D610 vs D800 for video?

norvan5

norvan5

Well-known member
Hi all,

Aside from the 24.2 vs 36.2 megapixel difference between the models, does the D610 match up to the D800 in terms of its functionality for video work and in terms of the quality of video it can produce? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but both cameras seem to offer:

- Full frame (with a DX mode option)
- Same video codec
- 25p in 1080
- 50p in 720
- Clean hdmi out to a ninja 2 and/or external monitor
- Audio-in
- headphone jack
- built-n timelapse feature

I understand the d610 has overcome many of the problems of the d600, so I'm interested specifically in finding out more about the d610. On paper, it looks to be a very capable video camera as well as a monster of a stills camera.
 
The D800 can adjust the aperture in video mode for lenses with no aperture ring.
The D600 requires a lens with an aperture ring to do this.
 
D800 has minimal aliasing/moire (it has some, but not much). D600 is on of the worst cameras out there in terms of aliasing/moire, and AFAIK the D610 hasn't changed that. I would not consider it an option if I was interested mainly in shooting video.

If you want full frame video, you can either go flagship (5D3/D800/A7r), or NEX APS-C with speedbooster. No other option makes sense to me right now.
 
sbrenner said:
The D800 can adjust the aperture in video mode for lenses with no aperture ring.
The D600 requires a lens with an aperture ring to do this.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Good to know this. It wouldn't be a deal-breaking drawback for me personally, but definitely an important difference.
 
Samuel H said:
D600 is on of the worst cameras out there in terms of aliasing/moire, and AFAIK the D610 hasn't changed that. I would not consider it an option if I was interested mainly in shooting video.
Click to expand...

Thanks too! I hadn't considered aliasing/moire issues. This is why it's good to ask! I wonder if the d610 really is exactly the same as the d600 in this regard?
 
PerroneFord said:
Blackmagic?
Click to expand...


If you don't require fullframe, blackmagic and D7100/D5200 are great options. But I was talking about FF video.

Maybe with the 4K and a speedbooster, whenever that's available, and if you still like the image from it (I think lots of people will be let down by the reduced DR in the 4K blackmagic).
 
norvan5 said:
Thanks too! I hadn't considered aliasing/moire issues. This is why it's good to ask! I wonder if the d610 really is exactly the same as the d600 in this regard?
Click to expand...
I'm still not 100% sure, but we'll know soon enough
 
I simply don't understand the fascination with "full frame" video. It makes everything harder (unless you aren't lighting a film), and gives almost NOTHING back in return. The difference between FF35, S35, and MFT at 8-10 feet is less than 10" of DOF. The ability to "get wide" is a bit harder on M43, but not THAT much harder. A Tokina 11-16 with a speedbooster puts you as wide as any PL glass on the wide end. I just don't get it.

As for the "reduced resolution" of the BMPC at 4K, if it is indeed 12 stops, then it will have as much dynamic range as film did when the original 5D was announced. It will have more dynamic range than the original RED One. It will have more dynamic range than the Panavision Genesis die, and it will most certainly have more dynamic range than the SI2K did when it was used on Slumdog. It will also have more range than the digital cameras used on Benjamin Button.

Why anyone would be disappointed with a camera having as much or more range than the cameras that have been used on Oscar winning or Oscar nominated films is beyond me.



Samuel H said:
If you don't require fullframe, blackmagic and D7100/D5200 are great options. But I was talking about FF video.

Maybe with the 4K and a speedbooster, whenever that's available, and if you still like the image from it (I think lots of people will be let down by the reduced DR in the 4K blackmagic).
Click to expand...
 
I want full frame video because my lenses are designed for a full frame sensor (vintage Leicas from the 60s and 70s). I don't have a problem closing them down to f/5.6 or narrower, but I want my 24mm to be wide, and my 50mm to be normal.

Re: Tokina 11-16: does aperture work with the Nikon-G-to-m43 speedbooster?

And the problem with the BMC-4K is that those 12 stops are achieved by a dual-exposure trick performed by the sensor. In normal mode, it has around 8 stops of DR (my tests, with the same sensor but not with BM's image processing). Everything above that is highlights that have been rescued by exposing with a very fast shutter speed and combining that with the original image. It is good enough for a sky if the camera is not moving, but you don't want to put your talent in that range, and even using that to have a nice sky may give you a saving-private-ryan look if the camera is moving.
 
Samuel H said:
I want full frame video because my lenses are designed for a full frame sensor (vintage Leicas from the 60s and 70s). I don't have a problem closing them down to f/5.6 or narrower, but I want my 24mm to be wide, and my 50mm to be normal.
Click to expand...

My lenses are too. Both current and vintage Nikon glass. And I understand the wide issue. I am going to be solving that issue buy buying one more lens for wides.

Samuel H said:
Re: Tokina 11-16: does aperture work with the Nikon-G-to-m43 speedbooster?
Click to expand...

I had not heard it didn't. Have you?


Samuel H said:
And the problem with the BMC-4K is that those 12 stops are achieved by a dual-exposure trick performed by the sensor. In normal mode, it has around 8 stops of DR (my tests, with the same sensor but not with BM's image processing). Everything above that is highlights that have been rescued by exposing with a very fast shutter speed and combining that with the original image. It is good enough for a sky if the camera is not moving, but you don't want to put your talent in that range, and even using that to have a nice sky may give you a saving-private-ryan look if the camera is moving.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I have direct experience with the sensor. Frankly, I have little use for 4K though I was interested in it with the Scarlet. But I guess we'll see how bad things are when the camera is released. If what you are saying is true, it might well explain the delay in bringing the camera to market.
 
I would love to see a comparison video of the D600/610 or D800 vs the D7100, made specifically for videographers. I know the advantages of having full frame, but is the actual quality of the video going to be any better for normal shooting? Obviously I would get better low-light performance, but most of my videos are shot in the sun and I have lenses for both FF and Crop, so I'm just curious what I would really have to gain by dropping $2500 on a D800 or $1200 on a D600 when I already have a D7100 and D5200. I would gain a slight bit of DR from the D800 and the ability to change aperture in live view (which really isn't THAT important to me), a bit better low light performance and proper focal lengths, but what else? I have this feeling that I really wouldn't be gaining any quality...in fact, I might actually LOSE some quality due to the line-skipping in the D800, which gives a pretty soft image in every video I've seen from it.

Is anyone aware of a video test between the D7100 and D800 or D600? Or is there anyone out there with both cameras who would be willing to do a quick test?
 
PerroneFord said:
My lenses are too. Both current and vintage Nikon glass. And I understand the wide issue. I am going to be solving that issue buy buying one more lens for wides.
Click to expand...

I solved it by getting a speedbooster, so my APS-C mirrorless camera is FF in effect right now.


PerroneFord said:
I had not heard it didn't. Have you?
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea, that's why I'm asking. The Nikon mount is an obscure world to me. Too many variants I can't keep track of. AFAIK, this adapter uses a lever to control aperture; I have no idea if the Tokina uses that kind of F mount or a different kind of F mount. PS: Nikon, I'll always hate you for this.
 
Samuel H said:
I have absolutely no idea, that's why I'm asking. The Nikon mount is an obscure world to me. Too many variants I can't keep track of. AFAIK, this adapter uses a lever to control aperture; I have no idea if the Tokina uses that kind of F mount or a different kind of F mount. PS: Nikon, I'll always hate you for this.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see you're confusion.

Honestly, I prefer what Nikon did to what Canon did. Long story short, Canon basically abandoned all their manual focus glass users and made everyone buy all new stuff. Nikon didn't.

Here's the basic Nikon deal.

All Nikon SLRs use "F" mount. Same hole size, same mounting scheme. Glass made before 1977 won't fit on new cameras without a ($50) modification. All glass made post 1978 will fit on cameras made after 1978. Sometime in the 2005ish time frame Nikon started to take Aperture rings off the lenses since people wanted that controlled by the camera body electronically. So if you are putting one of those lenses "G" lenses on a NON Nikon body, you need something to control the aperture lever.

I have two Metabones adapters. One for my G lenses, and one for the lenses with an aperture ring. No biggie, and both were cheap. I don't have a Speedbooster though as I am going to solve that wide issue with new glass versus an adapter.

Don't hate Nikon. Thank them for NOT abandoning us Pros. Thank them because keeping that same mount allows us to use ANY of their SLR glass back to 1959 on non-Nikon cameras with a simple adapter. Try putting a Canon EF mount lens on a non-Canon camera. Either the camera has to be made especially for it, or you need a smart adapter with power. There's no simple aperture lever to move.
 
baronmax said:
I would love to see a comparison video of the D600/610 or D800 vs the D7100, made specifically for videographers. I know the advantages of having full frame, but is the actual quality of the video going to be any better for normal shooting? Obviously I would get better low-light performance, but most of my videos are shot in the sun and I have lenses for both FF and Crop, so I'm just curious what I would really have to gain by dropping $2500 on a D800 or $1200 on a D600 when I already have a D7100 and D5200. I would gain a slight bit of DR from the D800 and the ability to change aperture in live view (which really isn't THAT important to me), a bit better low light performance and proper focal lengths, but what else? I have this feeling that I really wouldn't be gaining any quality...in fact, I might actually LOSE some quality due to the line-skipping in the D800, which gives a pretty soft image in every video I've seen from it.

Is anyone aware of a video test between the D7100 and D800 or D600? Or is there anyone out there with both cameras who would be willing to do a quick test?
Click to expand...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8MQMCxxLEs

Unless you really need better low light video or the photo improvements of the D800...I think the D5200/D7100 are actually better for video over all considering the better read out of the sensor.
 
PerroneFord said:
I simply don't understand the fascination with "full frame" video.
Click to expand...

Dunno about fascination, but I can certainly understand what draws people to full-frame. I'm a video guy who is interested in stills photography too. I want to take my stills photography to the next level and the 24MP, F mount d610 looks like it might be ideal for me because of the glass I own etc. But the video guy part of me wants to know what the video capabilities of the camera are too. I don't want to part with hard-earned cash if the model is a dog for video, even if I wouldn't necessarily be using it as my A cam when filming.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8MQMCxxLEs

Unless you really need better low light video or the photo improvements of the D800...I think the D5200/D7100 are actually better for video over all considering the better read out of the sensor.
Click to expand...

Fascinating. It looks like there might be a tad bit better DR from the D800 and the D800 was clearly better for the inside shot where there was a bit less light, but other than that, I thought the D5200 looked a bit sharper. That's interesting...a $600 camera keeping up with a $2700 camera.

Thanks for the link. :)
 
@Perroneford:
Thanks a lot for the explanation, much clearer now. I don't hate Nikon for keeping the same mount through the ages, of course. I hate them for keeping the name. It should have become the F2 mount in 1978, then F3, etc. So you could look at your camera's spec sheet and easily know which lenses worked on it, without knowing the full history of Nikon cameras and lenses!!

@pulpfiction007 and baronmax:
Nice comparison, but I wouldn't read much on the DR and low-light side of things. The sensor on the D800 is receiving more light, it was either shot at f/2.8, or the lens just has better light transmission (less difference between f/ and T/ ratings). In the indoor shot you can clearly see the shadows look better, but the highlights are clipped sooner too.
I measured the D5200 and D800 DR to be exactly the same (within the error margins of my not-really-as-accurate-as-I-would-like-it-to-be methodology)
 
I wonder how long it will be before we're getting the same DR in video as we can get in photography? I would kill for a video camera that had the same DR as my D7100 when taking stills. I don't seem to get anywhere close to that in video. Perhaps that's because of the codec, as the raw videos I've seen seem to have a lot more colors and definition. I've tried making my video more and more flat, but I'm still nowhere near stills quality range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top