Nikon D4 vs Sony FS100U (Especially in low light and for dynamci range)

S

skital

Well-known member
Besides the 1080p at 60p that the Sony has, what are the big difference for video and is the Nikon D4 expected to have even superior low light in video mode? It is sounding superb and the footage looks great. I was considering the FS100U, but now the Nikon is in the running.

Any important features besides 60p at 1080p the D4 is missing in video modes vs the FS100U?

I love that the Nikon is full frame and has the crop mode so I can use the Rokinon 35mm F1.4 lens designed for video and get 35mm, 52.5mm (at 1.5 crop) and 94.5mm (at 2.7 crop) from one awesome lens; That would save me money on lenses for sure. I'm just wishing I knew the difference in low light capability and dynamic range as well as any other important video features that the FS100U may have that the D4 lacks. Also if the Nikon can do a flat kind of picture style.
 
This is a messy and problematic comparison -- especially considering the D4 hasn't actually hit the streets.

Both cameras suffer from highly compressed, low bitrate, 8 bit, 4:2:0 internal recording. Both cameras can be plugged in to a recorder for "uncompressed" recording. Beyond that you're comparing a video enabled stills camera to a dedicated video camera.

My recommendation to the world is to wait until the Nikon D4 hits the streets and then judge the feedback from real world users.

I'm a former "Nikon guy" who invested nearly twenty thousand dollars in Nikon bodies and glass in the last twelve years. Over the past five years I've watched Nikon get almost everything wrong. They're currently not bankrupt ONLY because of those awful consumer point-and-shoot cameras bought by people who find Ashton whoever appealing. I find it extremely hard to believe that Nikon is suddenly going to get everything right in this new D4 by adding "b frames" to AVCHD.

Low light -- sure -- I'm sure that D4 will be amazing. But, remember, the 1Dx is looming on the horizon -- and we know that has a higher bitrate intraframe internal codec (along with "b frame" AVCHD) -- and we know Canon is now taking DSLR video seriously.

So -- your comparison question is essentially in the ballpark of comparing a 5D Mark 2 to an AF100 -- and that's tough on a range of levels. The best advice I can offer is -- wait until the D4 hits the streets -- then evaluate any prospective purchase.
 
AGMedia said:
This is a messy and problematic comparison -- especially considering the D4 hasn't actually hit the streets.

Both cameras suffer from highly compressed, low bitrate, 8 bit, 4:2:0 internal recording. Both cameras can be plugged in to a recorder for "uncompressed" recording. Beyond that you're comparing a video enabled stills camera to a dedicated video camera.

My recommendation to the world is to wait until the Nikon D4 hits the streets and then judge the feedback from real world users.

I'm a former "Nikon guy" who invested nearly twenty thousand dollars in Nikon bodies and glass in the last twelve years. Over the past five years I've watched Nikon get almost everything wrong. They're currently not bankrupt ONLY because of those awful consumer point-and-shoot cameras bought by people who find Ashton whoever appealing. I find it extremely hard to believe that Nikon is suddenly going to get everything right in this new D4 by adding "b frames" to AVCHD.

Low light -- sure -- I'm sure that D4 will be amazing. But, remember, the 1Dx is looming on the horizon -- and we know that has a higher bitrate intraframe internal codec (along with "b frame" AVCHD) -- and we know Canon is now taking DSLR video seriously.

So -- your comparison question is essentially in the ballpark of comparing a 5D Mark 2 to an AF100 -- and that's tough on a range of levels. The best advice I can offer is -- wait until the D4 hits the streets -- then evaluate any prospective purchase.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply! I guess I will wait. Something tells me they got it right this time. I just have that feeling about it and the people have used it have said WOWOWOWOWOW! lol. I think they have learned their lesson and seeing the huge success of the 5D Mark II taught them a lesson. The fact that they included uncompressed out from HDMI where as the 1DX does not from the video review I saw (unless they change it before releasing dude to Nikon). Canon has the C300 to protect whereas NIkon has no high end video gear that to protect, so they can go balls to the wall and I think they now realized that.

I will wait for it to come out and see. If the low light is equal or better and there is nothing major that has me going to the FS100U I will highly consider the D4 simply for the full frame sensor and the fact that I can turn one nice 35mm lens designed for video (without it being cropped by an APS-C sensor to start out) into great 3 lenses...a wide, a normal and a telephoto all capable of F1.4 all without adding any cost to me. That is just wonderful.

Let he waiting begin. hehe. Thanks for you input.
 
AGMedia said:
This is a messy and problematic comparison -- especially considering the D4 hasn't actually hit the streets.

Both cameras suffer from highly compressed, low bitrate, 8 bit, 4:2:0 internal recording. Both cameras can be plugged in to a recorder for "uncompressed" recording. Beyond that you're comparing a video enabled stills camera to a dedicated video camera.

My recommendation to the world is to wait until the Nikon D4 hits the streets and then judge the feedback from real world users.

I'm a former "Nikon guy" who invested nearly twenty thousand dollars in Nikon bodies and glass in the last twelve years. Over the past five years I've watched Nikon get almost everything wrong. They're currently not bankrupt ONLY because of those awful consumer point-and-shoot cameras bought by people who find Ashton whoever appealing. I find it extremely hard to believe that Nikon is suddenly going to get everything right in this new D4 by adding "b frames" to AVCHD.

Low light -- sure -- I'm sure that D4 will be amazing. But, remember, the 1Dx is looming on the horizon -- and we know that has a higher bitrate intraframe internal codec (along with "b frame" AVCHD) -- and we know Canon is now taking DSLR video seriously.

So -- your comparison question is essentially in the ballpark of comparing a 5D Mark 2 to an AF100 -- and that's tough on a range of levels. The best advice I can offer is -- wait until the D4 hits the streets -- then evaluate any prospective purchase.
Click to expand...

This is a very balanced and intelligent response. Something we seem to have less and less here at DVX unfortunately. Kudos.
 
With every new camera comes the typical "vs." thread and most of the time people are trying to ask what camera is "better." This is always a mistake.

I agree, wait until it comes out and you can get ahold of it yourself or see some raw footage. Weigh out the features based on your needs, and then make an educated choice.
 
well first thing is the Sony Fs100 cost less, you can even pair it with a hacked Gh2 and it will still cost less than the Nikon D4
 
To claim that Nikon is not bankrupt because of some point and shoot is just ludicrous. Sorry it is the dslr line of camera that brings the most cash to its imaging division. Far more than its crappy line of point and shoot. You have some valid point but Nikon is all but bankrupt, the company is striving even during a struggling economy and missing the hdslr revolution to Canon. One thing about the company is that even if it takes it time, it normally delivers the good. In the actual line of camera, the best low light Nikon d3s, best studio (not medium format) Nikon D3x.

Now it is not without its fault but every of those dslr company has some to many depending on the user. What about the lack of $5 headphone jack in the $ 6800 1dx!!! So before being bitter about Nikon and comparing it to Canon look at the fact. I always hoped that Nikon would come to be competitive in the hdslr market, because it is the only company that has no highend camera division to protect, again where is the $5 headphone jack.

Look at the video below and tell us if this thing is not a big step up in the hdslr cameras. Does the 1dx has autofocus, I am not sure? You could record in Prores 220mbits with that. My only gripe is if it could have been 10 bit and I can't judge the sharpness from the video online. We will surely see this technology come down to the sucessor of the D300/d700 line of cameras.

 
An XLR is $5. A minijack costs more like 5c.

Nikon have definitely finally learnt something but they haven't yet learnt that professionals demand a professional codec. 100Mbit/s+ m-jpeg would be a good option. Make it user scalable up to whatever the cards can handle. We can adjust compression levels to files on a 20 year old computer, why can't we do it on a bloody DSLR? Do we have to hack everything to get it to work properly?
 
Seems like an apples to oranges thing here. FS100 is a purpose built video camera, not a still camera with video features. Compare the Sony A77 perhaps...when there is a Nikon out there to use for the test.
 
I am curious if the 1:1 HD crop will yield images that don't suffer from some of the limitations of the pixel binning / line skipping. That is certainly an interesting feature.

Why they'd didn't include 1080p60 in that crop mode is beyond me... they certainly have the processing power to do it.. 10fps at 16.1MP says there is some serious power in this cam..
 
Danielvilliers said:
To claim that Nikon is not bankrupt because of some point and shoot is just ludicrous. Sorry it is the dslr line of camera that brings the most cash to its imaging division. Far more than its crappy line of point and shoot. You have some valid point but Nikon is all but bankrupt, the company is striving even during a struggling economy and missing the hdslr revolution to Canon. One thing about the company is that even if it takes it time, it normally delivers the good. In the actual line of camera, the best low light Nikon d3s, best studio (not medium format) Nikon D3x.

Now it is not without its fault but every of those dslr company has some to many depending on the user. What about the lack of $5 headphone jack in the $ 6800 1dx!!! So before being bitter about Nikon and comparing it to Canon look at the fact. I always hoped that Nikon would come to be competitive in the hdslr market, because it is the only company that has no highend camera division to protect, again where is the $5 headphone jack.

Look at the video below and tell us if this thing is not a big step up in the hdslr cameras. Does the 1dx has autofocus, I am not sure? You could record in Prores 220mbits with that. My only gripe is if it could have been 10 bit and I can't judge the sharpness from the video online. We will surely see this technology come down to the sucessor of the D300/d700 line of cameras.

Click to expand...

Oh wow, that looks hugely impressive. I love that they seem to have listened to so many of requests that people have been making. Clean HDMI output (to allow offboard recording and TV content compliance), headphone jack, 60p recording (albeit in 720p), and the 3 separate crop modes are a stroke of genius.

And to think I'd thought the FS100/AF100 had knocked DSLRs out of the video game (for most practical purposes)!

As someone whose work is split between both stills and video work, this has an awful lot of appeal. Fingers crossed they bring these same features into the D800 when that arrives.
 
Nikon is really stepping up their video DSLR game albeit at a price. I'm really excited about this one.
 
Zxander34 said:
Nikon is really stepping up their video DSLR game albeit at a price. I'm really excited about this one.
Click to expand...

4 years ago, when I picked up my D300 (my first digital SLR) to start shooting professionally, I had to laugh at the idea that $6000 was a reasonable price for a stills camera (the D3, 1DIII). But that you can now get a genuinely professional video camera thrown into the package for the same price? All of a sudden it hardly seems all that expensive.

Unless of course someone from Nikon is reading this, in which case it's outrageous and I won't purchase one until you lower the price.
 
Zxander34 said:
Nikon is really stepping up their video DSLR game albeit at a price
Click to expand...

Nikon had to make this move, as they've been way behind Canon / Panasonic / Sony up until now.

$6K+ is pretty much the norm for a top of the line DSLR from Canon or Nikon. So far the D4 looks great, but I want to know more technical details like:

- Is the HDMI out uncompressed 4:2:2 ?

- How much moire does this camera have compared to the GH-2 ?

- What's the full dynamic range that this camera records ?

- How detailed is the recorded 1080 HD image ?

- What's the audio noise floor like ?

- How good is the audio monitoring ?

- Any chance the internal recording bit-rate can be hacked ?

- Some of the D4 info sounds like this camera can maintain facial focus-tracking in video mode. Is this true ?

...Hopefully all this will be cleared up by the end of February.
 
sigh!
$6000 is only reasonable within an agreeable definition of reasonable. If you can earn the cost of the camera in the first Month of owning it's a reasonably cheap price. If you don't anticipate earning that much form it in a year, $6000 is expensive.
So what exactly is your reason for a $6000 brick of electronics?
I don't buy any gear any more- it's either loaned or donated to me. When i price out cost of tooling my business, the first thing i do is....
whip out my tax guide.
I tested a Lotus Evora today- $77K. Nice car and I can depreciate the first $10K in year one and the rest over 5 years. It's a reasonably priced car for what it is.
The $6000 D4 (body only I assume) can't be for causal shooters, though you'd be amazed what soccer moms pay for gear ;0

Grug said:
4 years ago, when I picked up my D300 (my first digital SLR) to start shooting professionally, I had to laugh at the idea that $6000 was a reasonable price for a stills camera (the D3, 1DIII). But that you can now get a genuinely professional video camera thrown into the package for the same price? All of a sudden it hardly seems all that expensive.

Unless of course someone from Nikon is reading this, in which case it's outrageous and I won't purchase one until you lower the price.
Click to expand...
 
Well, even without the D4 being out... do you like the shallow depth Full Frame look? Go for the D4. It has it's place. Apples... oranges.

And damn, that's a sexy looking stills camera.
 
i never realized that ths NS100 was so impressive in low light. PB's XMAS video comparisons (part 2) illustrated how good it was. it did a reasonable job vs the F3 & C300 considering the price. with that said of course the D4 is going to rock it in the low light arena. it wouldnt surprise me in the least to find that the D4 will be the best in low light vs anything out there but the proof will have to be in the pudding of course.

i find the FF, 1.5 & 2.7 crop modes all shooting @ 1080p one of the most interesting things on this camera that separates itself from the rest of anything else available whether its a DSLR or videocamera. imagine being able to travel lightly with only a 70-200mm 2.8 VR IS and pull off 540mm tele shots still @ **f2.8**. wildlife people should eat this up not needing to pack their 400mm & 500mm plus 1.4x gear.

also imagine the Canon 85mm 1.2 shooting @ 2.7x & getting an effective 229.5mm **f-1.2**. true it only has the compression of the 85mm but you still get the benefit of reach while maintaing that massive opening of *1.2* without losing 1.2.

im a photography/videographer that owns full on N & C systems. many DSLR shooters are also photographers as well. the D4 is reported to have a HDR mode getting an additional 3 stops of DR with 2 exposures being combined in camera for an uber high DR shot. i expect wedding shooters will be jumping on this although price is a bit stiff for some but not for the ones that can justify paying for these extras. 3 stops more of DR...? game over for shooting white dresses against black tuxes. ive seen nothing that says it will do this in video mode though. there's always ML for future goodies though...sure, wishful thinking.

from the demo video of the D4 "Why" i cant say i noticed any rolling shutter or any aliasing. true this is the only sample so far but from what ive read coming from the people that shot that video there have been nothing short of rave reviews.

im loving having Nikon add to the glut of HD cameras now. who knows...i wouldnt be surprised to see Canon have to add the $5 or 5 cent headphone jack after all to the 1DX. liking this pressure.

david
 
Doctor Wu said:
Well, even without the D4 being out... do you like the shallow depth Full Frame look? Go for the D4. It has it's place. Apples... oranges.

And damn, that's a sexy looking stills camera.
Click to expand...

D4 also does crop modes @ 1080.

1.5 & 2.7x. solves that problem of apples / oranges. you can have them both and then some.

david
 
Grug said:
4 years ago, when I picked up my D300 (my first digital SLR) to start shooting professionally, I had to laugh at the idea that $6000 was a reasonable price for a stills camera (the D3, 1DIII). But that you can now get a genuinely professional video camera thrown into the package for the same price? All of a sudden it hardly seems all that expensive.

Unless of course someone from Nikon is reading this, in which case it's outrageous and I won't purchase one until you lower the price.
Click to expand...

Look at this way:
$3000 for the still plus $3000 for the video.:grin:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top