The Nikon D5 is rumored to have a native high ISO of 102,400 and 4k video
- Thread starter joe1946
- Start date
So, maybe the release of A7R MK II was indeed an indicator that the flood gates on "affordable" 4K products from the major hybrid manufacturers are slowly opening up. One has to figure that "D5" and "1D X2" will have a similar price tag, similar features and a similar release date.
DPStewart
Veteran
The number of cheaper than DSLR 4k cameras shows us that those flood gates are fully open.
I doubt any cameras introduced from here on out that shoot video won't be 4k.
10-years from now 4k cameras with 14 stops of DR will be the size of a matchbox. And every style of image-look will be dial-able like Instagram for video. That's just inevitable.
Id say it's not wise to consider any camera purchase "an investment" anymore unless you can have it totally paying for itself in the next 3 years.
I doubt any cameras introduced from here on out that shoot video won't be 4k.
10-years from now 4k cameras with 14 stops of DR will be the size of a matchbox. And every style of image-look will be dial-able like Instagram for video. That's just inevitable.
Id say it's not wise to consider any camera purchase "an investment" anymore unless you can have it totally paying for itself in the next 3 years.
John Godden
Well-known member
I'm an old Nikon fan but I switched (mostly) to Pani when Nikon couldn't keep pace on the vid front. Nikon is a really small Co (financial wise) and hasn't had the chops or resources to develop/buy the tech for anything beyond simple vid compression. I hope that changes but I'm in the 'I'll believe it when I see it' camp.
Paul schefz
Well-known member
the only way this would be relevant was if this would ship within the next 3 months and come in under 3500$.....
and i have heard more nikon rumors in the last 4 week then in the last 4 years....and the specs are getting better and better....
nikon has been using sony sensors (like everybody) for a while and so far had the first release...that seems to have ended with the A7s and now the A7rII sensors...and it does not seem like they will even get a later release....tough times for nikon...
we are definitely reaching a physical limit....4k in a cellphone is great and all but you can't cram a large sensor and good optics into a pack of gum....that will never be possible....
and i have heard more nikon rumors in the last 4 week then in the last 4 years....and the specs are getting better and better....
nikon has been using sony sensors (like everybody) for a while and so far had the first release...that seems to have ended with the A7s and now the A7rII sensors...and it does not seem like they will even get a later release....tough times for nikon...
we are definitely reaching a physical limit....4k in a cellphone is great and all but you can't cram a large sensor and good optics into a pack of gum....that will never be possible....
These days, only glass and support equipment can really be considered an investment.Cameras are disposable. Irregardless of the cost or it's capacity as a tool, chances are you won't be using it even 3 years from now. So really it all depends on how much disposable income you have.
The low end right now is ~ $800, lens included, so there's some distance still to go. The key is that the "sweet spot" keeps falling precipitously.
The codecs are, by and large, governed by the MPEG coalition. In other words, it's an "off the shelf" component. Its various iterations are mostly proprietary wrappers to keep customers connected to one particular brand. Samsung 4K camera codec is 100% "off the shelf". The only component that isn't "off the shelf" for the enthusiast/pro level is the sensor but, even in that aspect, there are third party solutions available as Red, BMD and Kinefinity are showing. It's just that Nikon hitched its wagon to Sony a long time ago.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
* What Nikon needs, just as Samsung and Panasonic, is to save all the DR from the sensor in video mode. The D810 could give us 3 stops more DR than the a7S+slog2, either through a wider gamma curve or directly through RAW video. Give me sharp and clean 1080p60 video with 3 stops more DR than the a7S and I'll forget about 4K for a couple of years.
* I think of cameras as a long-term rental cost. I bought my T2i for $750 and sold it 18 months later for just under $500, that's $15/month. For the NEX-5N, since I got it second-hand already, it was less than $12/month. The a7S looks like it will be around $50/month, but it's really a much better camera so I think it was worth it.
* The codec is "off-the shelf" but the actual encoder is not, and for complex codecs it requires a lot of work (example: there are good and bad H.264 encoders; the spec of the codec is the same, but you can do a good or a bad job when implementing it).
* I think of cameras as a long-term rental cost. I bought my T2i for $750 and sold it 18 months later for just under $500, that's $15/month. For the NEX-5N, since I got it second-hand already, it was less than $12/month. The a7S looks like it will be around $50/month, but it's really a much better camera so I think it was worth it.
* The codec is "off-the shelf" but the actual encoder is not, and for complex codecs it requires a lot of work (example: there are good and bad H.264 encoders; the spec of the codec is the same, but you can do a good or a bad job when implementing it).
joe1946
Veteran
The NX1 is the first 4K camera with UHS-II support and they are 3x faster than the fastest UHS-I cards so they are fast enough for 4K 60p so I think 2016 will be the year of 4K 60p with UHS-II cards. The D5 will most likely use the XQD cards that are used in the D4s that are little faster than UHS-II cards at 3x the cost.
Right but there's no exclusivity. It's handling the data coming off the sensor.
PS. I doubt Sony will let Nikon use the D810 sensor or even the underlying technology in D5.
Run&Gun
Veteran
Two things: 1) it's gonna be Nikon's flagship stills camera. STILLS. And aimed mostly at the sports guys(like the Canon 1D series). Any video features you get are a bonus, in my opinion. People need to stop acting like they are personally offended when they don't get some video feature they feel entitled to on a stills camera or its gonna be a huge flop because it's not as good as XYZ's camera.
And 2) gear isn't an investment. You buy it to make money WITH. It always cracks me up when I see guys whining about "my so-and-so camera is only worth this now because shiny new camera X came out yesterday". Amateurs and still guys seem to be the worst offenders, but I see it from so-called professionals that should know better, too. Does it still work? Can you still get work with it? My tape VariCam is almost nine years old and worthless on the used market, but when I shoot with it, I'm still getting the same rates I was when it was brand new. Same thing for my P2 versions. They're currently worth about 1/8th of the original price. That'd be a pretty $hity investment by anyone's standards(what would you do if you dropped $40K in a retirement account and it was only worth $5K after five years?). But as a tool, I still get the same rate with it as I did when it was brand new. If you're an amateur, buy your gear to enjoy it. If you're a pro, buy it to make money with. It's that simple.
And 2) gear isn't an investment. You buy it to make money WITH. It always cracks me up when I see guys whining about "my so-and-so camera is only worth this now because shiny new camera X came out yesterday". Amateurs and still guys seem to be the worst offenders, but I see it from so-called professionals that should know better, too. Does it still work? Can you still get work with it? My tape VariCam is almost nine years old and worthless on the used market, but when I shoot with it, I'm still getting the same rates I was when it was brand new. Same thing for my P2 versions. They're currently worth about 1/8th of the original price. That'd be a pretty $hity investment by anyone's standards(what would you do if you dropped $40K in a retirement account and it was only worth $5K after five years?). But as a tool, I still get the same rate with it as I did when it was brand new. If you're an amateur, buy your gear to enjoy it. If you're a pro, buy it to make money with. It's that simple.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
I think something you buy to make money with is an investment. Just not the kind that gives you a return when you sell it. The kind that gives you a steady return through its life while getting depreciated and slowly getting worthless.
That's just semantics, though. The main point is: if it still makes you good money, it's not a problem that new and better stuff becomes available.
That's just semantics, though. The main point is: if it still makes you good money, it's not a problem that new and better stuff becomes available.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
To me (owner of D3 at full price) it is only of interest video wise if truly professional. 4k NEF at 60 - might need recorder/XLR block
Working in video and stills I wanted a one cam does all.. but ended up with FS7/GH4/EX1 and D3/D600
We also have 5d2/7d/1dx in the office.. and only use them for stills.
S
Working in video and stills I wanted a one cam does all.. but ended up with FS7/GH4/EX1 and D3/D600
We also have 5d2/7d/1dx in the office.. and only use them for stills.
S
Sort of like Gareth Bale then ... but one must have some use for that asset along the way or it'll truly be a luxury purchase.
In theory, however, it doesn't cost that much extra to make it a top notch video camera a la A7R MK II and, if they're going to charge $6,000-$7,000 for it, then they might as well include a superior internal recording bit rate to A7R MK II and 10-bit HDMI out. Let's say, they do keep the QXD cards - Sony says hello - then they can match the 400'ish rate of C300 MK II rather easily without crippling the model like Sony did with A7R MK II. And then they might have a C300 MK II clone for half the price and with an oversampled 4K to boot. It might be high priced for a stills cameras but a better bargain than C300 MK II at the same time. And, unlike 1D X2, Nikon doesn't have to protect its high end models either.
Last edited:
I think one of the biggest difference between stills and video-cameras are the native iso of 100 where the stills cameras do slmost 15 stops of DR but at 800 where my f3 gets its optimum performance (over 13 stops) the d800 gets around 10 stops. And to work with native 800 cams and above the lack of ND gets more prominent aswell. Also I feel there is a big difference in how cinema cameras handle WB, it seems alot more gentle to shoot 3200 with 2800 lights on my f3 than on my d800.
D800/810 series is optimized for stills, though Nikon did try to make a splash with its video features (as I have once posted here .. erroneously).
PS. If 15 FPS in photo and 25 MPX sensor bits are correct, then 15 x 25 = 375, divide that by 24 and you get a ~ 16 MPX. For 4K capability, it could mean a similar to A7R MK II oversampling. Or it could crop further. Panasonic is enamored its "photos off video" modes, where 4K video provides an effective 30 FPS shooting at 8.3/8.8MPX. But that's in G7, a ~ $650 camera. For ten times the price, Nikon can surely do better with D5.
PS. If 15 FPS in photo and 25 MPX sensor bits are correct, then 15 x 25 = 375, divide that by 24 and you get a ~ 16 MPX. For 4K capability, it could mean a similar to A7R MK II oversampling. Or it could crop further. Panasonic is enamored its "photos off video" modes, where 4K video provides an effective 30 FPS shooting at 8.3/8.8MPX. But that's in G7, a ~ $650 camera. For ten times the price, Nikon can surely do better with D5.
Bassman2003
Veteran
I don't know about 15 stop of DR on still cameras. Yes, bending a RAW file around in Lightroom can produce output that resembles higher DR but go shoot a jpeg and expose for the sky on a cloudy day...
The still camera makers are seeing (their) end in sight. The useful resolution limit has been reached and phones are taking over. They are milking as much as they can t stay relevant. That is what makes the new Sony announcement stand out. They are signaling that they are willing to "go there". Will Nikon or Canon? Probably not. But 4k anything will be good enough for most uses in all reality. If a D5 or a 1DX2 can give video like an LX100 it would still be a massive upgrade from current offerings.
roxics
Veteran
I think some of you nailed it. Cameras are not an investment designed to make you money when you sell them. But they've been plenty capable for years now. I'm still making money off my 60D. Nobody has asked me for 4K and 18MP stills are plenty of resolution for most applications right now and in the future. It's only within the world of gadget geekery that we continue to believe we need more. Which is fine, I think we all have a desire to want to create better images. But even if all development stopped today and cameras that are out there now remained the prices they are, we've got a great lineup at all different production levels. None of which are suddenly going to look horrible 5-10 years from now. We've reached that limit of acceptability. Images from these cameras may look dated in the future, but in the way kodachrome looks dated today, not in the way digital images from the late 90's look dated.