dahlfors

If you want to go the lowest possible budget on lenses, I'd recommend Nikon 18-55mm for allround usage, and the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G and Nikon 50mm f/1.8G for getting shots in low light or with good depth-of-field separation between a person and the background. Cinegains recommendation on the Nikon 35-70 and Tokina 28-70 are probably very worthy to look at reviews of. I haven't shot with either lens, and hence I have no opinions about them, but they surely sound like good budget options.

The 18-70mm isn't too good actually. Long focal range, but not too sharp of a lens. It worked nicely on the older low megapixel cameras, but it's unsharp on the new high megapixel cameras. So, for still photos on a D5xx, there are better alternatives. For 1080p video, I guess the lens would perform well enough. But - it doesn't perform too well in lowlight, and it does not have VR, so I think you'd be better off with the 18-55mm kit lens. I've shot with both lenses, and I'd prefer the 18-55 any day.

The 18-55mm kit lens is not the lens to choose when you need to shoot in less good light conditions - or when you want a shallow depth of field. However, it is a pretty good allround and sharp kit lens for a low cost. It has VR (Vibration Reduction, Nikons image stabilisation in lenses), which can be useful for both video and photos. Also, it focuses very closely compared to most other Nikon lenses, which makes it useful if you need to get a closeup shot of something. For its cost, it's well worth to have it. Buy it as a kit lens, or buy it used - used ones usually go for around 50-80 euros.

Yes, D5300/D5500 are good options since you are already used to handling a D7200. Any additional money is better to put on lenses / other equipment you might need. Consider camera body something that you will upgrade in a few years, hence it's wise to put less money on the camera body when you're starting out. Lenses, tripods and such will usually last a very long time. My advice to beginners is always to buy good optics from start and to put less money on the camera body. If you want some alternatives and have the opportunity to try other cameras in a store, I suggest you take a look at the Panasonic models GX7, G6/G7, and the Sony A6000. All of the above mentioned cameras have good quality at 1080p, what matters more is that you feel comfortable handling them. If you get a D5300 / D5500, the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 would be a great allround zoom, from fairly wide to normal focal length. Besides that lens you might want to get a 50mm f/1.8G for portrait shots. Those are my two AF lens recommendations on a budget (and should be fitting your mentioned budget as well).

There's been a few channels on youtube posting fake camera sample videos when cameras are released (probably to get ad views). Chances are that this is one of those channels.

The few times I order something from abroad to save money I order it online - and still pay European tax and toll import. I've saved a bit of money on Nikon batteries and a Metabones Speedbooster this way. I wouldn't do it with a more expensive product, could get messy to deal with it in case of product defects... Electronics sometimes have a slightly higher price in the EU, due to EU requiring 2 year warranty on all electronic equipment. Same products often have only 1 year warranty in other countries. If you do direct import yourself, you won't have this kind of warranty.

​Nikon's RAW compression isn't lossy in as Sony's, you are comparing apples to oranges. With Nikon's 12-bit vs 14-bit formats you'll see a difference in certain kind of photos like the color nuances in landscape photography. Nikon's compression however is lossless compression, so you won't see a difference from uncompressed. Sony on the other hand is using a lossy RAW compression method, so any comparison you've done on a Nikon only counts for Nikon, not Sony. The way Sony has implemented it, it will produce visible image artefacts in the wrong conditions. If Sony adds uncompressed/lossless compressed 12-bit/14-bit raw files it will get fixed - and it sounds like they've started to listen to the user feedback.

​Considering Sony just launched 3 cameras capable of 4k and compared to the older A5100/A6000, I think the following are safe bets: - XAVC-S - 4k (24p, 25p, 30p) - 1080p (24p, 25p, 30p, 50p, 60p) - Since it will be placed above A6000, it will have EVF (which A5100 lacks) Further possibilities: - The earlier alpha series (and nex series) didn't have any modes with higher frame than 60p. Maybe they will add it now, since the other consumer cameras got higher frame rates. - Nex-7 had 24 Mpixel sensor, A6000 has 24 Mpixel sensor. Guess it could be expected to be in that range for A7000 too. Details have been scarce at sonyalpharumors.com. Latest rumors were that the camera is delayed due to issues with overheating, but that it will likely be announced during summer.

Guess Sony going 4k with these cameras means that the rumored upcoming A6xx / A7xx model will also feature internal 4k. Keeping my hopes up for some high frame rate modes for that one as well...

​Correct. Nikon have had sensors capable of 4k for a quite a while. What they don't have: the image processing needed for 4k. They're working on getting there, and it is likely that they will aim for 4k in the next generation. But there are no guarantees.

Beautiful!

Prove? Where's that proof? I think those are graded quite a bit... I've seen A7S video from Brandon Li (same guy who shot the first video you linked) having the same characteristic skin colors from Sony: too green, too much yellow, too little magenta. There's also some shots in that Go Cuba where there's too much green in skin color. People might prefer more magenta or more yellow skin colors, but I've rarely heard of people who want their skin colors to look green. Personally I count that into the category of bad colors out of the box, although it most of the time can be corrected.

Astounding to see how good an affordable an upper entry level camera can be today. I shot a lot of photos with an old D200, and the colors in a still photo at ISO1600 on that camera would not have been as good as the colors in that video at ISO25600.

He's been off now and then earlier as well. He probably has a personal life with work, vacation etc besides running this site as well Probably just busy. If you check his profile, he was last in here 14 hours ago, http://www.eoshd.com/comments/profile/1-andrew-reid/

I got recommended the "Color Correction Handbook: Professional Techniques for Video and Cinema" by Alexis van Hurkman on this forum a long time ago. That book has certainly taught me a few things.

I kind of agree with fuzzy. My own profession is design (web / print / mobile apps), and I also have a background in traditional arts. If I work with web / screen as output, I have certain limitations due to the medium, if I work with print I have other limitations. If I paint with water colors instead of crayons, ink or acrylic paint - I have different limitations. Not mattering the limitations, I can still produce beautiful art works within the constraints of each medium. My own outlook on cameras is similar. Every camera will have some kind of limitation or constraint, it's up to me to find out how I can achieve the best results with the constraints the equipment has - in a style that I personally enjoy. Whenever a client is involved, my own style should also be adjusted to fit the needs of the client. Better image quality, resolution, higher fps etc and all the advancements with cameras are great - because they open up new possibilities to further learn and experiment. But they aren't always a necessity. If there's a constraint and a limitation, there's almost always another way to find an interesting way to express something.

Looks great! Would be neat to see how that method looks in motion. You wouldn't happen to have that clip online somewhere?

Thanks for the input guys, the GH cameras sure sound like a good match for this!

I love the outdoors. Sometimes I go hiking and I'm off the grid for a while. With D800 and a few batteries I get pretty far with both video and photo. A full frame DSLR + lenses aren't the most carry friendly cameras though, so I'm considering smaller cameras. What mirrorless cameras can shoot videos & photos the longest on a single battery? I'm thinking of micro-four thirds / APS-C sized sensors, preferably some of the smaller/lighter models about the size of GX7 / A6000 or such.

Compressing the raw files sounds like heavy processing to do at 24 fps, yes. Maybe it's feasible. I think it depends on what else is eating processing resources at the same time. Since D800 can output 36 Mpixel @ 4fps = 144 Mpixels processed per second in compressed raw, the processor should probably be able to process 2.8 Mpixel (2240x1260) @ 24fps = 67 Mpixels processed per second. ...and of course, this is high level speculation. It's all dependent on nikonhackers being able to understand more of the firmware/hardware better. Patching binaries isn't the easiest way of doing development.

Anyway, on topic of future possibility of raw recording: Lexar Professional 1066x 32GB and SanDisk Extreme Pro 160MB/s 32GB memory cards have been tested to have write speeds just above 70 MB/s on Nikon D800 (source: http://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/nikon-d800/fastest-memory-sd-cf-card-tests/) Compare this to the calculations for the D5100 live view feed from user leegong at nikonhacker: If the D800 live view feed is about the same resolution, it might be doable to write the raw live feed on the fastest memory cards at 24 fps. I doubt that the Nikon cameras which only have SD slots can reach the same write speeds, so I assume some kind of cropping to a lower resolution of the live view feed would be necessary on those cameras if you want to reach 24 fps.

One film that I love, but that has always annoyed me with its jittery motion (only in some shots though) is Art of Flight. Some of the jitter can be seen here on the YouTube trailer, and it looks like that when the original is played back without smoothing on television/computer too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh29_SERH0Y And that's a film that is shot with high end equipment: http://www.artofflightmovie.com/news/permalink.php?aid=43 I still have no idea why the motion looks so stuttering in some of the wide opening shots in that film (which is a shame, due to the beauty of the film). I don't like the motion from my NEX-5 at all, but how good the motion looks seems to depend on the scenes, so I think it's a codec-related issue. I guess the same goes for a lot of lower end low bitrate cameras.

Andrew, I have read EOSHD quite a while now, and I like it - especially since you usually do not use the over the top sensational titles like many sites today do. "Nikon hackers make progress with RAW video", "RAW video on Nikon cameras soon?" or something in the line of that would have been closer to what's going in the nikonhackers.org community. I used to read nofilmschool in the earlier days too, but I kinda grew tired of that site, a big part of that being their sensationalism/content-less articles. What I'd personally like to see here on EOSHD, is if you keep on doing reviews just the way you've been doing earlier. In general your headlines and articles are spot on - and it's interesting to read your findings and experiences with cameras, softwares, methods etc. Cheers!

MTF charts are tough to interpret for beginners. Not sure if one number alone would tell enough about a lens though. One simple way of presenting it would be to split it up into three numbers: center point resolution (best case), edge resolution (worst case), and then an average resolution based on a number of samples taken from edge to center of the lens. This could tell quite a bit without having it presented only in a MTF chart.

What a bit of creative editing and the right soundtrack can do... (This is not mine, but I love it!)