Is there any current Nikon DSLR that gives decent image quality in video?

macgregor

macgregor

Veteran
The question might sound stupid but seriously, is there anything as of right now that looks decent?
I have a job for which I'd love to shoot on a nikon DSLR but last time I checked there was nothing out there half decent, like the Sony A7s is.
- with no aliasing
- decent resolution at 1080p
- decent rolling shutter
- decent DR

I haven't played with the D610, D750 or D810.
D800 is clearly not good enough for me.
 
D810 and D750 are the best Nikon cameras for video right now. Both are clearly better than the D800, but not as good as the a7S (my opinion, based mostly on them having less DR). I'd easily recommend them to most DSLR video shooters, but I'm not sure they'll be good enough for you.
 
Samuel H said:
D810 and D750 are the best Nikon cameras for video right now. Both are clearly better than the D800, but I'm not sure they'll be good enough for you.
Click to expand...

It seems like the D750 uses the FF sensor (slightly wider FOV) than the D810.
What about that flat profile that comes standard now? Good?
 
Last edited:
The D810 has NO anti-aliasing filter at all. This thing produces an incredible amount of detail for 1080p.
The 750 is about the same image (a tad softer with the addition of the A.A. filter) but even better low light performance.

Both are significantly better than the D800.

The codecs are significantly improved for the bit-rate over the D800.

Rolling shutter is far less than the A7s.

The Flat profile is not LOG, but is clearly superior to their other picture profiles and produces the maximum DR the camera can squeeze.

DR is better than 5D3 but does not "claim" the DR that the A7s claims is possible if using the Slog2 option.

Very nice looking Nikon image....but in my opinion, the highlight shoulder is a little harsh. That part of the image pushed me away and into the Black Magic Cinema Camera.

The 750 and 810 are the best Nikon has ever produced for video - FAR better than the 'ol Canon 5D3 or D800....But NOT as good as the 5D3 with Magic Lantern RAW - but maybe that's not a fair comparison.
 
Last edited:
DPStewart said:
The Flat profile is not LOG, but is clearly superior to their other picture profiles and produces the maximum DR the camera can squeeze.
Click to expand...
Unless they changed something on the D750, the flat profile has a nice and uniform light-response function (i.e. it is near-log) but it has the same DR as the most aggressive custom profiles of years past (e.g. my Flaat thing), not any more. If Nikon added a profile that kept alive all the DR that the camera records, I would seriously consider ditching my a7S for one of these, it's much easier to get rid of banding than to revive broken highlights.

Still better than the Canons, except when recording RAW.
 
There is a world of difference in the Nikon Dslr since the D800, gone are moire/aliasing and the latest models are very sharp. Dr has been very good and rolling shutter also is quite good compared to A7s etc. Low light is also much better with Apsc cameras like D5200 rivaling 5dmark 3.

This is how close the stock 24 mbit d750 is to 5dmark3 raw http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic...ch-5d-mark-iii-14bit-uncompressed-raw/?page=1


The D810 seems to be a little sharper that D750 but not as good in low light.

 
Samuel H said:
D810 and D750 are the best Nikon cameras for video right now. Both are clearly better than the D800, but not as good as the a7S (my opinion, based mostly on them having less DR). I'd easily recommend them to most DSLR video shooters, but I'm not sure they'll be good enough for you.
Click to expand...

Hi Samuel, I am like you a big fan of having very good DR, but I don't know the fascination about the A7S DR. It might be better on paper but when you see in practice the thing is far from practical. So to get S-log 2 you need to shoot at 3200 ISO !!!!!!!!!! I mean most of the time you would need highest DR is when there is the sun and generally high contrast scene with lot of sun. As the sun is the hardest thing to control because you need bounce and lighting for shaping etc. At night when you can get some contrast between darkness and for example a shop window, the cameras are so clean now at higH ISO that you don't need powerful light if you need to fill. With 3200 ISO what type of ND to you need to get some shallow dof during daytime and that is not counting colour cast and IR polution adding to a 8 bit codec that has only 256 steps?

Another problem is colour science and banding. You can see the countless thread about colour science and that most if not all conclusion is if you want to get some decent skin done just don't use S-log. Noise and banding are also a problem when you have too be very careful about your exposure etc. When you addup all this, I don't see how usable it is in real life 99% of time.
 
Would go for the D750 because of no sensor-cropping, tilting screen and lowlight. You would also be able to shoot ISO800 as your base like many are used to.
 
the biggest argument for me against the D750 would be the amateurish knobs and menue design if you were used to semi-pro bodies... :-)
I underestimated this! perhabs it's only me, but even after a fortnight this Nikki drives me really mad sometimes. why, oh nikon, why

but the IQ is cute without any doubt. Most people wouldn't see any difference to true ML raw, at least not on vimeo.

pro D810: better IQ < ISo 800, better built, good enough DX Crop
pro D750: much better low light, tilt screen
 
I have been really happy with LPowell's Gamma settings for Nikon, and I have seen a lot of great stuff shot using them.

But I think he has still been working on getting them converted to the new Nikon Picture Settings system that they have for the D750 and D800, etc.
 
So if I was to compare strictly D810 vs D750 in this fields:
- resolution
- aliasing
- dynamic range

which one is a better camera?
 
macgregor said:
So if I was to compare strictly D810 vs D750 in this fields:
- resolution
- aliasing
- dynamic range

which one is a better camera?
Click to expand...

imho, the D810 without the slightest doubt, at least in colour and sharpness. Aliasing I'm not sure; I was able to produce significant moire in the so called 'moire-free' D750 after a minute, but that was deliberately shooting jeans clothes as a close up. In real world footage, aliasing had not shown up yet (and I have tons with the D800), but my work didn't include architecture or clothes.
 
No, wasn't a matter of sharpness. Started with 2 and dialed down to 0. The keyword is deliberately trying to achieve this; yes, I got moiré but it was in almost the same matter as in a C100 MKI: harmless in real world situations, at least so far. But simply not moiré-free, so it could happen. :-)

btw, slashcam's test pictures are a preproduction modell...
 
Does anyone know how the D750 and D800 compare to the D7100? I really enjoy the colors from my D7100 but wanted to know how it compares to the full frame brothers before I threw it in the suggestions as a possible camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top