Nikon D3s has full manual control in video mode. Confirmed!

M

Martin Koch

Well-known member
Slashcam.de reports today that the Nikon D3s has full manual control in video mode. This was confirmed to them by Nikon professional service.


„Sobald die Live-View-Betriebsart im Aufnahme-Menü auf „Stativ“ und die Kamera in den manuellen Modus (M) gestellt wurde, ist es möglich vor und während der Videoaufnahme Blende, Belichtungszeit und ISO-Wert manuell einzustellen, bzw. zu verstellen. Ein automatisches Fokussieren ist über die AF-ON-Taste möglich (auch während der laufenden Aufnahme).
Zudem steht Ihnen zur optimalen Belichtung des Videos auf dem Kameramonitor am rechten Bildrand eine Belichtungsskala zur Verfügung.“
Click to expand...

Just write to your local Nikon support to get this in your language. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG) It's not even mentioned in the manual.
 
Umm, this has already been the source of considerable controversy here. Does the D3S manual instruct the user that the camera can take stills? And use Nikkor lenses?
 
the d3s is probably more directly comparable to the 1dmarkiv- they both have an iso of about 102,800 (which is ridiculous) and are both incredibly expensive. the d3s is a full frame though while the 1dmarkiv is a 1.2 or 1.3 crop. the 1d4 has 60p and 1080 going for it (although some say the nikons resolve as much at 720 as the canons do at 1080). unfortunately the price of both is possibly mainly due to their photographic features more than their video features. they're both pretty lust-worthy though.
 
Last edited:
It appears the D900 is going to be out in February with 1080p video and a 5D MKII sticker price, there's no info yet about manual control and whether it has mjpeg or H.264. A couple of rumours claim it has H.264 which I think is a step backwards. A higher bit-rate mjpeg codec would be a much better option for DSLR filmmaking, it just looks more filmic IMO.

It's great to see new improved DSLRs coming out every couple of months. The D90 was good, the MKII is great, and the next one should be amazing.
 
morgan_moore said:
Gazzillionaire ?

A D3s would be 125UKP per month paid of over three years at 8%

S
Click to expand...

well obviously I was exaggerating and I think it would be worth it if you could afford it. I'm not trying to bash it at all although that much over 3 years is more than a lot of people pay on their car leases. still, full frame + manual control + crazy low light performance combined with nikon's color rendition or more 'organic' look probably justify a purchase for anyone considering it. it's definitely at the high end for an HDSLR though (although people have paid similar for prosumer type camcorders). I don't actually think it's overpriced and if it's within your budget I would say it might be the camera to get.

anyway I agree with squig that MJPEG might actually be better for these HDSLRs since none of the others seem to have any B-frames when using h.264. an I-frame only codec like MJPEG might actually be helping the nikons get that organic look since film would be mostly equivalent to a series of I-frames.
 
Last edited:
Believe it or not people use these to make a living and need something that will take the daily use a working camera goes through. I think "lustworthy" is the wrong word to use.


killacam said:
the d3s is probably more directly comparable to the 1dmarkiv- they both have an iso of about 102,800 (which is ridiculous) and are both incredibly expensive. the d3s is a full frame though while the 1dmarkiv is a 1.2 or 1.3 crop. the 1d4 has 60p and 1080 going for it (although some say the nikons resolve as much at 720 as the canons do at 1080). unfortunately the price of both is mainly due to their photographic features more than their video features. they're both pretty lust-worthy though if you happen to be a gajillionaire.
Click to expand...
 
Wouldn't H.264 be better than what the D90 and D300s use now? Isn't the 7D H.264?
squig said:
It appears the D900 is going to be out in February with 1080p video and a 5D MKII sticker price, there's no info yet about manual control and whether it has mjpeg or H.264. A couple of rumours claim it has H.264 which I think is a step backwards. A higher bit-rate mjpeg codec would be a much better option for DSLR filmmaking, it just looks more filmic IMO.

It's great to see new improved DSLRs coming out every couple of months. The D90 was good, the MKII is great, and the next one should be amazing.
Click to expand...
 
Zim said:
Believe it or not people use these to make a living and need something that will take the daily use a working camera goes through. I think "lustworthy" is the wrong word to use.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean lustworthy as a bad thing. I guess I just meant personally for myself, I would love to have a d3s but it's not something I could afford right now. For video professionals looking for another tool in their toolkit, or even to use as their main camera, I'm sure it'd be worth it. It probably won't be as popular as it could be, mainly because of its price is all I was trying to say (not trying to say it's overpriced or anything either though, just that it is relatively expensive). I feel like just deleting out my whole post now, gosh.
 
Zim said:
Wouldn't H.264 be better than what the D90 and D300s use now? Isn't the 7D H.264?
Click to expand...

the codec in the 7d's (and 5d, gh1 etc.) is not a full h.264 though since they lack B-frames. I forget what it actually is, but I think it is something like one I-frame and then about 20 or more P-frames (predictive). It is basically one true image and then the other frames are predictive frames that reference the others. h.264 is a much more efficient codec than mjpeg (mainly as a delivery codec) but maybe not in the way it's implemented on some of these cameras. AVC-Intra (I-frame only) is used on higher end camcorders over AVCHD for that reason.
 
It is not in my budget either!


killacam said:
I didn't mean lustworthy as a bad thing. I guess I just meant personally for myself, I would love to have a d3s but it's not something I could afford right now. For video professionals looking for another tool in their toolkit, or even to use as their main camera, I'm sure it'd be worth it. It probably won't be as popular as it could be, mainly because of its price is all I was trying to say (not trying to say it's overpriced or anything either though, just that it is relatively expensive). I feel like just deleting out my whole post now, gosh.
Click to expand...
 
The thing at this top end has nothing to do with video. The D3S is the latest in a looong line of pro still cameras. What makes it so good is not really its speed or sensor or ISO abilities, but its lens compatibility stretching back decades, its build so that you could accidentally drop it from a moving vehicle and it'll still work, and its performance at very low and very high temperatures and varying humidity. It'll keep working and working. That's what makes it twice the camera as something like the 5D mkII. It goes longer, lasts longer, and keeps shooting in conditions where non upper end cameras have long since stopped working altogether. Photojournalists who use these cameras could fill in all details. They're not shooting in studios or making shorts; they're all over the world and they need a camera that will always work when they squeeze that shutter, even after they've dropped it out of that car window. The new Canon 1D adheres to much the same rules.

But me too ain't got the budget!
 
damonb said:
Photojournalists who use these cameras could fill in all details. They're not shooting in studios or making shorts; they're all over the world and they need a camera that will always work when they squeeze that shutter, even after they've dropped it out of that car window.
Click to expand...

So all that matters in your determination of "twice as good" is how photojournalists use it?
I am a studio photogrpher. I could not care less how photojournalists use it. In studio photography the higher MP actually make the 5Dm2 twice as good. The m2 also performs very well at high ISO.

You can't base a cameras relative worth on how just one segement of the market thinks it's better. If it's not twice as good in all segments, then its simply not twice as good.

Is it better than the m2 in some aspects? Yes.
Is the m2 better in some aspects? Yes.
 
Nikon DSLRs are excellent. As a still photographer doing studio, photojournalism and commercial photography I prefer Nikon over Canon anytime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top