Nikon D5

DLD said:
Canon, as stated above, will protect their C-line. Nikon's got nothing above this and could have easily made a 24 MPX FF model, with a 17.6 MPX 4:2:2 10-bit 4K and 220 Mbps H.264 to QXD cards. I mean, they are basically 3/4th of the way there. The reason they didn't go all the way is a corporate non-competition agreement with Sony. In fact, this 3-minute 4K recording limit is the most blatant example of product crippling that I have ever seen. I hope people treat Nikon with the disdain they deserve.

As to the convergence of stills and video, it's already here with the sensors. It may never get here with the workflow. But this only implies that the same 3/4th of electronics will be shared and 1/4th will be slightly different.

* This 3/4th common design obviously excludes the $50,000 101 MPX monsters like Phase One or the ultra high end video cams like F65 and Alexa65.
Click to expand...
Thats the most one sided contract ever. Why would u let them block your video while theyre slowly eating away your market in stills :-/
 
dcloud said:
Thats the most one sided contract ever. Why would u let them block your video while theyre slowly eating away your market in stills :-/
Click to expand...

I figure Nikon got the following in return -

A year long non-compete on D800/810 (expired with the release of the A7R)
A very long term non-compete on D4/s.
An exclusion of 4K on all ILC sub-$3000 cameras (still in effect until A6100 is announced)
No high end E-mount zooms (still in effect until 24-70 F/2.8 is announced)
And, obviously, a deal on what was deemed the best full frame photo sensor in the world for their 800/810 series and high quality sensors for everything else, from the super-zooms using the smartphone technology to the DSLR's.
 
Nikon's claiming the 3-min limit is due to the heat accumulation. Bwua-hah-hah.

Anyway, this clip has some pretty decent images. A lot of quick cuts too. With a 3-min recording limit, there better be.

 
I can actually understand the heat argument. They do show a guy standing out in the middle of a lake in Alaska shooting stills while it's raining. If it's got that kind of weather sealing on it, heat build up could be an issue. Plus it doesn't make sense they would give the D500 a 30 minute record cap but only 3 minutes for the D5 unless the D5 was much more weather sealed and resulted in more heat build up due to its larger sensor. It is afterall primarly a stills camera designed for people out in the field in all types of weather.

But I've got another theory. I think that in some ways the success of the 5DmkII scared these companies. If it had only been a bunch of indie filmmakers jumping on these cameras we might have seen better specs on them sooner. But because you had some Hollywood guys jumping on them for certain shoots, they both got scared these guys would only ever use those cameras if the quality got better but also saw an opportunity to market them bigger more expensive cameras.
In reality, no matter the specs of the smaller cameras, those bigger cameras would have sold anyway just due to their ergonomics. There is a place for all of these cameras. But I don't think they realized that or wanted to take that chance. At least this explains Canon I think. Nikon on the other hand, I think they just don't care as much about video in general. They give video a nod and that's about it. They know their bread and butter is stills shooters and want to remain lean and not over extend themselves.
 
I think the heat argument could be true aswell. The D5 has to perform at an expected noise level at all times compared to the D500 which can be a lite more loose. The D5 cannot have the sensor heating up during video, and then when switched to stills not deliver at the expected level.
 
I don't think weather sealing plays a big role in the heat argument. But a bigger chip creates A LOT more heat so yes, it may hold water. It sounds strange anyway.
(irrelevant in any case for people who care only about video, since you can buy an FS5 at that price)
 
Instead all we seem to get is compressed 8bit codecs, dubious HDMI cables to pointlessly wrap that dreary 8bit feed in a 10bit container, plus even more dubious rolling shutter skew and no thought to ergonomic video shooting.

On a practical level the video modes of the new D5 and D500 are so poorly thought out and makes you wonder if Nikon even asked a single filmmaker what they needed, or at least the right kind of filmmaker.


I can assure Nikon that NOBODY wants a heavily cropped sensor in 4K or a 3 minute recording limit. These and the lack of DCI 4K at 4096 x 2160 severely limit the appeal of the Nikon D5 versus the competition.

The Sony A7R II for instance over-samples Ultra HD from a 5K sensor readout. The Samsung NX1 over-samples 4K from an enormous 6.5K readout. In the cinema world the Sony F65 over-samples 4K from an 8K sensor and the Canon C100 Mark II over-samples 1080p from a 4K sensor readout. This is the way to go for the cleanest possible image, least moire and most detail.


Obviously Nikon could not make the 5.5K full pixel readout on the 20MP D5 technically feasible, so they had no choice but to go for the heavy 1.45x crop mode instead.

The Nikon D5 costs $6600. The Samsung NX1 cost $1500 and is over 1 year older. So what is their excuse?


The Sony A7R II is even capable of producing pretty good 4K from the full frame 42MP! What’s Nikon’s problem at just 20MP?

Also puzzling is that even technically the D5 compares so poorly to most of the competition for 4K video in the consumer market, let alone the pro market. Although Nikon have a decently performing ‘flat’ image profile onboard (like on the D750 and D810) the camera still lacks a true professional LOG setting like the one found on the Sony A7 series cameras and the Canon 1D C. Technically speaking the crop meanwhile is a further embarrassment as is the dated 8bit codec. Even Samsung can do a 6.5K full pixel readout on their $1500 consumer camera, the NX1, thus avoiding any reduction in field of view. For Nikon to do this at 20MP was arguably easier than Samsung doing it at 28MP, as the lower the resolution of the full sensor the less bandwidth is required for the readout.
Click to expand...
http://www.eoshd.com/2016/01/nikon-d5-versus-canon-1d-c-cinematic-4k-video-wins/
 
Maybe those reviewers should realize that the primary function of a DSLR is take PHOTOS.

Video is, and will ALWAYS be, a SECONDARY function.
 
mcgeedigital said:
Maybe those reviewers should realize that the primary function of a DSLR is take PHOTOS.

Video is, and will ALWAYS be, a SECONDARY function.
Click to expand...
Unless it's G7, GH4, NX1, NX500, 1D C, RX10II, A7S, A7SII, A7RII.

Oh, and a hacked 5DIII.

Did I miss anything?
 
mcgeedigital said:
Maybe those reviewers should realize that the primary function of a DSLR is take PHOTOS.

Video is, and will ALWAYS be, a SECONDARY function.
Click to expand...
Yes. However, i think there is room in the market for an ergonomic dslr-like body that shoots good video.

But i could be wrong, both the 1DC and the NX1, the only ergonomic dslr-like video cameras in existence that shoot passable video are not going to be further developed. So, i guess the market has spoken.
 
Last edited:
DLD said:
Unless it's G7, GH4, NX1, NX500, 1D C, RX10II, A7S, A7SII, A7RII.

Oh, and a hacked 5DIII.

Did I miss anything?
Click to expand...

And all of those cameras are still built primarily for stills.

Because if video was supposed to be a primary function for them, then they are are all ergonomic disasters for doing it.
 
mcgeedigital said:
And all of those cameras are still built primarily for stills.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

mcgeedigital said:
Because if video was supposed to be a primary function for them, then they are are all ergonomic disasters for doing it.
Click to expand...
a bit disagree. I love a good shoulder mount, don't get me wrong. But when it comes to somethings, dslr's are quite ergonomic for video. Just depends on the purpose. I agree they are not good for set life or broadcast, but they are quite remarkable in other ways. But as you said above, these cameras are for a stills function and market first. And that shows itself in one or more ways on all of them.
 
mcgeedigital said:
And all of those cameras are still built primarily for stills.

Because if video was supposed to be a primary function for them, then they are are all ergonomic disasters for doing it.
Click to expand...
Ergonomics is whatever a user likes. Of course, the DSLR/DSLM are hybrids for both stills and video but it's been pretty clear that the majority of the models I mentioned were purchased largely for video. As to the workflow, people have complained about everything from FS-700 to F65 ... not everything is Alexa but people have somehow gotten used to it.

PS. C300 is sort of a DSLR style pro camera and it obviously sold in droves anyway.
 
DLD said:
Ergonomics is whatever a user likes. Of course, the DSLR/DSLM are hybrids for both stills and video but it's been pretty clear that the majority of the models I mentioned were purchased largely for video.
Click to expand...

Understood.

But the target market for the D5 is sports photo shooters, not video pros.
 
mcgeedigital said:
Understood.

But the target market for the D5 is sports photo shooters, not video pros.
Click to expand...
Correct. So, the question remains - now that we have come to a point of agreement on D5 - whether Nikon could have delivered higher end specs on this particular model but chose not to for the reasons outside of purely technological. I believe that to be the case and I believe that 1 D X MKII, of which rumors are aplenty, will have a closer photo/video split for its potential users.

stoneinapond said:
GX8.
tongue.png
Click to expand...
And Leica SL, which is capable of fantastic IQ based on that Johnnie Behiri cake baking short. Which is also a DSLR style camera.
 
Last edited:
DLD said:
Correct. So, the questions remains - now that we have come to a point of agreement on D5 - whether Nikon could have delivered higher end specs on this particular model but chose not to for the reasons outside of purely technological. I believe that to be the case and I believe that 1 D X MKII, of which rumors are aplenty, will have a closer photo/video split for its potential users.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I think it is partly technical, and partly marketing.
 
There are plenty of photographers who want to buy the latest camera if it can provide a slightly better functionality. In between firing burst of shots, people can record a minute or two of video and they won't crib about the 3 minute limit. For wildlife I don't record for hours together. Based on the subject behaviour I know when to start recording and typically the shots are short unless two leopards or elephants are fighting or a kid suckling from mother. Whereas, for interviews 3 mins limit is often a bad idea.

As far as ergonomics is concerned, people who are used to shoulder mount will naturally be uncomfortable with the DSLR type design. I always prefer the camera on a tripod or a gimbal type rig but not on shoulder. With more and more people moving from photography to videos, the number of people comfortable with DSLR type design for videos is going to increase. With the availability of 3 axis gimbals, the newer cameras will be designed with those in mind. DSLR design is better for the gimbals than a long camera designed for shoulder mount.

I am eagerly waiting for a 1DX II.
 
Matt Grainger, an Aussie photo-version of Philip Bloom, thinks that the 3-minute limit is definitely part of the firmware and that someone will try to hack it or that it will be changed later on ... he must have read my post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top