D7100 Vs. D5300 for video?

Stu Siegal

Stu Siegal

Well-known member
Was just about to purchase the D7100, but took a closer look at the d5300 and had some reservations. Don't use AF, not troubled by the build and swingout screen (though I wish the D5300 was weather sealed, which is a big consideration), and I can swing the price difference. Looking for some guidance purely on IQ and low light performance for video, thoughts appreciated.
 
D7100 and D5200 are basically identical when it comes to IQ in video mode. But the D5300 is still largely unknown. The sensor is different, that seems clear by now. DanielVilliers has been collecting D5300 sample videos over here. But until we get some knowledgeable people playing with the camera and reporting on any possible issues, it's "wait and see".

You can't go wrong with the D7100 or D5200, though: very impressive cameras. The difference is basically stills-oriented (the D7100 has better AF, with AFMA).
 
I though that the the D5200 and D5300 had essentially the same Toshiba sensor, with the same performance, but the D5300 was without an AA filter?
 
Seems to be a real lack of D5300 video from video professionals so far, hopefully Johnnie Behiri's review will be up shortly.
 
On dpreview you have photos of the 2 sensor and they are visually different, so it is definitely a different sensor. Another thing of note is that banding is gone in the above sample video. To further that there is none in the RAW photo sample. Until some definite test, for pure image quality the D5300 could be the winner. We could even see a new Nikon D7200 in not too long.
 
Danielvilliers said:
On dpreview you have photos of the 2 sensor and they are visually different, so it is definitely a different sensor. Another thing of note is that banding is gone in the above sample video. To further that there is none in the RAW photo sample. Until some definite test, for pure image quality the D5300 could be the winner. We could even see a new Nikon D7200 in not too long.
Click to expand...
The D5200 has an AA filter in front of its sensor while the D5300 does not, so of course they look different. There appear to be some tiny differences in the number of pixels used. But aside from the AA filter, the two sensors perform remarkably similarly according to DxO and I wouldn't be surprised if they are essentially the same Toshiba sensor.
 
I have never shot with a Nikon DSLR. How do you deal with lack of timecode in post? Do you just stripe it in your editing app rendering out proxies?
It's just that I'm also considering the GH3 for a guerilla project, and the GH3 has timecode, but the IQ is not as good at the 5300 apparently.

Or does everyone just edit off the native avchd files and never deal with logging or timecode?
 
Last edited:
noirist said:
The D5200 has an AA filter in front of its sensor while the D5300 does not, so of course they look different. There appear to be some tiny differences in the number of pixels used. But aside from the AA filter, the two sensors perform remarkably similarly according to DxO and I wouldn't be surprised if they are essentially the same Toshiba sensor.
Click to expand...

Look at the pics, it's not just the OLPF, it's a completely different silicon and packaging. I also though it would be the same Toshiba sensor, but it seems it's not.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52345503
 
Yes you can clearly see that they are not the same sensor but it could still be a Toshiba sensor with a new packaging or a Sony. Some are saying toshiba with Nikon tech to eliminate banding but no one know until someone dissect the camera. What I want to see is some good test on moire and aliasing such to be sure that it is just not doing simple line skipping, but the test frome camera labs look to be de-voided of it. Nikon has every reason to be independent from Sony as much as they can. What is quite phenomenal is that Toshiba has produce a sensor that is beter in every way to the Canon sensor in there first APSC dslr camera.
 
The 7100 and the 5300 seem like fine cameras. I have the 5200 and love it. I'm waiting to hear more from the 5300 users to see if I want to upgrade to it. I absolutely love the sensor in the 5200 and to me the camera does very well in low light. I don't think you can go wrong with either camera just depends on what you are looking for and what suits you.
 
I have the D5300, for several months now.
Stills and video are generally quite good. The stills exhibit a bit too much noise for my taste from ISO 1600 and above.
Trouble is, the camera feels slow on several fronts, especially in Live View and when zooming in to check focus.
There is no Focus peeking or zebra pattern to aid in focusing.

Posted some photos on my Flickr page, if you wanna see some samples.

My Flickr Stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/21665180@N06/
 
I've got a music video coming in early May that I'll shoot with the 7100... but I'm going to rent a 5300 to dedicate to the steadicam. (When I use the 7100 on the steadi, I attach a 5" monitor since that screen is damn tiny and my eyes suck... but I'm bringing a crane, shoulder mount, etc. We'll see if I still want the marshall or can go with the built-in screen). Should be a good comparison, and it will keep the gig moving much faster.

For video, the only thing so far that appeals to me of the 5300 vs. 7100 is the 1080p at 60.( The 7100 only shoots 60p at 720.) From reading the manual... no wired remote... less dedicated buttons for major features. The wired remote on the 7100 is great for cranes and rigs and works fine in video mode as a trigger. Then there's audio meters and control of audio while shooting, which isn't giant since you're not going to do pro work with the D7100 audio, but it's nice to have a clean synch track. Still, many of those issues are things you can work around - all a matter of getting second nature with any camera and not having to think while changing things.

The 5300 won't give you AF on older screw-drive glass - you need motorized lenses. Not a big issue for video, but for stills it opens a really wide range of great AF glass that's really affordable. On the other hand, if you can't afford a monitor, the 5300 does have the twisty screen though.

Also, on a steadicam, I can mount the trigger on the steadicam handle and grab initial focus with the half-press. This has been huge for me so far and really speeds up those shots. The wired remote is something I've come to rely on, great for shoulder mounts and cranes (and it's easy to cut the cable and solder up connectors to use a mini headphone extension when you need length). And it's 9 bucks.

Overall, I'm blown away by the 7100's quality with good lighting and good glass, it's got amazing IQ for the $$. Looking forward to spending a day under fire with the 53. Screen grab from an interview last week:

VERN 85mm.jpg
 
I've never owned a 60D; but the difference between the 7100 and the T2i is somewhere between "impressive" and "massive". I shot a lot of nice projects with the T2i, but with the D7000, Nikon's color started to trounce Canon's APS-C cams, for my tastes anyway. Then the 7100 brought "real" sharpness (not just digital sharpening but something more organic) and reduced jello, audio controls, and clean HDMI that doesn't shut the camera's screen off. But it's the image that really matters, nobody's going to use DSLR audio for paying work and a Ninja doesn't bring much to the table since the HDMI output isn't 422 (I think only the GH4 has impressively better HDMI output).

And it's a pretty phenomenal stills body, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top