tpr

I've tested them side by side and found that for video, the noise handling on the D5300 is definitely much better than on the D5200, especially at higher ISOs. The improvement appears to be specific to video though because the stills are about the same in that regard. I suspect the faster processor in the D5300 has allowed more sophisticated down-sampling algorithms to be applied to the signal coming off the sensor at the speed needed for video.

It depends on the subject matter but I've been getting around 37Mbps on the D5300 when shooting at 50fps. It might go as high as 40 for more detailed images or when shooting at 60fps. If the figure you cite is for 50/60fps, then the D3300 and D5300 seem to be comparable. If you're talking about 24/25/30fps, then that's something else. I'm getting around 20Mbps on the D5300 at 25fps, and the same on the D5200.

Graded in Lightroom 5.

  Reminds me a bit of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpUNA2nutbk

Steps to becoming a fanboy/girl (or any kind of ideologue): 1. Invest time, money or effort into something 2. Ignore all evidence that might subsequently call the wisdom of that investment into question so as to maintain faith in one's own judgement   This doesn't work for people who would rather weed out the mistakes in their beliefs than cling to an illusion of infallibility.

  But they do show aesthetic aspects, just not directly. Things like sharpness, noise and dynamic range are trivially correlated with aesthetic judgements, so controlled measurements of these properties are much more useful for comparisons than trying to generalize about the character of different cameras by watching finished films produced under different conditions by different film makers.   In principle, any aesthetic quality that is sufficiently well understood can be measured scientifically.

  They're in 1080p and uploaded by someone who reviews the camera in a separate video. You can clearly see he has the rx10 in that video, so the samples are unlikely to be fake.   They appear to be all too real, unfortunately.

The D5300 will also be the first Nikon with the Expeed 4 processor, which might give it enough power to do more intelligent real time processing of sensor output when recording video. One can hope.

Andrew, did you see that Nikon announced the D5300 yesterday with 60p 1080 video? I remember you thought the D5200 compared favorably with the Canon 5D III for video (before the magic lantern raw era).

The high data rate/storage issue seems to be one that Sony already have a solution for. Many of their consumer handycams have internal solid state memory, and some have quite a lot of it like the HDR-XR260VE with a 160GB HDD built into it. An internal storage solution could be very useful for raw video, if only as a buffer to cope with delays writing to cards.

The battery is compatible with the Nikon EN-EL20, and Nikon's version and most other third party versions of this battery are rated at 1020mAh, which is at least a little better than the 800mAh battery supplied with the BMPCC.

  My point isn't about harm done to businesses. They have risk-free return policies (even in regions where they're not legally mandated) because they're attractive to customers. In the end, they profit by having them. But testing gear still has a cost, and if you don't pay it in the form of a rental, it gets offset onto everyone else by way of increased prices.

  This is pretty unethical. If you return goods that you've tested, retailers can no longer sell them as new. Because of the lost profits that entails, retailers bump up their prices to compensate. And the more people do it, the worse it gets.   If you want to test a camera before you buy it, the ethical way is to rent it or to play around with an in-store demo model.

[attachment=602:bm_pocket_sample_sm-2.jpg]

  ...at the cost of making motion appear extremely jittery.