D MKII
https://vimeo.com/11409809 natural light + tunsten light nikon ai lenses 5D MKII
https://vimeo.com/11456214 2x LED panels + CFL worklight nikon ai lenses 5D MKII

All 3 graded in magic bullet looks.

My first DSLR was a Nikon D90, a lot like the D7000 except it had a crappy codec and no manual controls. The films I made with the D90 were just as "cinematic" as the films I've made with the MKII and MKIII. THe only difference is DOF @ f2.8 on the D90 is roughly equivalent to f5.6 on a full frame camera.
 
Last edited:
thanks

thanks

squig said:
It's a combination of things, shallow depth of field (too shallow a lot of the time), Canons neutral profile is good for a filmic grade, the MKII and MKIII resolve less detail than most other cameras which actually gives it a softer filmic look. Now a lot of people argue that film resolves around 8k but numbers don't equate to what you're seeing in a completed film. Some films are very sharp but most of the cinematography I like is deliberately quite soft and heavily graded. Lighting and grading have a lot to do with it too. Lenses have a big impact on the look too, I shoot with vintage Leica-r glass and Iscorama anamorphics.

I watched both videos. The difference is lighting, colour grading, and focus choices. See how the girl is in very sharp focus with very shallow DOF and blurred background and the lighting is flat, it's looks really unnatural. In the Sartorialist the DOF is shallow but the actors face is soft too and it is lit well. In the street scenes the DOF is deep and again the light is good. It's also heavily graded but feels right. Start by trying to shoot everything at magic hour and dial the sharpness and contrast settings all the way down. Lighting and grading is an art and takes a lot of practise.

https://vimeo.com/10175596 Iscorama anamorphic lenses @ magic hour 5D MKII
https://vimeo.com/11409809 natural light + tunsten light nikon ai lenses 5D MKII
https://vimeo.com/11456214 2x LED panels + CFL worklight nikon ai lenses 5D MKII

All 3 graded in magic bullet looks.

My first DSLR was a Nikon D90, a lot like the D7000 except it had a crappy codec and no manual controls. The films I made with the D90 were just as "cinematic" as the films I've made with the MKII and MKIII. THe only difference is DOF @ f2.8 on the D90 is roughly equivalent to f5.6 on a full frame camera.
Click to expand...

Squig,

Thanks for the response. Very informative. I don't want to get too far off topic from the original post but here are a few thoughts. I've definitely looked into 'magic bullet looks' for color grading. That is a plug in for After Effects correct? Problem is I don't have AE. Is there a 'magic bullet looks' plug in for FCP? Do you find 'magic bullet looks' within AE to be a better choice for color grading than grading in Apple Color? I've heard good things about Apple Color as well. Also, I don't have FCP but Final Cut Express which doesn't allow a native 24fps timeline. I'm not understanding the 3/2 pulldown technologyl I'm wondering if investing in magic bullet as a plugin for AE is the way to go? I don't have the Adobe software yet but am thinking that with their 'subscription' service might be an affordabe way to go.
 
Last edited:
droliff said:
I've definitely looked into 'magic bullet looks' for color grading. That is a plug in for After Effects correct? Problem is I don't have AE. Is there a 'magic bullet looks' plug in for FCP? Do you find 'magic bullet looks' within AE to be a better choice for color grading than grading in Apple Color? I've heard good things about Apple Color as well.
Click to expand...

Looks works with many NLE's including FCP, I'm using FCP7 (studio 3) and Final Cut X. Color is very good but I never quite got my head around the interface.

Two important things to remember with grading- garbage in garbage out, and convert heavily compressed DSLR files to the best quality intermediate that your computer can handle. I've been using ProRes 4444 since I found some compression artifacts in ProRes 422HQ files from converted my 5D MKIII footage.
 
Last edited:
To answer your orignal question, the d600 is not going to give you anything different look wise over the d7000 in my opinion. I shoot with the d5100 which has the same sensor as the d7000 and when i shot with the d600 i didn't see very much difference. Grading and shooting at golden hour will get you farther imo.
 
Last edited:
A few quick thoughts:

How are other people dealing with the lack of aperture control in movie mode? I find it is quite inconvenient. So far I've tried two methods. If you switch to still mode live view, all the settings change to your last still settings. You need to make sure you have it on the same iso and exposure that you were using in movie mode, then you change the aperture and experiment to find the setting you want. Then you go back to movie mode WITHOUT starting the live view, set the aperture, then start live view. Or I have also tried (from live view in movie mode), exiting live view, pushing INFO. On that screen you can see the exposure meter (which as far as I can tell is not available in movie live view (unlike my 7d) and adjust aperture. So I adjust aperture simply based on the meter, go back to live view and make any little exposure tweaks by adjusting iso, which thankfully is pretty easy.

Or I use a lens with an aperture ring, which most of my lenses have. However, the non-cpu ones work better. I have an old Nikon 50mm with no chip in it. It works fine in movie mode and one can even program the camera to know (and display) the f-stops. However, my newish Zeiss zf lenses, which are "CPU" and can be controlled through the camera if you set them to the highest f-stop, don't work as smoothly so far. If I try to control the aperture manually on the lens, the camera registers an error and actually stops displaying the exposure time (ie. 1/50 ). It also will not go into live view unless the lens is on the highest f-stop. However, once I'm in live view I can take over control of the lens. It's too bad that the camera is only happy when it is controlling the aperture of a cpu lens. Perhaps there is a way to disable that, but I haven't found it yet.

The ability to adjust audio levels and see them on the screen is very nice, as is the headphone monitoring. It's just too bad that you can't make adjustments while recording. At least you can see the levels while recording, though.

I haven't done anything like a scientific test, but the dynamic range seems pretty good. I took some footage of my kids skating. Arenas are tough to shoot because the ice is so bright. If you don't want to overexpose the ice, the skaters end up being black forms. It's usually a compromise. However, with the 600d I can keep the detail in the ice and expose the skaters pretty well.

I'm still trying to compare image quality in dx and fx modes. I just did a very quick little 'test'--judged only by looking in the camera screen. Aiming the camera at my wooden desktop I could get the wood grain to produce a little moire. There was less in dx mode.
 
Wouldn´t it be possible to disable the contacts on automatic lenses in some non destructive way? very thin rubber or sort of silicone? I am glad I have only old manual glas and do not intend to buy any of those modern "CPU" glasses. Its also very nice to see the availablity, so I will be able to test the D600 in my local shop here. The only moire I am worried about is clothes on my talking heads. Since thats where I intend to use a DSLR....in case.
 
Disabling those contacs won't help you unless you actually have another way of controlling the aperture. The problem is not that the automatic aperture decides on its own where it wants to be set, but that, whereas you control the aperture, you can only change it if you're not in live view mode.
 
Swink said:
A few quick thoughts:
Or I use a lens with an aperture ring, which most of my lenses have. However, the non-cpu ones work better. I have an old Nikon 50mm with no chip in it. It works fine in movie mode and one can even program the camera to know (and display) the f-stops. However, my newish Zeiss zf lenses, which are "CPU" and can be controlled through the camera if you set them to the highest f-stop, don't work as smoothly so far. If I try to control the aperture manually on the lens, the camera registers an error and actually stops displaying the exposure time (ie. 1/50 ). It also will not go into live view unless the lens is on the highest f-stop. However, once I'm in live view I can take over control of the lens. It's too bad that the camera is only happy when it is controlling the aperture of a cpu lens. Perhaps there is a way to disable that, but I haven't found it yet.
Click to expand...

Menu > Custom Setting Menu > Controls > f5 Customize Command Dials > Aperture setting > Aperture ring

I actually have everything set to full manual (including the ring) in M mode to do all my movie recording, and I created an identical profile on U2 but with CPU aperture control for photos. It works really well.
 
hendosan said:
Menu > Custom Setting Menu > Controls > f5 Customize Command Dials > Aperture setting > Aperture ring

I actually have everything set to full manual (including the ring) in M mode to do all my movie recording, and I created an identical profile on U2 but with CPU aperture control for photos. It works really well.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I had a feeling there had to be a way, but I hadn't come across it yet in the manual.

This will make my life a little easier.
 
This test made me lose all interest in the D600: http://vimeo.com/49989606 The D600 seems to be a super D7000, not a mini D800. Apart from the aperture thing, it has the contrasty look of the D7000, not the wide dynamic range look of the D800. I'd much rather save for the more expensive model.
 
Naaah, in that test is not bad. Come on, D7000 is below that. Also notice how the D600 doesn´t seem to crop the sensor in video mode, while the d800 does crop it a bit.
We need a chart to judge resolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top