Leaderboard

I've re-written the review based on ScreensPro's suggestion:   ***   The undoubted highlight of the camera is the Baby Photo Mode which produces optimised, colourful JPEGs of your children for uploading to Facebook, though one major downside of the camera is the inability to make calls on it and upload directly to Facebook, it does include WiFi. Of less interest is 1080/60p, which is good for that 'smooth home movie look' but is really designed for slow-mo. Unfortunately slow-mo requires very expensive and complicated editing software like Adobe Premiere. The D5300 benefits from not having 10bit 4:2:2 or ProRes because you can store a year's worth of heavily compressed footage on mum's iMac from 2008 with a 120GB hard disk.   *12 pages of in-depth scene mode coverage*   Conclusion...   The D5300 is perfectly suited to making shitty home movies with because it lacks any kind of innovation whatsoever.   The Super 35mm Toshiba sensor is completely wasted on a low-end camera, but it shouldn't bother THE FAMILY MARKET, the main target of this camera, and therefore top marks 10/10.

@jnorman34 This is a filmmaking website.

Original music by Berlin electronic act Herdwhite - see more on iTunes 9b1ac465df855a9bc029756b08a6a8ff >Join EOSHD on Facebook - we broke 10,000 likes and counting yesterday - thank you everyone I’ll start this review with a parable. It is a parable about an old man, who fell asleep... Read the full article here

  That's why it's such a shame, the technology is excellent but the implementation of their technology is completely unsuited to what a large number of their customers want to use it for - VIDEO - and how hard is a proper 16:9 mode for live-view so you can frame the damn screen properly!? No effort whatsoever!   I use the Baby Photo thing to knock Nikon over the head with in the review purely to make a point... That with no movie mode on the dial, Nikon shows where their priorities lie... They are with even the smallest stills feature or gimmick over the head of video.   Do you know the Nikon J1 at $399 does a 4K raw output in video mode from the sensor, and Nikon haven't made use of it at all? Why are they so allergic to making video cameras? Is it the staff re-training costs or something? Just do it. See if it sells. If it does, build a business division off the back of it and THEN train new staff and reps. If not, don't do another one. Simple!   It's just like the early 90's when Nikon had the chance to buy Photoshop. It isn't a camera, so they don't bother. Why such a narrow attitude to the imaging business?

ScreensPro. I am not writing for these f***ing people OK? Get a clue.

The Olympus E-M1 is sitting on a goldmine. The 5 axis stabilisation system is heaven for video, but very little attention was given to video specs. The codec is only capable of recording in one frame rate, 30p, a rate completely unsuited to 70% of the world's population living in Europe, the UK, China, Brazil and Australia. Consumers need 25p or 50p... and filmmakers are desperate for the 24p look! Now Olympus are said to be working on a firmware update (source: 43rumors) that gives 21 steps of manual audio gain control (1 step more than the GH3). Here is a summary of what else video users need. Read the full article here

I've been out in Dubai for commercial work, and in my spare time I used the 5dmkIII + raw to shoot a travelogue. Tried to capture some of the lesser-known parts of Dubai and the surrounding region. Enjoy!

I would put in the list some improvements in focus peaking for video, too. In my GX7, peaking is HUGELY useful, especially with older lenses. And to Olympus: I've bought the GX7 instead of the E-M1 only because of the lacking video mode in the E-M1. Improve it, and I will buy one ASAP. And a guess that a lot of people too.

If the EM-1 had 60p-1080 and has good low light sensitivity, I'll definitely buy one -- perhaps more than one.

I would buy an em-1 if it had 24p and 60p at 1080. Andrew, when is the new firmware update expected to be released?

if Olympus enable 24/25p and 50/60p then I would seriously consider choosing the E-M1 over the soon to be released GH4. fingers crossed.... for my needs, I think I would prefer to have the 5 axis stabilisation than most of the GH4 features.

To be honest, I'm having a pretty difficult time interpreting your metaphor... But if I understand correctly, you're saying 1080p is a bit on the way out? Otherwise you may need to provide me with a new metaphor :P I'm worried that the 4K footage will show compression artefacts, even if it's shot at 100mbps.

OK imagine it as a highway...   5D raw opens up the highway to 6 lanes but there's not really that much traffic, most people stay at home. That's 1080p.   GH4 also opens up the highway to 6 lanes but the lanes are busier. Loads of bastards on the road, some of them annoying and noisy. But wow it's a nice busy road :)

When you reviewed the D5200, you tested it alongside the 5d mk3 and posted some comparison video that impressed me at the time. If I remember correctly, your opinion was that they were almost on a par for image quality. I've now tested the D5200 and D5300 alongside each other and the improvement in the D5300's low light capability is quite obvious to me, so I wouldn't be surprised if it surpasses the 5D mk3 with original firmware. Of course the 5D mk3 has a greater feature set and all that, but I'm just talking about image quality.

We discuss mixed format subjects often with shooters and editors. It's usually fine to mix spherical with anamorphic now a days. It used to be a big NO WAY. Scott Pilgrim vs The World and Spring Breakers come to mind as 2 recent big budget projects that did a lot of mixing. Scott Pilgrim: Spring Breakers:

The 100-300 is actually a really nice sharp lens if you don't mind the slow aperture.

When the GH4 comes out it will likely be available for £1500 used after a few weeks and not that much more in the shops. If you spend half that now, £750 on a D5300, be prepared to regret not waiting and spending the extra £750.   For those who can only afford the D5300 then OK I can understand it.

It won't. Yup. That depends on what you want, but the obvious choice would be the Metabones Speed Booster. Other normal but good adapters (no lenses, no change in focal length/field of view) include the Novoflex Nikon G to mFT adapter, the standard Metabones Nikon G to mFT adapter, or the Fotodiox Nikon G to mFT adapter. It's a matter of taste. The Nikkor is rather big and awkward with the Panasonic and the adapter, but no doubt usable with a proper tripod. M'kay... It might, á la GM1, but I believe it's a bit too early to tell. The camera isn't out yet, and no one (here) has got a chance to delve into the nooks and crannies of the camera yet, or even read the manual.

Anamorphic isn't just about the aspect ratio, do some more research and look at more samples, the whole image, composition, rendering of the lens, flare, depth compression and look of out of focus areas is different.

If the D3300 does not bite Canon's T5 sales in the ass, then I will give up hope for the camera industry.   Quality must win. Otherwise we all lose.   Canon should be utterly ashamed of themselves with their latest product releases. An Asia only EOS M2. A DSLR in white and a low end T5 which will go down as perhaps the most uninspiring and unoriginal photographic product ever made.   So yes if I was to go right down to the low end with the T5 vs D3300 I would absolutely be singing the praises of Nikon.   I recognise that $799 for the D5300 is pretty good. However the camera has to be seen in the context of some of the higher end consumer cameras for video, and that's where I was coming from in the review. Mirrorless mount advantages, 5 axis stabilisation, EVFs, more video features, better optimised live view modes for video, 10bit 4:2:2 ProRes in the case of the Blackmagic, raw in case of 5D Mark III and others, Speed Booster... SO MUCH INNOVATION! And the D5300 has none of it. A big shame.

  What do you suggest Chris?   If we skip the whole stills camera thing for video... what exactly do you suggest we do...   Blackmagic is not for everyone, and the cheapest interchangeable lens video camera with a cinematic image starts at around $6000. Big gap to $799. I believe I alluded to the stupidity of comments like this in the article, so ironic to see one here.

Im not saying Nikon is not behind, Im saying they are going forward. The canon crop-sensors have been the same for 5 years. Nikon is improving with every iteration. They are really slow on giving features that seem easy to implement though. So yes, what I think is that Nikon who is not focusing on video will be behind in terms of functionality and may not be the best choice for pure filmmakers, but I think they will stay moderatly relevant to the hybrid shooter. I don't want to give Nikon anything. Im just making a prediction of what I think is going to happen. A more precise guess would be this: Nikon announce a 4k Nikon 1 in 2014. In 2015 they announce D900 (or something like that) with 4K (probably UHD) to FF sensor. In terms of functionality its harder to say, if they decide to keep video as a bonus they might just go with the same style as of now for quite a long time. As long as they offer large sensor and good image people will probably still use it if they own it for photo. Personally, I like DR, low-light and large sensor better than sharpness in m43-size. Thats why I like the Nikons better than the GH3 right now. If the GH4 will improve on DR and low-light it might be a really great camera and will also be great for dragging along the competition, but its not out yet and we should not embrace it before we know. What I can say right now: The Nikon D5300 gives the best image I have seen in such a cheap camera, and is clearly not the camera that proclaims the death of DSLR, that one would be 550D number 25.

I completely agree. They could. They are too lazy and too comfortable, which was the main problem Canon had after launching the 5D (and probably still have) Still doesn't change the fact that people should stop whining and make use of what they have and stop dreaming about what they don't. Nikon and Canon doesn't make film cameras with such specs just because a few bloggers and people commenting think they should. These companies have a lot of money and uses a very big part of that money on R&D otherwise they simply wouldn't exist. People fail to remember that they earn most of their money on photographers. Why change something that works perfectly for what it's designed to? It's the same as saying the Alexa is shit because it doesn't do 4K, 5K and 6K and can't take 36MP stills. Why should Nikon change the best DSLR on the market because some video people says so? And why should (and why haven't) Arri changed or updated the Alexa? It's very simple - seen from their (business) point of view; there's simply no need.

I don't think you got my point? The point was not that people should use Alexas. My point was that people seem to say that the D800 is a bad camera even though it is the most celebrated DSLR by real cinematographers. My whole point was that people should worry less about the camera, but more about the lighting (and camera for that matter) Ask any cinematographer and in sure they'll say, that light, movement and lenses are more important than the actual camera, hence why you could use a D800 and cut it seamlessly with an Alexa.

I don't think this site is aimed too much at producers of content to big budget productions. Correct, you won't find GH2/GH3/Blackmagic, or D800 or Canon 5d mk3 there for that matter. (maybe any of these as funny experiments or very limited scenes where they don't want to risk more expensive equipment). The nice thing about a camera like the Blackmagic, is that it affords filmmakers who can't afford a big crew of lighting people etc to still end up with good footage. So: Nikon 5300 - soccermoms Blackmagic/GH2/GH3/GH3 - indie, smaller productions Arri (mostly) - large budget digital

I haven't tried the GH4 yet, but two points you may take into consideration; 1. I think you can get a speedbooster for your Contax Zeiss lenses. If you do, it makes the crop factor much closer, and the added light sensitivity will likely make up for most of the advantage a larger sensor would have with the same lenses. 2. By downsizing 4K signal to 1080p in post, theoretically it should boost the picture to something like 10bit 422 or better and I would expect it would hold up very well in grading.

Am I wrong to assume that actual working cinematographers would have something to say here? Not saying that I'm one of these endangered species, but I'm specifically thinking of Bradford Lipson (Wilfred) and Jeff Jur (Dexter). Jeff Jur said in an interview, that most of the time the post production team had a hard time telling the difference between their A and B can and the Nikon D800, which is fair enough if it wasn't for the fact that the A camera was an Alexa. Again, not claiming to be a cinematographer equally skilled to the above mentioned I think their on to something. Why else would two very successful cinematographers use them? If Blackmagic and GH2/GH3/GH4 are such amazing cameras why is that only amateurs and small businesses uses them and not big studios with budgets large enough to use whatever camera they like? Nothing bad about mr. Reid, but I think people are focussing to much on what, in my opinion, are facts, numbers and presumptions. Blackmagic might very well have packed 13 stops of dynamic range into their cameras but if that's what you're relaying on as a cinematographer, you're not really doing you're job. It does indeed challenges your knowledge of light and the way you (or rather the camera) sees it, but if you can't adjust to that you should probably find another line of work or admit that you don't have what it takes. And yes, some people are probably going to argue that the GH2 was "voted" the winner of the Zacuto shoutout and that it was only because of the expensive light gear they had access to, but you'll be surprised how much you can achieve with work lights, fluorescent tubes, gels, baking paper, reflectors, foam core and flags (all of which are very cheap) At least that is my personal experience. ...and hey, then you don't have to worry about carrying tons of batteries and spend thousands on storage. Coming from a photographic background that makes me think of the most famous (and annoying) quote amongst photographers: "the camera doesn't make the creative decisions" also sometimes heard as "the camera doesn't create the photographer"

You've got to be joking, right? You want to give them two years to catch up to what Panasonic is doing right now? Two years is an impossibly vast amount amount of leeway. Think about how much has changed since February of 2012! Blackmagic hadn't even announced a camera yet, 5D Mark iii was a month away, no GH3, no E-M5, no D800, no X-Pro 1; most of these cameras wouldn't even be announced until well into spring! Two years would be an incomprehensibly long time to have to wait for Nikon to implement these features. Surely you were kidding, right?

Loosely related to this topic, Dave Etchells of Imaging Resource had an interview with Yamamoto-san of Nikon. http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/14/nikon-qa-head-of-development-sees-interchangeable-lens-slowdown-as-an-aberr Partially rather usual and predictable, but there were a couple of interesting little tidbits in there, too. It's a long-ish interview, and the video talks are in the middle part. They talk about the 5300, the 1 series and a little bit of 4K, too.

"In addition Nikon have all the technology to build a high end cinema line for pros like Cinema EOS, something which is turning out to be massively profitable for Canon. The sensor, the image processor, the codec, the lenses, everything." The last few years Nikon has been on recovery after their most important factories got destroyed (Thailand and Japan). That makes a huge impact on a company which have cameras as their main business and no photocopiers to fall back on. I believe Nikon's reaction to this is to be cautious about investing too much into new product lines and try to recover with what they know they're good at. Considering that situation, I think they're on a good track in improving the video modes on their cameras although they can't keep up with Panasonic in terms of features or handling. They've at least made incremental improvements with sensors, moire, aliasing and added 1080p60 modes in their low-end range - none of which Canon has done. What I just can't understand with Nikon, is why that bloody Live view aperture situation exists with their lower-end cameras since that issue is not there on cameras like D800. If that is planned segmentation of products - it is very retarded. If it's something that requires some reengineering to fix it, it's really about time that they fix it. I hope that Nikon is seriously watching what Panasonic is doing, and I hope they'll figure out how to do 4k and how to implement 10-bit 4:2:2 in at least 1080p. This is what Nikon EU product manager has to say about Nikon and 4k: - “We are aware of the need for, and request for, 4K video recording. It is a bit tricky, it’s not something that we are purposefully excluding from our cameras; however we need to approach it carefully. There are high-end cameras that produce this but it just puts such a load on the equipment. For us, because consumers are demanding it we are aware of this and will be looking into it for the future." --- Source: http://nikonrumors.com/2014/01/25/nikon-sees-future-in-4k-video-and-advanced-compact-cameras.aspx/ Sony, Canon and Panasonic all had a headstart thanks to producing video cameras for a long time. In my opinion Nikon hasn't been doing all that bad coming from a still photography camera background only. I certainly hope they will realize what handling issues and features that still are missing and provide that - either in mirrorless, DSLR, hybrid or specifically video-tailored cameras. And my own review of the D5300 and D3300 would be: - Great cameras for the newbies who want to start learning about video while also shooting stills. Far better choice than any other DSLR considering sensor, stills & video performance together. Panasonic G6 and Nikon D5300/D5200/D3300 are my first choice of recommendations for video+photo first-timers on tight budgets. There's handling issues and features missing that are available in more expensive cameras - but that's to be expected in entry-level/budget range.

Pretty much knew the D5300 wasn't Andrew's cup of tea before buying my own. So, none of his review is surprising. Some of it I agree with. Just got back from using the D5300 for a month in Mexico. Awesome stills camera for the money. Excellent video results as well. Handling was very awkward, especially going from stills shooting, to video, then back to stills. Had to just settle for a middle of the road Standard setting, but managed to find a few work arounds for shooting on the go. For the money, being able to use my Nikon lenses, the articulating screen, the great low light performance, excellent stills, and a very light weight... together made for the camera I was looking for. I also chose this camera because I didn't want a cumbersome work flow and have to accommodate huge file storage, especially on the road. And, I know the tech is improving leaps and bounds each quarter it seems, so I didn't want to invest in anything that would likely be eclipsed quickly by the next so-called "all the rage" 4k, raw, over-hyped-bla-bla-bla gear that also needs several thousands worth of accessories to make them usable. If that GH4 works out to be all the rage and might have at least a good 2 years of valuable shelf life, then I'll grab one and my Nikon D5300 will still be useful as an excellent backup stills camera with an excellent low-light sensor for video in a pinch. Despite the awkward handling of the D5300, all things considered, especially if a no-fuss workflow, clean low light images, low file storage needs, light weight, and greats stills performance is important to you (as it is me) then the D5300 is a great alternative for an affordable $799. I'll just add that I bashed this camera around pretty good (unintentionally) and even got it very wet on accident on a few occasions, but it never failed in any way. It's a solid performer for the money from my personal experience. And, I'm quite happy with the quality of the images. Once I get caught up from being gone a month, will splice a few clips together and share.

FYI, It was chinese new year.

@richg101 I think you might be onto something with your suggested era of lenses that might be a natural sort of pairing with this adapter. So far I like the look on my most used lens, my 24mm Nikkor f/2 but I was most excited to see how the adapter looked on my 50mm F.Zuiko f/1.8 because I felt so constrained by how I had to make use of it on my Century Optics adapter. I grabbed my GH2 and chased my nephew around a bit yesterday afternoon. Cats are so played out so my nieces and nephews are my go to in a pinch, hah-hah. Working at f/2.8 your arm gets a work out chasing focus at this focal on MFT but I'm really liking the results. I got several shots with extreme backlight coming in from outside and paired with the Olympus the flaring felt a bit more integral to the image than we see in some pairings. I couldn't have got the same footage with my Century Optics adapter because, to be open to f/2.8 @ 50mm, I'd have had to be stacked up on a +1 at least. Otherwise I'd be forced to an f/6 or so and while "okay" it just wouldn't have had the same feel at all. With the Anamorphot I was still able to, in this case, track with him from about 2m or so away to close which, on the Century Optics, wouldn't have been possible because of the +1 I'd have had to use to be at this stop. You can actually go "run n gun" with a 50mm at a filmic stop on the Anamorphot and then, for controlled beauty close-ups, go to the diopters for enhanced bokeh. Going by vertical FOV, the 50mm + GH2 should be roughly equivalent to 82mm on anamorphic 35mm.

This is decent side-by-side of Flaat_11 vs Standard, though it's low-light with a lot of crushed black, so not the best example perhaps: I made my own (amateurish) test of Flaat_11, though it's not a side-by-side. Details below the video. I think the colours hold up pretty well: All shot with Flaat 11 profile, graded in FCPX, Neat Video applied, sharpening applied (+3 to +5 in FCPX, 0 in camera), Gorilla Grain (fine clean) added. All shots 50p conformed to 25p. There are quite a lot of FCP stabilization artefacts throughout. Lenses: Nikkor 85mm f2 AI-s and 35mm f2 AF-D For some reason I had my screen gamma calibrated to 1.8 for this edit, so the blacks are probably looking more crushed than they need to be. You can download the .mov file and lift them if you feel the need (though the .mov is still a compression of the original). I now shoot with +2 sharpness in camera and add a little in post too. Even without using flat profiles, the D5300's dynamic range is superior to any current Panasonic or Canon footage I have seen, and lends itself to lifting the shadows in post because of the low amount and nice quality of noise. I have also been able to pull back a surprising ammount of detail from the highlights compared to my G6 and my old 600D. D5300 group on Vimeo here: vimeo.com/groups/d5300

  The Pocket workflow for ProRes doesn't require a greater outlay in anything aside from fast SD cards.   You can grade it in Premiere like DSLR footage and even just put Film Convert on it.   If you mean raw than yes I agree with you, it does invite a lot of time spent grading in post and a lot of storage space.

I owned a D5200 until a couple months ago. My main caveats were to do with the body and the interface. You had to hold down other buttons to change the ISO and aperture. Even after several months, I would often press the wrong button because they're all the same shape and size. Also there was no second control dial. The inability to change aperture while filming didn't bother me at all (ive never come across a situation where I would need to do that) but the other stuff above did. Manual focus was difficult because of the small viewfinder and no focus assists for the live view. There are some weird inconsistencies with settings when switching between live view and normal. Taking pictures in live view was awkward because there's quite a bit of delay before the picture is taken after pressing the shutter and also when that mirror slaps, it's loud and very mechanical. I never did any proper side by side comparisons, but the when I shot the same scene with the Nikon a few months after I'd shot it with a NEX 6, the Nikon seemed to have much less detail on distant objects. The colours in both video and stills always tended towards a greenish tint. There was no way to control highlights, and so brightly lit things in dark scenes would often blow out despite the generally great dynamic range. You can see the effect of this here:

I think this should have been two different articles Andrew...

Thanks for the review, I am in some ways as anoyed as you about Nikon having all the tech but not using it to the fullest. I have been saying it for ages, if they want to make a splash in video world, they should do some revolutionary steps like at least internal 10 bit high bitrate or even raw nowadays. But credit should be given to them where it is due. I think that Nikon thought that giving uncompressed hdmi out 2 years ago would have done the trick, but unfortunately they could not guest that, most other manufacturer would follow rapidly and that Blackmagic and ML would follow. Taking them outside of the highlight. But in the mean time they have been constantly updating there camera to sampling more pixel and downscaling to get rid of moire/aliasing and giving very good low light and now adding 60fps at 1080p. More so that they are implementing those tech in there entry level camera first, not afraid to cannibalize there higher end camera at least in the video side. That is why you find yourself in the situation as you mentioned in your article that the low end camera is better than the higher end one. Would you have preferred that they keep that tech until they update the D4, D800, D600 and D7100. They are actually updating their camera line with the expeed 4 and a new D4s has been announced and we can expect a D7200 in the near future. The only problem is the Sony based Sensor D800 and D610 which might only do line skipping and that is perhaps why Nikon has been abandoning Sony sensors. You have also been comparing the D5300 against a plethora of other cameras and each of them with their fort. The D5300 does not beat any of them at one thing but it might be todays most balance camera in the DSLR world. It might not match the 13 stop of DR of the pocket, But it matches by your say in Proress mode and so should be 1 to 1.5 stop better than the Canons. But it has a Cine 35 mm sensor, no ugly moire/aliasing and will surely beat it in low light and you can do good slow motion. You could even add an external recorder to get high bitrate. Talking about external recorder, I have a Ninja with my D7100 and it really completes the Nikons, apart from the obvious high bitrate, you get peaking, false colour, zebras, sound monitoring in a very compact package. I think the d7200 will be the Nikon camera to get shortly for photo/video hybrid Nikon users. The body will be much better in terms of button and construction. I don't know why the D5200/D5300 (perhaps Nikon doin it deliberately to differentiate camera), But the D7100 is nearly as sharp as a gh2. With a Ninja it is even sharper. My guess is that a D7200 would be very very close to a Canon C100 and have equal functionality with a Ninja with the added bonus of 60p for 1/3 the price. Again I would have liked Nikon to be bolder, but this camera might not be better than any other camera in any specific domain, but it is good to very good in nearly every aspect of a camera. It would have been very nice to see it on one of your chart/scene to be able to compare it with the other cameras.

Is this really an appreciable percentage of the market? Professional photographers/videographers who need a sub-$800 camera with which they can reliably shoot stock quality stills and video?

If the Anamorphot looks too clinical, pair it with a taking lens that has some soul like the Trumps. Edwin's footage looked pretty good on full frame with the Zeiss. Also bear in mind it's a $899 anamorphic not a $3000 Iscorama. And the flare heavily depends on the light you're using to flare it with. A lot of LED lights are actually multiple bulbs and they don't create a nice flare at all.   Everyone is entitled to their opinion :)

It's actually 100% the shooter, 100% the editor and 100% the camera :)