Any body who is interested on the HD video I thought this might be of an interest
Check out the ling and see how DSLRs are being tested with film cameras in low light.
D3s is out there as well.
Have a look at it and share you're thoughts here.

http://www.zacuto.com/shootout

Regards

I've only seen tests on you-tube reef and I will say that it look rather interesting. Mind you though that, at 120fps it only shoots standard.

IT is funny how DSLR NIkon users have been asking NIkon for well over a year now to bring out a camera that shoots 1080p and possibly have a dedicated record/stop button, but instead NIkon brings out a P&S camera that does exactly that. I don't know if it allows you to choose the ISO and shutter manually though.

Talking about the EXPEED processor not being able to handle 1080p when it was discussed here on the forum. You see if Nikon can do that with P&S camera surely they can bring out 1080p with manual control on a firmware update as well for all the DSLR that don't have 1080p.

It looks like it has been a misunderstanding somewhere down the line in communication at NIkon HG when they passed the information regarding full HD.

IF Nikon want to stay ahead of the game with movie mode they have to bring something more appealing to the filmmakers. To begin with, we only buying these cameras for the ability to change lenses and low light capabilities which the large sensor offers you.

So the main problem at the moment with all DSLR is: file compression, rolling shutter-jelly, time restriction in recording and sensor over heating.

IF Nikon manage to fix some of this problems especially the jelly then we have a winner. 1080p is a thing of the past now days so if Nikon is going to use that as a selling point for the next upcoming DSLR is going to look a bit silly.

In my country 7D is selling like hot cakes coming out if the oven, imagine how many are being sold all over the world?

valonqe said:
You mention 120fps reef on the RED which I to agree is good for some interesting shots. How about Nikon P100 which shots full HD and up to 120fps in standard and it's only a P&S camera?

Yeah true Val, the P100 claims to shoot approx. 120fps, haven't seen any tests or comparisons. But isn't the point of all these DSLR's is that you can keep that DOF, 'film look', whatever you want to call it, your accustomed to with your existing lens armoury? Wicked price but on the P100 for a PS camera. Is the HD 1080p? Anyone had any experience with these?

Also if you want any post done, you can't beat working in RAW/R3D, the dynamic range is just incredible on a RED.

Totally agree with you, we need to keep on Nikon to get them to catch up. Hopefully the wait will be worth it and blow Canon's HD capability out of the water, but they do have some catching up to do.

Check out Zacuto for an awesome comparison series they are running right now.

NikoDoby said:
Shhh! I'm undercover in the forum now :^)

I think the forum's got a hacker and I'm trying to catch him ;^)

If this helps any, I tried really hard (well, okay—10 minutes of google searching) to find a way to change my user role to 'platinum member' for April Fools. Maybe I instead just found a way to switch your gravatar, Niko.

Thanks, $300 to change the shutter is not a big deal on a $2500 camera after years of good service, makes me feel lots better.

NikoDoby said:
I think the forum's got a hacker and I'm trying to catch him ;^)

Good luck on your hunt, I have learned to look for your avatar...

Shhh! I'm undercover in the forum now :^)

I think the forum's got a hacker and I'm trying to catch him ;^)

You changed your picture Niko :)

They probably only do the shutter count thing for legal reasons...

Oh and using liveview repeatedly isn't going to burn your pixels. That's not how it works. The only way you can burn your sensor or LCD screen is if you leave a lens pointed at the sun. Think of what happens when you use a magnifying glass to start a fire. Same thing with a camera lens!

You don't have to worry about wearing out your image sensor. What gets worn out is the shutter. The shutter on the D700 is rated to 150000 "operations" or shutter clicks. So does that mean at exactly 149,999 your shutter will stop working?

No, it could actually last longer than that or might even die sooner. It's just an average number to give you an idea of the durability of the shutter. The D3(S) have a rating of 300,000 and a D90 is around 100000. Entry level camera's have a shutter life of around 50,000. As you can see from the video I posted above the shutter takes a beating with every picture. So it's normal that it won't last forever.

You can replace the shutter but the cost depends on the model. Usually around $200-300USD.

Now "stuck" or "hot" pixels are pixels that stay white or black. Don't worry about those on the image sensor. You can "delete" them from your picture with software. No big deal. But they do appear on LCD screens and that is more annoying.

That's something you can watch out for on a new camera and if you see one or two then you can just return the camera. But again it's not something that should keep you from purchasing a D700 or any other digital camera.

Thanks for the info, very generous of you. And what about my other question, what can one do with a D700 body that has reached its activation lifespan limit? Not that I think I would really reach that limit soon on my yet to buy D700.

How robust are the D700 pixels? Do they have a tendency to become hot or die? I read it was a problem on the D90. I know this is kind of answered on the other CCD life tread, but I am more concerned about the D700 and would expect FF pixels being bigger to just be more robust. How many bad pixels are to be expected on a new camera? Do Nikon guarantee them all good? Wouldn't a movie, or EVIL mode (or simply abusing the liveview) burn them faster?

Yes if the mirror didn't flip back down you'd be staring through a totally black viewfinder. If you were trying to photograph a bird in flight, for example, even though 11 frames per second is very quick, you wouldn't be able to pan and follow the bird. The mirror also directs light into the small auto focus and metering sensors. That method is called "phase detection". It's very fast and very accurate for the most part.

Other cameras, such as compact point & shoot and mirrorless EVIL models, use a different method for auto focus called "contrast detect". Focus is achieved by measuring the amount of contrast on the image sensor itself. This is method is much slower than phase detect. This is why DSLRs focus so much fast than point & shoot cameras.

Some DSLRs such as the D5000, D90, D300, use both methods. When in "normal" mode they use the reflex mirror to focus with phase detection. When in liveview mode the mirror stays up and they use contrast detection to focus off of the image sensor. That's why focus is so slow in liveview and also why there is no auto focus while in video mode on some DSLRs.

As for the lens part of your question, a full frame EVIL camera doesn't necessarily require a new set of lenses. The distance from the back of the lens to the image sensor is less on an EVIL camera but If Nikon were to ever make a mirrorless "DSLR" they would make it compatible with existing lenses. The easiest way to do that is to add an adapter.

The reason others such as Panasonic and Olympus have developed new lenses for their EVIL cameras is because their image sensors are smaller than a DSLR sensor but still larger than a point & shoot sensor. So in order to maintain the small size of their cameras they needed to make small lenses too. They could have just used large DSLR lenses but that would have defeated the purpose of having a small "point & shoot" camera with interchangeable lenses.

Thanks Niko: I thought the mirror needed to flip for the autofocus/aperture/exposure tracking to work while taking DSLR movies. That just shows the depth of my ignorance. In the video you provide why then the D3 need to flip its mirror 11 times per second? Why not in this mode, leave the mirror up and just use the camera in EVIL mode? Wouldn't a one second click count for 11 activations? Is this just to let you follow the action thought the view finder?

This brings another question in my mind (just for the sake of asking), what happen at the 150K activation lifespan boundary? Can you just change a module and you’re as good as new? Or the camera is just good for trash? How much such a repair could cost on a D700?

If Nikon was to go in the FF EVIL territory, what would then happen to my FF lenses investment? Would they be obsolete when I switch from D700 to FF EVIL body? I read the FF lenses are bulky just to accommodate the dept needed for the mirror and EVIL lenses could be a lot smaller at the same performance.

Here's a slow motion video showing the aperture (on the left), mirror, and shutter (on the right) taking a picture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG5QedhroYQ

When taking video the mirror stays up. It only moves up and down while taking still photos. The reason the mirror is there is to direct the image up into the optical viewfinder. When you press the shutter release button the mirror flips up and the shutter opens to expose the film or digital sensor to light. The mirror stays up for as long as the shutter stays open. For example 1 second or 1/500th of a second.

EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) cameras don't have mirrors. They simple turn the sensor "on or off" to record an image. Liveview in a DSLR works similar to this in that you get a continuous image electronically on the LCD straight from the digital sensor. In essence your LCD becomes the viewfinder. Hence the name electronic viewfinder.

Oh and video on DSLRs is limited to about 5 minutes. So if you want to record something for 30 minutes, then you're going to have to restart recording every 5 minutes. It's not like a dedicated video camera that just keeps recording until you stop it after 30 minutes or you run out of video tape/memory space.
On a DSLR you'd have to take those six 5minute clips and edit them together into a 30 minute video.

I have a probably very stupid question to ask but being new to the movie-over-DSLR I don't feel too shy to ask.

I saw the quite shocking video of a DSLR mirror flipping up and down crazy full-speed for a full minute or so, does that mean that if I wanted to take a few hours long video on my future D700s, it would exhaust its 150K activations life span?

My hart would just stop to see my 3K$ toy flipping likes this and if that’s the case, who with a straight mind would ever want of movie capacity on any DSLR at $1000 per hours? This just can’t be right! Or is it? I can comprehend movie on an EVIL but on a DSLR?

What is it I do not understand?

kyoshinikon said:

I feel like the industry is leaning towards full frame video (not 1080p but 4000+px) and that will rise to more amateurs who shoot video and select the best frame.

I am not against video (I actually love it in my camera) but as a still photographer. I don't want a million cool buttons that don't do still photography and nothing that improves the quality of still photography.

IT is true kyoshi and I totally agree with you, but since the features that we are debating here are features that don't require extra buttons to be added onto the camera but features that can be fixed through firmware teak.

All other features on the picture side stay the same. To my understanding Nikon doesn't have to compromise any thing for the video. Since we have some sort of video already why not fix it as it should be? 1080p is not that important when you compare that to not being able to set the ISO and shutter speed on d90 and d300s.

This was the main reason why people started the debate on this two cameras and now we feel that the time passed buy 1080p should be there, off course not compromising the photography side.

You mention the video is more related to armatures, which it may be true if you compare it between a pro photographer and a person who uses the camera as a hobby ( me ). But the video has introduced a great interest amongst filmmakers which they want the DSLRs that shoot video for filming, and to them D-movie it is a priority.

SO all the requests that you read here regarding the 1080p are from those people that use the video feature professionally and they want that feature perfected.

A Lot of people that bought cameras for the purpose of shooting video before the D3s came around can't afford to spend extra cash just to buy the D3s which it can shoot video manually.

For a lot of people including me the D90 and D300s are the best camera for a lot of purposes but the video mode on both of them is lacking the most important think which makes the reason as to why is there and that is to be able to choose the ISO and shutter manually.

jbl said:
But why do you need to show your friends such a big print? can't you just show them your pictures on your monitor?

I sell prints in a gallery. I can't afford to giant prints for friends or I would be shooting a D3x!

I feel like the industry is leaning towards full frame video (not 1080p but 4000+px) and that will rise to more amateurs who shoot video and select the best frame.

I am not against video (I actually love it in my camera) but as a still photographer. I don't want a million cool buttons that don't do still photography and nothing that improves the quality of still photography. There are tools (probably very simple and inexpensive to add but will not be added) that would be a much greater help to still photographers than a size up in video..

We can only compare RED footage from any DSLR in terms of looks, as far as resolution goes DSLRS have to catch up. We are not that far from seeing all the goodies on RED in DSLRs. Things are getting smaller and faster now a days.

You mention 120fps reef on the RED which I to agree is good for some interesting shots. How about Nikon P100 which shots full HD and up to 120fps in standard and it's only a P&S camera?

This tells me that we are getting there. Closest to the motion camera at the moment is Canon 7D which offers you everything in terms of 35mm motion academy frame including different frame rates for filming dramas and slow pace narrative films, which doesn't require fast crazy panning.

Of course what kills all that beautiful image is the compression but there are ways around it, Phillip Bloom test it on a big screen and said that it looked grate.

So we are nearly there just it requires a final push from us to make a big deal with NIkon that if they don't bring the Full HD with different frame rate firmware we are going to hack it and not tell Nikon about it, make them beg for it for torturing us... :-)

I just hate to deal with Canon users when Nikon brings out the Full HD cameras, when they say they copied us we did it first. ;-)

reef said:
In the future there will be a camera that can take PL, ZF, B4 and EF lenses, shoot in any format at 720p-6K, 1500fps, 4Ch mixer and only require a 32GB flash card for a days shoot. Oh and it will come in at around $5k... :)

In the future time travel will be possible too :^)

Good points, reef. No need for overkill, I guess.

jonnyapple said:
So how do you think the video from, say, a canon 5DII compares with the video from your RED? I'm just curious.

On a 30" screen, yeah massive difference... on the web - hardly any. Also the 5DII isn't even close to the RED when shooting high speed or action shots. I use 120fps in 2K aall the time it is awesome! The 5DII is great for scenery, interviews, architecture anything fairly static but not for sport, motor racing etc.

Also, in all this comparing this and that... it just depends on what the client wants(where the money is coming from)... I have clients still asking for DV tapes at the end of the shoot, so I will use a DSR500... It is still a broadcast standard, albeit a low standard...

In the future there will be a camera that can take PL, ZF, B4 and EF lenses, shoot in any format at 720p-6K, 1500fps, 4Ch mixer and only require a 32GB flash card for a days shoot. Oh and it will come in at around $5k... :)

The video pan is a good idea, Valon. I think in-camera video just scared stills photographers when it came out because a lot of them had just gotten used to the idea of digital and were afraid they'd have to adapt to another big change. Now it's clear that, like you mentioned, it doesn't hurt the performance of the camera for stills (just look at the D3s's performance!), and the complaints have died down. The video you can produce with these cameras really is quite beautiful. Just a few more tweaks to add (frame rate options and rolling shutter fixed/improved on) and I'll be completely satisfied. And 1080 would be icing. ;-)

I think people are releasing that the video function on DSLRs is the feature so even those once that where complaining are starting to accept and move one.

It is revolutionary with the introduction of video in DSLR's. With the fraction of the price you are getting the same look with cameras that cost 30times the price of the DSLR's.

Sony's F900 cinealta costs well over 50k and the sensor on it is only 2/3 so the look of that camera is similar to any video camera.

I also understand all photographers when they say that they don't care because they only take pictures because at the end of the day Nikon is a photo camera and they main concern is to get it right for photographers. But since they have introduced the D-move mode all we are suggesting is to fix the minor details which at the beginning maybe Nikon didn't think it was important.

The good thing is that the video mode is not a function to raise the over all price of a camera because it is only a firmware tweak. So having it as a option it is a BONUS.

What I do now days since I bought D300s is I take a panning shot of each location I photograph as well as video diary. I don't carry any more my video camera.

Thanks for the info, Valon.

I don't know why people complain about it, either, jbl. I'll take it as a bonus to taking stills and I'll love it!

kyoshinikon said:
Selectable Fps would be great though. As to raw, I shoot it because I print at 20-30 in

But why do you need to show your friends such a big print? can't you just show them your pictures on your monitor?

Why do you need more than 6 mpx?

/thread

my point is that if you need to print this big, there's a pretty big chance that other people also need high resolution video. In terms of post production, to me, even if I want to output in 720p, having the source file in 1080p gives a lot of possibilities.

This topic is pointless, we should not even discuss it, it comes down to a single topic: Some people do indeed need good video, in a similar way that some people out there needs good DSLR cameras.

Same thing.

I'm a student, I'm not buying a RED scarlet with a tiny sensor, I want FX sensor video. It's incredible that for a 8k-10k budget I can get pro quality photo AND video all at once for my projects, totally worth it.