7D FTW. Nice try... Nikkor HAHA! so cute... Maybe Google will send some of their peeps over there and donate some better video tech. #nikond300shanggliding
@Grendel: Nikon is still about the pictures. For most basic PJ work, at least what I have come across, you don't need more than video for the web, which 720p covers just fine. Better AF, dual card slots, and, at least to me, better ergos with the Nikon. Sorry, I'll take the D300s instead of a 7D. #nikond300shanggliding
@szrimaging: You're one of those people who splurged on Nikon didn't you. And now, being stuck with Nikkor lenses, its not financially viable to go the "better" route. First, no one will ever argue the ergonomics and speed settings of the 7D. Far better weather proofing for the model price-range, AND 1080p. Second, I am a photographer. I get paid to take pictures of people doing "strange" things. I use the HD video for various purposes. Short films, Photo journalism, family photos etc... I've used Nikon and Nikkor exclusively for a while until I got fed up with it. So I took a gamble and bought a Canon 5D Mark II about 5 months ago.
I have since pawned all my old lenses, bought some seriously awesome L series lenses and have ZERO regrets. I shoot in RAW almost all the time so the dual-card slots is not a really big issue. Granted, its nice but not a deal breaker. And we aren't fully up to speed on the new 7D's features (we've tinkered but it takes time). But I have to say, I'm blown away by the AF (At least with USM L lenses).
Canon FTW! (pppppsssst... I deserve a free camera all these pro-canon posts!) #nikond300shanggliding
@Grendel: Odd, I'm a photographer too. I get paid to take photos of people skiing and snowboarding. Usually while catching big air.
This is the first year though that my company may not be able to afford a separate video person.
As for switching, I actually only have two lenses I don't need to upgrade anyways. So switching, if I felt the need, is not an issue. I just don't feel that constantly switching brands just because one has a better camera at the moment is a good choice. Both have some amazing lenses in the lineup, so that argument is null. And as long as I can capture the images I need to with the gear I have, what is the point of constantly upgrading. My camera, as long as it does what I need, should last 4 years. That gives it time to pay for itself and some of the other equipment around it. #nikond300shanggliding
@GeraldineLobster: Different cameras completely. As a sports shooter, the D300 has many advantages. First off, they use the same AF system, but as has been reported, the AF on the D700 doesn't cover all of the frame like the D300. Which makes the D300 better for tracking things across the frame. Not to mention 1.6x crop is like a built in teleconvertor!
Wow.. $1800 for that? I just ordered a Canon EOS Rebel T1i yesterday for $750. It's roughly half the Nikon's price and as far as I can tell, it has similar if not better image quality, more features, and can do 1080p video (though only at 20fps, and only limits video to 29 minutes, not a retarded 5.
@Kev50027: much better autofocus, magnesium body (worlds better overall build quality), much faster autofocus motor, more external controls that an experienced shooter would want instant access to, as opposed to going into menus for. Not saying the T1i is bad or anything, but there are certainly reasons for more expensive cameras to exist.
Honestly, I could care less about the video. If I want video, I'll get a RED Scarlet with 5k video.
On the other hand, the dual card slots make it so worth the premium over the older D300. Top that off with slightly faster fps with the standard batteries (went from 6 to 7) and a few kinks worked out of the AF system, and we have a win. I'll be picking up at least one. Not to mention, as someone who is often in harsh environments with the camera, the risk of breaking this is much nicer than risking a D3....
Great, I want video, where do I get my RED Scarlet? Oh right. I can't. It doesn't exist (at least not yet) it was a fucking cg model in a brochure back before it should have even been a rumor. Oh and how much will that 5K model run? A lot more than a DSLR that actually shoots decent video (like the 7D or the GH1 or even the 5D..yes even the 5D, we're not thrilled with 30p over in the video world.) (the Scarlet with a 2/3" sensor was set to run $3750...) I'm already shooting video with a 4k (m4/3) sensor in a camera called the GH1...sure it's downrezed to 1080p, but it's still coming off that sensor and looks amazing.
Also the resolution game is kind of stupid because even if you could pack the pixels of a 5k Image into a TV, that TV would need to be the size of your house or you'd need to sit an inch from it to see any difference between that and 1080p....and lets not even get started on the web.
That said D300s seems like a great still camera, but it is still unfortunate that Nikon's video offerings haven't been great. I love Nikon, and I use their glass whenever I can for video, but I wish they were up to snuff on video features...for the Nikon cameras it is a gimmick, and there is nothing wrong with that....
...but is it possible that the reason you don't care about video (aside from maybe not wanting to make video) on a Nikon DSLR is because their video implementation sucks so badly? If so that impression will change as the tech gets better...and I expect to see a usable vDSLR from Nikon long before we see the RED Scarlet. You know, like the ones Canon and Panasonic have already made?
Come on Nikon, we video people are waiting. We love ya. We use your glass, we use your cameras for stills...we want to get rid of all our non-Nikon crap..we wanna be fanboys...please let us.
So I go with the 3k instead of 5k Scarlett, big whoop. The point was, as a pro, I don't need the video in my DSLR because if I want it, I'll do it the right way and get a dedicated rig. Mind you, I am happy that the Scarlett will allow me to use my F-mount lenses.
The point of getting 5k or even 3k is that I won't need to upgrade in the future. Those systems should be good for a while. And it allows me more venues (theaters) for distribution of my work. Sorry that we all don't think small.
You can buy a pristine used d90 body from Craigslist or Nikonians (must join) for ~$700 vs. ~$1200 for a d300 (more for a d300s)
The d90 was the first DSLR with HD video recording. It shoots 1280x720p video at 24fps with a 16:9 aspect ratio for up to five minutes and worlks with any lens.
If you are going to actually buy a camera to take pictures, the d90 has the same CMOS senor and LCD as the d300, plus it is also a 12.3 MP.
The d90 has 11 AF points and the d300 has 51. The d90 shoots at 4.5fps vs. 6 for the d300 and the d300 has a more sophisticated RGB sensor.
I "upgraded" from a D300 to the D300s last week. Autofocus is faster, and the ability to save JPEGs to a cheap SD card while saving RAW files to a fast (expensive) CF card is nice, but I was hoping for better video performance. There's no manual control for shutter speed, so if you're shooting well-lit scenes, get ready for a very "strobe-y" look to your video (even though it's 24p, shutter speed still plays an important role to the overall look of the footage).
Sad to say, I think I'm going to hock my Nikon gear to switch to Canon's 7D, which just looks amazing (and I have friends with nice Canon lenses I could borrow).
@m_flo: silly, really. It's like all the Canon 30D defectors who came over to Nikon. Supremacy oscillates between these two brands. If you have Nikon lenses, why not stay put? Next year will bring all new cameras and battles.
@Khamel Abdulai: I only have 3 lenses, none of which are a big investment. I originally chose the D300 over the 40D because I could shoot sequences at 8 fps with the MB-D10 grip. Guess what? The 7D can do that WITHOUT a grip. And the image and video samples I've seen from the 7D look really, really good. I'm thinking 7D FTW (and $100 less than the D300s). Nikon needs to SERIOUSLY step things up.
@m_flo: That's funny you mention that "Nikon needs to SERIOUSLY step things up," since I shoot Canon, and even in light of the 7D, I think Canon needs to step things up a bit.
I am a producer in film and TV. We've worked with photographers who are also on our shoots. I don't know about the D300s' video but the 5D Mark II's video is really hard to work with. It isn't worth using for anything more than home videos. Most editing systems don't like working with the format that it shoots and the video can't be color corrected to match out other cameras as it is already precessed. There is no sounds input either so you have to post sync the sound and use a slate while shooting.
@cpthook: No he's right It doesn't capture wide-range raw colour (which kinda looks milky at first, but has far more information) so, yes you can technically color correct it but only the limited pre-colour-tweaked image you captured. You can't dig info out of the blacks and whites like you can with raw footage. And the file format is a serious pain to edit with.
I'd have to see the videos with a source quality a lot higher than youtube-stylee to see what is what...I saw lots and lots of artifacts even in the still areas that "weren't changing". We'll see how the reviews go.
@loslosbaby: I wouldn't judge any video quality from youtube's compression. I'd rather pop the raw video into VLC or Quicktime to judge it objectively.
Does anyone know how good the sound quality is on these DSLRs? Hopefully it's better than those point-and-shoots, where it sounds like everyone is eating a fistful of dicks.
I was extremely impressed by the Canon SD Mark II a while back...more than this Nikon. Although, I wonder how the new Canon EOS Rebel T1i measures up to the SD Mark II since they both shoot 1080p. (besides the megapixel count) Anyone who owns one care to weigh in?
@johnnyabnormal: I was "like what? SD Mark II" You mean 5D Mark II.
Basically for the short, look at the images of a APC-S and Full Frame, then kind of guess it off of that.
The 5D MKII has dual DiGiC IV processors, it's full frame (no 1.6x crop and larger sensor of course than the T1i), cheapest Canon Full-Frame, weather-sealed, 1080HD recording @ 30 FPS, very high end AF system, high FPS, very solid construction, etc and etc, the list goes on.
I own a 450D though, 500D's HD video is interesting but not worth the extra 400-500 dollars for it, I would rather be looking at 60D (rumored) instead (standard features of weather-sealing, more solid camera body, AF, etc etc for the x0D line, plus way better nicer kit lense).
@jasonliang: No, it is SD Mark II: Super Duper Mark Two...haha, just kidding. I would love to A/B video from both Canons out of curiosity. 30 FPS is sweet, but I don't know the FPS of the T1i.
The 500D offers true HD video capture at 1920 x 1080 pixels (1080P) at 20 frames per second or 1280 x 720 pixels (720P) at 30 frames per second. The built-in internal microphone captures mono audio. The audio quality is not fantastic and unfortunately there is no socket for an external microphone. There is a small built-in speaker for video playback in-camera.
The 5D Mark II will shoot video at ISO 12800, the T1i video maxes out at ISO 1600, and the D300s looks like it will shoot video at either ISO 3200 or ISO 6400. They are all different cameras intended for different parts of the market. The T1i is roughly half the cost of the D300S, which in turn is roughly half the cost of the 5D Mark II.
@waltercrm: Thanks. That's all really good info to know. Good thing I do audio for a living, so if I want stereo, 48k, 16-bit, super clean I can nail that no problem. It might be a bitch to sync later though...
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
I have since pawned all my old lenses, bought some seriously awesome L series lenses and have ZERO regrets. I shoot in RAW almost all the time so the dual-card slots is not a really big issue. Granted, its nice but not a deal breaker. And we aren't fully up to speed on the new 7D's features (we've tinkered but it takes time). But I have to say, I'm blown away by the AF (At least with USM L lenses).
Canon FTW! (pppppsssst... I deserve a free camera all these pro-canon posts!) #nikond300shanggliding
10/20/09
This is the first year though that my company may not be able to afford a separate video person.
As for switching, I actually only have two lenses I don't need to upgrade anyways. So switching, if I felt the need, is not an issue. I just don't feel that constantly switching brands just because one has a better camera at the moment is a good choice. Both have some amazing lenses in the lineup, so that argument is null. And as long as I can capture the images I need to with the gear I have, what is the point of constantly upgrading. My camera, as long as it does what I need, should last 4 years. That gives it time to pay for itself and some of the other equipment around it. #nikond300shanggliding
10/19/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
09/30/09
Am I missing something?
09/30/09
09/30/09
On the other hand, the dual card slots make it so worth the premium over the older D300. Top that off with slightly faster fps with the standard batteries (went from 6 to 7) and a few kinks worked out of the AF system, and we have a win. I'll be picking up at least one. Not to mention, as someone who is often in harsh environments with the camera, the risk of breaking this is much nicer than risking a D3....
10/01/09
See above post by me.
Great, I want video, where do I get my RED Scarlet? Oh right. I can't. It doesn't exist (at least not yet) it was a fucking cg model in a brochure back before it should have even been a rumor. Oh and how much will that 5K model run? A lot more than a DSLR that actually shoots decent video (like the 7D or the GH1 or even the 5D..yes even the 5D, we're not thrilled with 30p over in the video world.) (the Scarlet with a 2/3" sensor was set to run $3750...) I'm already shooting video with a 4k (m4/3) sensor in a camera called the GH1...sure it's downrezed to 1080p, but it's still coming off that sensor and looks amazing.
Also the resolution game is kind of stupid because even if you could pack the pixels of a 5k Image into a TV, that TV would need to be the size of your house or you'd need to sit an inch from it to see any difference between that and 1080p....and lets not even get started on the web.
That said D300s seems like a great still camera, but it is still unfortunate that Nikon's video offerings haven't been great. I love Nikon, and I use their glass whenever I can for video, but I wish they were up to snuff on video features...for the Nikon cameras it is a gimmick, and there is nothing wrong with that....
...but is it possible that the reason you don't care about video (aside from maybe not wanting to make video) on a Nikon DSLR is because their video implementation sucks so badly? If so that impression will change as the tech gets better...and I expect to see a usable vDSLR from Nikon long before we see the RED Scarlet. You know, like the ones Canon and Panasonic have already made?
Come on Nikon, we video people are waiting. We love ya. We use your glass, we use your cameras for stills...we want to get rid of all our non-Nikon crap..we wanna be fanboys...please let us.
10/01/09
So I go with the 3k instead of 5k Scarlett, big whoop. The point was, as a pro, I don't need the video in my DSLR because if I want it, I'll do it the right way and get a dedicated rig. Mind you, I am happy that the Scarlett will allow me to use my F-mount lenses.
The point of getting 5k or even 3k is that I won't need to upgrade in the future. Those systems should be good for a while. And it allows me more venues (theaters) for distribution of my work. Sorry that we all don't think small.
09/30/09
You can buy a pristine used d90 body from Craigslist or Nikonians (must join) for ~$700 vs. ~$1200 for a d300 (more for a d300s)
The d90 was the first DSLR with HD video recording. It shoots 1280x720p video at 24fps with a 16:9 aspect ratio for up to five minutes and worlks with any lens.
If you are going to actually buy a camera to take pictures, the d90 has the same CMOS senor and LCD as the d300, plus it is also a 12.3 MP.
The d90 has 11 AF points and the d300 has 51. The d90 shoots at 4.5fps vs. 6 for the d300 and the d300 has a more sophisticated RGB sensor.
09/30/09
09/30/09
Sad to say, I think I'm going to hock my Nikon gear to switch to Canon's 7D, which just looks amazing (and I have friends with nice Canon lenses I could borrow).
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
The grass is always greener and whatnot.
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
Basically for the short, look at the images of a APC-S and Full Frame, then kind of guess it off of that.
The 5D MKII has dual DiGiC IV processors, it's full frame (no 1.6x crop and larger sensor of course than the T1i), cheapest Canon Full-Frame, weather-sealed, 1080HD recording @ 30 FPS, very high end AF system, high FPS, very solid construction, etc and etc, the list goes on.
I own a 450D though, 500D's HD video is interesting but not worth the extra 400-500 dollars for it, I would rather be looking at 60D (rumored) instead (standard features of weather-sealing, more solid camera body, AF, etc etc for the x0D line, plus way better nicer kit lense).
08/04/09
08/04/09
The 500D offers true HD video capture at 1920 x 1080 pixels (1080P) at 20 frames per second or 1280 x 720 pixels (720P) at 30 frames per second. The built-in internal microphone captures mono audio. The audio quality is not fantastic and unfortunately there is no socket for an external microphone. There is a small built-in speaker for video playback in-camera.
From another excellent review by: [www.dpreview.com]
The 5D Mark II will shoot video at ISO 12800, the T1i video maxes out at ISO 1600, and the D300s looks like it will shoot video at either ISO 3200 or ISO 6400. They are all different cameras intended for different parts of the market. The T1i is roughly half the cost of the D300S, which in turn is roughly half the cost of the 5D Mark II.
08/04/09
07/30/09