If Nikon fails...

Sorry but I'm not getting pissy. Nikon is a big Japanese company and they do what they want. Like I've said before, getting Ashton Kutcher to sell cameras for you and newspapers all over the world, wedding,etc,etc,etc,etc is more important to them than a very small indie filmmaker market. I think they could have done better but the Canons, Panasonics all have problems.

It just seem like a few people are trashing Nikon when all the other cameras are not perfect either. I hope they get something good soon. I have a couple grand burning a hole in my pocket. But with $3000 in Nikon lenses I have to wait.


capice said:
Haha... ok, that´s something. Lets wait + see. Until then don´t get all pissy with me just because I (and some others) want to talk about some alternatives to nikon. Why? You can look it up here and in the d300s thread...
Click to expand...
 
Kholi said:
B) If you pre-crop and use guides then you will definitely change the way you shoot. Instead of using a 35mm lens to frame a subject @ 10 feet away I'm going to use a 24mm to frame that same subject @ 10 feet away.
Click to expand...

ok gotcha now, you didn't mention the wider lens part of the equation now it makes sense. The only problem with cropping to 720p is if you're shooting a feature for digital 2k projection you're throwing away roughly 1k. 2k is about 6% larger than 1080p so with a 1.6x crop DSLR we get very close to 1:1 pixel S35 2k.

Provided it has manual control, 40Mbps H.264 and 1080p I'll pick up a 60D for evaluation. Rumor has it that it either has a faster digic V or 2 digic IV processors so there should be a jello improvement and I'd much prefer to shoot wide open rather than at f/5.6. It'll be a bit lighter on the shoulder and on the pocket too at around half the price of a MKII.

It doesn't look like nikon is going to have a potential crop sensor challenger until at least 2nd quarter 010 with the D400 and it may not be available till mid year so if you want a crop sensor DSLR with manual control the 60D is the only one I know about coming with the possibility of an improved or pro GH1 variant.
 
squig said:
ok gotcha now, you didn't mention the wider lens part of the equation now it makes sense. The only problem with cropping to 720p is if you're shooting a feature for digital 2k projection you're throwing away roughly 1k. 2k is about 6% larger than 1080p so with a 1.6x crop DSLR we get very close to 1:1 pixel S35 2k.
Click to expand...

If you get projection, 720P would be the least of your worries. However, I don't think 720p is the right frame to crop out. I think it's like 840 instead. The rest of the way you just uprez.


Anyway, using that "method" you would definitely revert to how you would shoot with a RED or Super35, where instead of a 50mm @ 5.6 being your primary wide (Mkii) you use a 35mm Prime @ 2.8.

Which one do you take? The resolution or the speed and lower ISO? =D
 
Zim said:
It just seem like a few people are trashing Nikon when all the other cameras are not perfect either. I hope they get something good soon. I have a couple grand burning a hole in my pocket. But with $3000 in Nikon lenses I have to wait.
Click to expand...

I think all the usual suspects here know every DSLR is flawed but this is a thread about nikons failure to give us what we need so nikon is in the crosshairs. There's a few things about the d90 that I prefer over the MKII, Matt's quote says it all.

I'm using mostly nikon glass on my canon and will probably continue to do so until I have money to burn on zeiss primes. I don't have a single canon lens, I have to get a cheap AF lens to shoot the kids although I'm getting great rack practice.
 
Kholi said:
Which one do you take? The resolution or the speed and lower ISO? =D
Click to expand...

Or double the amount of lighting.

Hopefully the 60D will be a serious competitor and we won't have choose between res noise and a shitload of lights. Throw in 24/25p and it will be dope!
 
Zim said:
Sorry but I'm not getting pissy. Nikon is a big Japanese company and they do what they want. Like I've said before, getting Ashton Kutcher to sell cameras for you and newspapers all over the world, wedding,etc,etc,etc,etc is more important to them than a very small indie filmmaker market. I think they could have done better but the Canons, Panasonics all have problems.
Click to expand...

I've been with Nikon since the FM2.

I kept all my nice fast Nikon primes, bought adapters for them and am using them with My 5D Mkii.

The D300 just got sold.
 
mcgeedigital said:
I've been with Nikon since the FM2.

I kept all my nice fast Nikon primes, bought adapters for them and am using them with My 5D Mkii.

The D300 just got sold.
Click to expand...

I'm still not satisfied with any of my adapters what's the most solid fitting one you have? and you too Kholi? I've been told even the pricey german one has 1mm play.
 
Play doesn't bother me. My Roxsen adapters have done me well.

And double lighting? Doesn't that defeat the point?
 
Kholi said:
Play doesn't bother me. My Roxsen adapters have done me well.

And double lighting? Doesn't that defeat the point?
Click to expand...

yeah it does hence the need for a crop sensor to keep the iso down

it will bother you with an anamorphic adapter but some gaff has been suggested to me as a solution. how much play do you get with the roxens?
 
RyanBellaCine said:
Because it can shoot video at all, to some of these guys ( not all ) it must be professional grade for vidographers, or it's Sh*t. Doesn't matter how good the still images which the "Still Camera" creates, it's complete junk if it's video functions are not top grade.
Click to expand...
i don't buy this argument. in what way do photographers and video amateurs want bad video? high image quality and usability is important to everyone. plus we're discussing the video capabilities, so the still functions are ultimately irrelevant.
 
Kholi said:
If you get projection, 720P would be the least of your worries. However, I don't think 720p is the right frame to crop out. I think it's like 840 instead.
Click to expand...
super 35 has the same width as full frame height, so 1080*9/16=608.

/matt
 
and i agree about coc, it's roughly the same. even though at the same viewing size a smaller format has slightly shallower dof the difference is tiny, just try some different numbers in a dof calculator and you'll see that the aperture is way more important, it's only when you start comparing standard 8mm with full frame 24x36 that you start seeing any major difference, but then you're also limited by the resolution of the format, you can never represent a circle that's smaller than the resolution of the image, obviously.

/matt
 
What about 24p + raw :-)

On the Red user forum [Red] there was a message asking about video DSLRs.
This interesting response.
"If you are looking at DSLR you should wait. I had a conversation with a Canon rep during the DGA meet last weekend. He advised me to sell my T1i before the second week of September. Apparently there will be a new one coming out with 24p and , possibly, RAW video out from Canon. Priced around $1500. S35 sensor and Eos mount for use with all Canon glass."
Note - an S35 sensor is similar to the normal canon crop (x1.6) sensor
Click to expand...
 
mattsand said:
super 35 has the same width as full frame height, so 1080*9/16=608.
Click to expand...
actually, now that i think of it that would be true if the sensor had been native 16:9 which it isn't. 1080 in 16:9 means the sensor "height" in 3:2 is 1920*2/3=1280, so it's actually exactly 1280x720. who'd have thought.

/matt
 
mattsand said:
actually, now that i think of it that would be true if the sensor had been native 16:9 which it isn't. 1080 in 16:9 means the sensor "height" in 3:2 is 1920*2/3=1280, so it's actually exactly 1280x720. who'd have thought.

/matt
Click to expand...


I figured that out last night on accident. But had no idea there was an easy way to calculate it. So it is exactly 720p.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=179748

There are some uploads there. Whether or not the shift in DOF is negligible is probably a personal preference. I'm still undecided if it's worth it or not to be able to shoot at say 2.8 versus 5.6 and keeping the ISO @ 320 / 640, or just taking the full 1080 frame and just shooting at 5.6.

Also, I think because the 35mm Frame is exactly 720p, that's why when people just do a quick 2.35:1 Matte it looks proper.
 
Kholi said:
There are some uploads there. Whether or not the shift in DOF is negligible is probably a personal preference. I'm still undecided if it's worth it or not to be able to shoot at say 2.8 versus 5.6 and keeping the ISO @ 320 / 640, or just taking the full 1080 frame and just shooting at 5.6.
Click to expand...

If you're shooting something like a club scene with available light only then your idea would be a lifesaver. Full frame has an advantage at the wide end where you can have a shallower DOF but you need a lot of light at the tele end or too shallow dof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top