More Nikon D800 1080P video tests

It just feels like a blast from the past, like turning back the time four years. Only with three times more expensive gear this time around. I would not want to spend another four years hoping that Nikon gets it right eventually, because major camera manufacturers will be dropping out and it's once again the two rogues that will be left pushing mediocre and outdated gear for top prices.

The good guys have once again been forced out from the market by ignorant consumers.

Edit: I realize this is not the thread to make statements about the market condition, so I apologize for doing so and hope Nikon gets it right rather sooner than later. Otherwise it will be 2008 all over again when slow adopters learn that "hey, did you know this very cool Nikon camera can do video too. And you can plug this cool external harddrive on it too." ;-)
 
Last edited:
Aki_Hartikainen said:
In 2008 this video quality would have competed with Canon HV30 HDV camera, but in 2009 Lumix GH1 full HD would have blown these cameras out of the water. This is absurd. Demand a good quality video from Nikon. These are not meant to be cheap hobby cameras.
Click to expand...

Oh my god! You came here from the finnish forum Digivideo. You were a HORRIBLE GH2 fanboy there and it just continues and continues. Lame. Why don't you just continue filming flowers with your GH2 and leave other cameras alone!

I mean you created another nick to continue praising the GH2. That's just... so funny actually. GH2 fanboys. Don't stop!
 
Last edited:
Well the more video's I see of the D800, the more I like its look. Definitely not video looking and nice DR range. Is it film, probably not but it gets very close. I think with external recorders and some modification of picture profiles I think you can do very well with this camera.
 
Stephenh said:
Well the more video's I see of the D800, the more I like its look. Definitely not video looking and nice DR range. Is it film, probably not but it gets very close. I think with external recorders and some modification of picture profiles I think you can do very well with this camera.
Click to expand...

I've yet to see something that couldn't be duplicated with a Canon HV30 camcorder, less the narrow DOF. The resolution looks more like SD and there is plenty of moire. People have just forgotten how a good HD video should look like, and because it starts with N, it just can not be poor or mediocre quality. So this will become the new gold standard of HD video as sad as it is and the really good quality will still continue to be years away.
 
Aki_Hartikainen said:
I've yet to see something that couldn't be duplicated with a Canon HV30 camcorder, less the narrow DOF. The resolution looks more like SD and there is plenty of moire. People have just forgotten how a good HD video should look like, and because it starts with N, it just can not be poor or mediocre quality. So this will become the new gold standard of HD video as sad as it is and the really good quality will still continue to be years away.
Click to expand...

This is a laughably partisanlike statement.
 
Cosimo Bullo said:
This is a laughably partisanlike statement.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I would want to use any camera that would provide true HD images. These cameras simply do not do that or anywhere near HD. If you looked at the people in the images, they look like they are made from plastic. This is a clear sign that the camera resolves barely SD resolution and all sorts of trickery is being used to enhance the outlines.

Even if you looked at movies put on SD DVD, the people will still look normal and not like they were made of plastic. People also like to blame vimeo or YouTube, but they are both fine. Feed them HD, you will get HD.
 
Last edited:
I provided a still image sample in HD size on the previous page filmed with a real camera and a lens with people in it. If I may propose for you to take a still image and frame grab from the Nikon camera HD footage and then compare the images side by side. If the images do not compare well, then you are paying too much for a new camera.

This is 2012 and any new real HD camera should be able to do near RAW quality. No excuses for anything else. If the camera can not do that and they are asking thousands for it, run. Do not walk. I accept a bit soft video images from GH1 and GH2 for now, because they are old cameras and they were cheap to begin with. I would not accept any moire or soft images or plastic looking people from a new camera that costs thousands. That would be a ludicrous offer, just like having to gut your new multi thousand dollar camera to remove parts for a bit sharper HD video.

Don't do that. Demand decent gear if it costs thousands. Otherwise we will just continue to pay thousands for silly gear.
 
I apologize for being blunt and hi jacking the thread, but somebody has to say it: The Emperor has no clothes. These are not the cameras we are looking for. We are smart. We should know better.

We are not ignorant consumers throwing good money for less than ideal gear. I apologize for the mods as well if they need to do extra sanitizing work for this.
 
I think we have to be aware that multifunction DSLR cameras are a hybrid piece of equipment. Very good a one, not both. I think that you will see advancement in the film/video area in the next couple of years. Possibly RAW video capture. It is much easier to produce a single minded device whether that be stills or video. Market demand will bring much better integrated devices in the future.
 
Aki.. is right. The image of the D800 looks nice, but is t HD? Imo it is so so. The Pana GH2 looks much better and the image of the Canon C300 is definitely better.
 
Come on guys. This is a D800 thread. You shouldn't need more than one post to express your disinterest in it. No more comparisons in this thread.
 
t.p. said:
here is another video ive found
Click to expand...

credits say it was shot with D4 and D800 which probably explains why some shots are really soft and others crispy (the D4 is reportedly very soft). I had thought it was just a lens issue.
 
squig said:
credits say it was shot with D4 and D800 which probably explains why some shots are really soft and others crispy (the D4 is reportedly very soft). I had thought it was just a lens issue.
Click to expand...

yes ive noticed it too , but he doesnt say what shots are with the d4 and what is with the d800
i dont know about the softness , but from what my eye can see about the d800 , it may be sharper but its noisy , moire and alaising issues and very plastic looking like the d7000

heres is a short comparison i found
and here is another d800 footage
 
t.p. said:
yes ive noticed it too , but he doesnt say what shots are with the d4 and what is with the d800
Click to expand...

Yes he does: "Everything until the timelapse was shot with the Nikon D4, very soft if you are using the full frame sensor, very sharp in crop mode! I used the D800 after the timelapse shot"

There is a bit more info in the comments where he answers some questions.
 
Here's a D4 crop test...fantastic @ 2.7x crop. Really ugly in FX and DX mode. The D800 is much sharper in FX mode, but moire, aliasing, and less than stellar low light performance still rule it out for me. I can't figure out how Nikon managed to make a 36 megapixel downscale look better than a 16 megapixel one?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top