Macworld likes the Nikon look

J

Jurno

Member
There's a DSLR-as-Camcorder roundup today in Macworld that Nikon users will find interesting. The writer compares six cameras (two of which aren't really DSLRs) on their video capability.

Here's the link.

It's done obviously from a non-camera-expert point of view, and it's a bit odd to put the Canon 5D Mk II up against, say, the Nikon D5000, but it's interesting that in the end, with price taken into some consideration, the writer prefers the Nikon's video.

Just thought you might like to know. ...
 
It's no real surprise - I think the Nikon video IQ has the same "mojo" that Pannasonic has in the camcorder department. I use a GH1 for the convenience, but I've always really enjoyed the Nikon picture quality. The Canon's are way to contrasty and crushed for my taste.
 
D90 looks the best, for sure (aesthetically). But is flawed in so many ways.

I really hope they can pull it all together at some point.... no jello, no aliasing, no moire, 24/25/30/60 1080p, pro ins/outs and a good codec (raw please!).

I like my 5DII, but Nikon has always been my brand of choice.
 
They also seem to really like the GH1 but don't understand the price...over half of which is derived from the kit lens...as much as I love Nikon, that 18-55mm isn't gonna serve you well for long.
 
i was just looking at some d90 test footage some people i know shot, maybe it was the camera op, but i found nothing pleasing about the images. saturation didn't seem on point, everything looks mushy especially the blacks (even worse then 5d) sharpness wasn't even close to a hvx200, and latitude seems to the naked eye pretty bad. again it might just be badly shot footage, but i've seen much better footage from a 5d that was just someone shooting randomly for the hell of it then what i saw from a d90
 
so you watched some bad footage and you didn't like it? ok, thanks for sharing i guess. ;-) neither the d90 nor the 5d are even close to the hvx when it comes to technical image quality, that's been known since forever. i'm also a huge fan of the nikon look compared to the 5d and especially the gh1, but it's very hard to say what it is since it doesn't seem to be better in any measurable respect. "mojo" is a good way to put it indeed.
 
mcgeedigital said:
to YOU [...] I prefer
Click to expand...
you're only really arguing against your own misinterpretation of my post. i love the look of all the slr's compared to the hvx but if you don't see that they fail in almost all technical aspects you're, with all due respect, more or less blind.
 
I can't wait to pick up my HVX for under US$1000 and use all my legacy lenses as-is with it. And in what part of the Macworld article did they review the HVX again? Can you point me to it xmephestox? Do you have an Arriflex D21 you'd like to throw in for further comparison?
Some positive news for Nikon video and the world melts.
 
why is everyone so defensive? is it so strange that there can exist a camera that is cheap, takes beautiful pictures, has interchangable lenses, but records crappy low res video with aliasing, moiree, stair stepping, compression artifacts and mud? the hvx is just an example of a camera that's better than the d90 in those latter respects, a simple and well known fact to anyone who's either tried both or just done some very basic homework that i don't see how it can be controversial.
 
It's not a controversial point, it's just meaningless in the context of this thread. This thread is about a Macworld article and what it said concerning dslr video and Nikon video, not the HVX vs. Nikon video. Irrelevant comparison is probably the source of the defensiveness you detect.
 
At this point nikons all fail in video dept. Not being able to set the shutter speed and ISO manually means not control over exposure!

I've seen too many clips showing grayed out and grainy shadows as the Nikon exposes incorrectly, and on the other end, backlighting becomes hit or miss as the nikon exposes for the backgroound making your subject too dark.

add to it that Nikon hasn't really upgraded their current releases from previous ones, and that means: don't waste your money on a nikon this year.

At least canon stepped up. They now have full manual control in video, better frame rates, 1080p, better lowlight capability, plus everything else that canon has going for them already.
 
It's an exaggeration to say that there is no control over exposure. Consistent lighting, camera settings and a gray card will give you a relatively solid fix on the numbers the camera is using, and more importantly will give you identical results across takes.

I'm also not sure that Canon dslrs have better low light capability or better frame rates - in fact, I'm not sure what a better frame rate is since you cannot be referring to 24fps.

But I do understand your Nikon-frustration.
 
Even though real manual controls would be nice... I've come to really enjoy pressing the d-pad buttons to move the red box in liveview for the optimum exposure. And holding the +/- EV and moving the dials. And pressing AE-L.

It reminds me of being 12 again playing video games. Up Down Left Right X Y A B.

Go figure...
 
if it's meaningless why are you arguing against it? we're talking about what's good about the d90 image and i think it's pretty relevant to say what's not. the very reason we think his post is a bit out of context is because we already know the sharpness is sub par, but we love the image anyway, so why is that? if that's not interesting and on topic im not sure why we're discussing.
 
mattsand said:
neither the d90 nor the 5d are even close to the hvx when it comes to technical image quality, that's been known since forever.
Click to expand...

since you bring it up, let me rant about this pricey noisy junk right here on the DVXuser forum. I used extensively an HVX a time ago, and that camera was a pain. The controls are all in wrong places, mostly because this camera is a hybrid between past and new generations, miniDV and memory cards glued together, a body with two brains. to replay a shot from the cards or to delete them is completely counter-intuitive and no way it is fool proof. The container that HVX uses... the damned MXFs that needed to be reencoded every time for FCP or AE and the avid had real nightmares with it for the folks that needed the job done next morning.

For image quality, the HVX is okay. Professional, no artifacts, but also no mojo. Great for product shots. I would say that the 60p is good for sports,
Besides giving more color information 4:2:2 whereas miniDVs gave 4:1:1, the technical image quality you mentioned ends there. The 1080p resolution is a joke, I don't think it can give 720p, to tell the truth an old beta SD had more resolution, at least the model I had, I don't know if Panasonic fixed the CCDs, I hope they did, at least its resolution. And the light sensibility is terrible, 600 iso or less, I'm not sure how low, but it was really low and created noise at any settings. And people insisted to use lens adapters with HVX... we were back at Hollywood of the 20's, having to shoot at sunlight, or to rent tons of lights.

And its weight? The HVX is assembled as a camcorder... try to hold that elephant for five minutes without some rig, it needs a bodybuilder to make some handheld. Add a lens adapter that you had an uncontrollable monster in your hands. I wont even talk about its viewfinder and manual focusing...

What makes me crazy was that we sold an old PD-150 get the HVX. The Sony PD-150 was the best camcorder I ever used. It didn't have 24p, but it was extremely ergonomic, the light sensibility was stellar, and had beautiful motion blur when using a slow shutter. No wonder David Lynch uses the PD-150, and Inland Empire has a great photography... that would be more like Cloverfield if he used the HVX

In comparison with the DSLRs, it's oranges and apples. Not only because of the DOF, but camcorders were designed for video for half a century, while DSLRs, well, last year. And in my opinion, most artifacts will be gone in another year before becoming a PRO feature. Even Panasonic knows that. The HVX age will be forgotten but already left some scars.

/end of rant
 
disclaimer: i don't like the hvx at all either, it was just an example of a "real" video camera, as brought up by somebody else. i could have used the hv20 as an example, a plastic, consumer oriented, point and shoot, hdv camera that still produces a technically superior image to all the slr's. the killer slr needs to produce an artifact free, nicely compressed image pretty soon, none of them do today while most video cameras have since forever.
 
Ryan Paige said:
Actually, all Nikon or Canon has to do is announce such a killer vdslr camera (giving it a catchy name), then they have at least two or three years to actually release it, and all during the interim people will make fun of you if you dare suggest buying anything else because that something else won't be nearly as good so the only smart play is to wait as long as it takes.
Click to expand...

lol :D
 
BandanaDan said:
Even though real manual controls would be nice... I've come to really enjoy pressing the d-pad buttons to move the red box in liveview for the optimum exposure. And holding the +/- EV and moving the dials. And pressing AE-L.

It reminds me of being 12 again playing video games. Up Down Left Right X Y A B.

Go figure...
Click to expand...

Yeah or you can just AE-L on a card and use a manual lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top