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

david_p said:
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
Click to expand...

...and imagine a fast 28mm prime that is also a 40mm and a 70mm lens - The focal range of a standard zoom. This way you will gain at least one stop over any zoom lens. Lowlight rund and gun with a single prime...
 
At an expense. Thees lenses were not created to be peeped through like that, so you're going to magnify at least one issue wide open: chromatic abberations or fringing. And that's just one, who else knows what you'll get. AT least when you get down to the deepest crop.
 
In my opinion, the statement that DSLRs aren't 'purpose' built, and therefor not a good video camera is just beyond stupid.
Yes, the first generation DSLRs had a few problems like moire and bad rolling shutter, but it looks like they've put some work into fixing that.

I dare say that the D4 will kick FS100's ass, or atleast equal its performance.
Because in the end, it's the results that matter, and not the tools you used to get there.
 
Kholi said:
At an expense. Thees lenses were not created to be peeped through like that, so you're going to magnify at least one issue wide open: chromatic abberations or fringing. And that's just one, who else knows what you'll get. AT least when you get down to the deepest crop.
Click to expand...


Maybe... But isn't it that when you crop you're using the "sweet spot" of the lens (and if you crop more the "sweetest spot")? Are not chromatic abberations or fringing usually more visible on the lens corners?
 
Carlos_Nieto said:
Maybe... But isn't it that when you crop you're using the "sweet spot" of the lens (and if you crop more the "sweetest spot")? Are not chromatic abberations or fringing usually more visible on the lens corners?
Click to expand...

It will be dependent on lens. And honestly maybe not as bad as I'm thinking. Only way to know is to find out first hand, yeah?
 
Kholi said:
It will be dependent on lens. And honestly maybe not as bad as I'm thinking. Only way to know is to find out first hand, yeah?
Click to expand...

Nikon FX lens have been used on DX cameras for years and they only look better. Here is a site that has done extensive test of lenses http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview and if you look you will see that the FX lens preform as well or better on DX crop.
Now that said there are lens that out preform other lenses, but that is do to the lens not the smaller crop of the image. The D4 is said to give 1920X1080 HD video at all 3 crops, will there be any visible difference do to the processing we will have to wait to see, but I will be very surprised if any artifacts are do to using the sweet spot of the lens.
 
BlackWolf said:
In my opinion, the statement that DSLRs aren't 'purpose' built, and therefor not a good video camera is just beyond stupid.
Yes, the first generation DSLRs had a few problems like moire and bad rolling shutter, but it looks like they've put some work into fixing that.

I dare say that the D4 will kick FS100's ass, or atleast equal its performance.
Because in the end, it's the results that matter, and not the tools you used to get there.
Click to expand...

First let me say I find your post offensive. I am hardly stupid and with close to 40 years television and film experience I feel I have more than enough background to justify what I said. A still camera is a still camera, in this case with the ability to shoot hd video. They are not set up for video production, all have major audio connection issues and the list could go on. Not everyone shoots to make the next great indy film for youtube or vimeo or a music video or art film. Some of us just shoot for a living.... docs, tv shows of all kinds, weddings, events, sports and we use cameras for the most part that are made for video production. I own a GH13 and a whack of lenses but it is a B camera in my setup.
To compare a still camera with video other than for the sake of pixel counting or "mine is bigger than yours" serves very little purpose in this discussion. The Sony FS 100 is a video camera, the Sony A77 is a still camera that can shoot video. The D4 is appears to be an awesome still camera with video and all the same issues that those using 5D and 7D and Gh1 and GH2 shooter face. You can shoot with what ever you want... I will never call you stupid for doing that..
 
Further, to make a statement that the
new still camera will 'kick' the FS100's
ass' is based on what? I'd call that
'conjuncture' to be polite. The Nikon
IS interesting and I'm sure we will all
keep our eyes on it. But I for one
much prefer a purpose built video
camera like the AF 100, FS100, F3
or CS300. Mainly because I don't
do stills for work and don't want to
compromise video performance for
still performance. For those who do
both they may feel different.
 
BrianMurphy said:
First let me say I find your post offensive. I am hardly stupid and with close to 40 years television and film experience I feel I have more than enough background to justify what I said. A still camera is a still camera, in this case with the ability to shoot hd video. They are not set up for video production, all have major audio connection issues and the list could go on. Not everyone shoots to make the next great indy film for youtube or vimeo or a music video or art film. Some of us just shoot for a living.... docs, tv shows of all kinds, weddings, events, sports and we use cameras for the most part that are made for video production. I own a GH13 and a whack of lenses but it is a B camera in my setup.
To compare a still camera with video other than for the sake of pixel counting or "mine is bigger than yours" serves very little purpose in this discussion. The Sony FS 100 is a video camera, the Sony A77 is a still camera that can shoot video. The D4 is appears to be an awesome still camera with video and all the same issues that those using 5D and 7D and Gh1 and GH2 shooter face. You can shoot with what ever you want... I will never call you stupid for doing that..
Click to expand...

I'm not calling anyone stupid. Please re-read my post carefully.
DSLRs can perfectly act as main cameras, as long as you keep its limits in mind.
 
Kholi said:
It will be dependent on lens. And honestly maybe not as bad as I'm thinking. Only way to know is to find out first hand, yeah?
Click to expand...

DOF will be hard to match if you're using the crop mode and trying to economise with just one lens. But I think it's a great feature with multiple primes or a zoom. You get S35 and vistavision at the flick of a button.....or do we have to go through an annoying menu? D4=5D+C300? The other potential issue is the ISO noise would theoretically increase in size when cropped which could look strange cut together. With the 2.7x crop you can use all sorts of vintage 8 and 16mm lenses.
 
What we're all eager to know is does it have the issues DSLRs have had to date? The initial user reports suggest no.
aliasing/moire? low pass filter
rolling shutter? fast sensor read
audio rec? headphone out/manual record levels
muddy codec? uncompressed clean 4:2:2 HDMI out
overheating? no idea

Sounds like a 5D on steroids to me with superior dynamic range, low light ability, and nikon colours. What other than the price tag and added weight is not to like?
Most of the usual dedicated video camera features I can live without but zebras, scalable bit-rate, and cropmarks would be nice. Magic Lantern? Vitaliy?
 
squig said:
DOF will be hard to match if you're using the crop mode and trying to economise with just one lens. But I think it's a great feature with multiple primes or a zoom. You get S35 and vistavision at the flick of a button.....or do we have to go through an annoying menu? D4=5D+C300? The other potential issue is the ISO noise would theoretically increase in size when cropped which could look strange cut together. With the 2.7x crop you can use all sorts of vintage 8 and 16mm lenses.
Click to expand...
Anybody here who has some experience with the GH2 crop?
 
squig said:
What we're all eager to know is does it have the issues DSLRs have had to date? The initial user reports suggest no.aliasing/moire? low pass filterrolling shutter? fast sensor readaudio rec? headphone out/manual record levelsmuddy codec? uncompressed clean 4:2:2 HDMI outoverheating? no ideaSounds like a 5D on steroids to me with superior dynamic range, low light ability, and nikon colours. What other than the price tag and added weight is not to like?Most of the usual dedicated video camera features I can live without but zebras, scalable bit-rate, and cropmarks would be nice. Magic Lantern? Vitaliy?
Click to expand...
Turning the D4 into a completely useable video camera with 4:2:2 recording, ergonomic rig an an adecuate viewfinder will rise the price to about 9k. Not so far away anymore from a c300 with all those advantages of a pure video device already incorporated.
 
Add a 1700$ pix 220 and you have a Prores 422 HQ enabled machine with proper LCD for viewing included. I own handheld rig stuff much like 90 percent of people who would buy this DSLR. done. 7,700.00 prores monster (1/2 the price of c300). Really, the only thing Im really wanting to see is the extent of which they have fixed the rolling shutter. The C300 tests are pretty amazing in that respect.
 
I was rather thinking about an Atomos Niña drive and a Zacuto EVF, all that coupled with a light rig of any brand. All combined that would cost at least 2.500$. But, OK, we're closing in on something slightly above 8.000... :happy:
 
dustwaterwindfire said:
Add a 1700$ pix 220 and you have a Prores 422 HQ enabled machine with proper LCD for viewing included. I own handheld rig stuff much like 90 percent of people who would buy this DSLR. done. 7,700.00 prores monster (1/2 the price of c300). Really, the only thing Im really wanting to see is the extent of which they have fixed the rolling shutter. The C300 tests are pretty amazing in that respect.
Click to expand...
And of course if you add an external recorder to the FS100 you can have a Prores 422 HQ machine as well for less than 7700. However it is 'only' super 35, not full frame like the Nikon. My guess is that this is at least part of the reason for all the excitement. A newer 'better for video' version of the 5D is what people are hoping for. We will see soon.....
 
Both cameras use nikon lenses, both cameras are a pain with canon lenses

I own
1) an FS100
2) a nikon D3
3) sound devices 702 recorder

The camera has put me in a right quandy

Some thoughts..
no 60p

Nikon you kick it down the stairs and break the stairs
Sony may fall apart while untouched in a peli case

Sony has a big HDMI - well placed
Nikon has a mini HDMI badly placed

Nikon has three crop modes from 5d size full frame to 2/3 or there a bouts - meaning an 80-200 becomes a super telephoto
Sony has excellent kit zoom with AF that works

Nikon takes stills
Sony doenst

Sony has minimal moire
Nikon unknown

Now using the cameras..

The nikon can be used in a small configuration super minimal, Rode vid mic, and iPhone cans - you can do stills or video with this
The FS100 and a stills camera is a lot larger

For XLR sound I am hoping that one could use a recorder like the 702 and feed sound into the D4, creating a backup sound and good sound in the camera and XLR into the recorder skipping the weak preamps but not having to do dual synch sound

Nikon D3 has massive dynamic range and creamy smooth tones .. for stills.. the stills are better than an alexa easily
Sony has a pretty dodgy colour rendition and tonal range
The image in motion from the D4 is unknown

I think the answer is wait until the nikon is on the street

I think a Nikon plus sound devices 702 or ideally a Pix240 would be far better than an FS100.. and a lot more costly
A D4 alone would not compete for practicality with a FS100 alone....

A Further thought - 100ISO base is IMO an advantage compared to the 800 ISO base (FS100) which can be problematic in bright days

S
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
Both cameras use nikon lenses, both cameras are a pain with canon lenses

I own
1) an FS100
2) a nikon D3
3) sound devices 702 recorder

The camera has put me in a right quandy

Some thoughts..
no 60p

Nikon you kick it down the stairs and break the stairs
Sony may fall apart while untouched in a peli case

Sony has a big HDMI - well placed
Nikon has a mini HDMI badly placed

Nikon has three crop modes from 5d size full frame to 2/3 or there a bouts - meaning an 80-200 becomes a super telephoto
Sony has excellent kit zoom with AF that works

Nikon takes stills
Sony doenst

Sony has minimal moire
Nikon unknown

Now using the cameras..

The nikon can be used in a small configuration super minimal, Rode vid mic, and iPhone cans - you can do stills or video with this
The FS100 and a stills camera is a lot larger

For XLR sound I am hoping that one could use a recorder like the 702 and feed sound into the D4, creating a backup sound and good sound in the camera and XLR into the recorder skipping the weak preamps but not having to do dual synch sound

Nikon D3 has massive dynamic range and creamy smooth tones .. for stills.. the stills are better than an alexa easily
Sony has a pretty dodgy colour rendition and tonal range
The image in motion from the D4 is unknown

I think the answer is wait until the nikon is on the street

I think a Nikon plus sound devices 702 or ideally a Pix240 would be far better than an FS100.. and a lot more costly
A D4 alone would not compete for practicality with a FS100 alone....

A Further thought - 100ISO base is IMO an advantage compared to the 800 ISO base (FS100) which can be problematic in bright days

S
Click to expand...

Yep I'm in the same boat. As much as I love my FS100 I don't like its build quality AT ALL. And with the D4 I could throw my Nikon D200 away. Also while I'm more than happy with a s35 sensor I wouldn't sniff at having the full frame option sometimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top