Nikon really isnt lacking in video like most proclaim. It's just missing a few firmware beefs and framerates. Also I have been complaining for years for the softness of canon lenses wide open. L lenses got their reputation for USM, IS, and Fast AF not optical quality. The optical quality hype just grew on that myth. Funny because in this test they didn't even use canon lenses and it still was soft. I never liked their 16mpx or 18mpx sensor output and the video only uses a small percentage of sensor pixels...

I still wanted them to try a Cineflex V14HD (One of the best;You used to have a license from the Government to use one)

As I've stated on the main blog, the D7000 really made the Canon's look silly. The only issue I saw was moire(but only when super exaggerated). The 1dMK4 was terrible in just about every way. The 5D and 7D were soft and lacked real DR as well as having SNR issues. You could really see the Noise Reduction smoothing things over in a miserable attempt to curtail noise in the Canon's. While the D7K eased right through with only a little moire issue. The D7000 had a much more cinematic "feel", which was much closer to the ultra high-end cameras.

Funny to see the little $1200 Nikon D7000 do work on the more expensive Canon's. I bet these tests have turned a lot of heads. It's funny how we've(general photography public) been made to believe that Nikon's video is lacking and cannot compete with Canon's offerings. Goes to show that Canon's faithful are based solely on product reputation and not at all on quality. High-end pros know Nikon is superior in still photography. Now, you can see for yourself that Nikon has not been sleeping in the video dept.......but rather quietly innovating. I KNOW the new round of Nikon DSLR's will be the nail in the coffin for Canon. They're about to get cought with their pants down.

Sidenote: The Arri Alexa and RED One looked amazing....wow.

kyoshinikon said:
Speaking of high Quality "cameras" a Hassy trumps the D3x on image quality. Even the one test found on Kr's site (GASP!) shows that. What 35mm has over that is compactness....

Absolutely.

The issue is the balance between what one can afford access to and results one gets. It is very easy to ignore the $$$ difference between the "average" dSLR and even the cheapest digital Hassy, when viewing stats alone.

Paraphrasing what one commentator in the Zacuto movie said (back on topic), it's the combination of things that deliver the result and not one measurement in isolation.

As you say, too bad about the Red Epic, but don't they say they tried to get one?

I still think that the Eos 1 by far had the worst video quality of the dslr's and the D7000 had the best excluding the moire pattern test (It was even noticably sharper on the chart test). In the still life the D7000 trumped any of the canons. Still That top of the line stuff is mind boggling how good it is. Even the Kodak stock was pretty good. To bad they didn't have a Red Epic or the Cineflex V14HD to test....

Speaking of high Quality "cameras" a Hassy trumps the D3x on image quality. Even the one test found on Kr's site (GASP!) shows that. What 35mm has over that is compactness.... Back to the topic.

Finally, I got round to seeing part two (link on the main blog for last weeks round up).

Interesting to see the differences between some of them (film even), including top end what I can only call "stratospheric" models that most of us will never get to use), and the humble C@non and Nikon dSLR's.

All I can say, is that you can keep DX vs FX... I just want an Arri Alexa or a Red One...

LOL!!!!!!