New Nikon D5300 with Expeed 4

[Aussie Ash]

Had a closer look at the benefits and implications of going the Canon/Magic Lantern path

and came to the conclusion "not for me at this stage".

Just purchased a 5300 .So far very pleased with it ,no sign of the fixed pattern noise,video quality 

has exceeded my expectations,great in low light ,50P is quite smooth .Interesting that Gordon Laing

measured the 1080p60 High quality footage at an average bit rate of 35 Mbps wheras the 5200 was

24mbps at high.

Flip out screen is nice and crisp and can still be read when you eyes are at a sharp angle to the screen,

I had trouble focusing with the screen on my old Canon HV30.

The user manual is 84 pages and whilst is adequate for stills photography there is only two pages

on recording movies !! Nikon should get their act together they are leaving purchasers in the dark

about the settings available for high quality video.

Only power supply is the battery and charger ,an external power supply is available from Nikon or

just get more batteries ,apparently there is a firmware update so that 5200s can take 5300 batteries.

 

More to come in a few days,having fun !!

[skiphunt]

Among the few excellent videos Brandon Li has made with the D5200, check out this short film made with the D5200 as well. If the D5300 exceeds this quality, at a low price point without the need for a tedious prores/raw workflow, loads of storage and fast computer, then I'll be quite satisfied with it. Check this out:

[Nikkor]

Horrible nikon yellow on the skins, it's no problem with raw but on JPG and h264 it's a pain in the ass. I've tried to fix this making my own picture style but nikon doesn't give you the options.

[skiphunt]

Horrible nikon yellow on the skins, it's no problem with raw but on JPG and h264 it's a pain in the ass. I've tried to fix this making my own picture style but nikon doesn't give you the options.

 

First off... I don't see any "horrible nikon yellow" the skin tones look fairly accurate to me. Second, yes... a raw workflow certainly has it's benefits and is extremely versatile. For some of us, the gains are not worth all the extra time, software, storage, and computer speed needed to squeeze that extra range out. Yes, I'm sure for some of you it's worth it. But, for those who're looking for the best we can get without having all the raw workflow costs and baggage, the D5300 and RX10 are looking to be very viable contenders.

[Aussie Ash]

The 5300 has six picture control options. if you choose "Portrait" the sharpening,contrast,brightness,

saturation and hue can be all adjusted and named and saved as a color profile.

 

Here is a guy that has downloadable picture controls

 

www.similaar.com/foto/flaat-picture-controls/index.html

[Nikkor]

Look at the guys face, he looks like he is ill, I know the problem, it was even worse on older nikons (D3 is terrible at JPGs)

I have a d800 and you can't fix the yellow error with HUE control, in ACR you can load camera profiles which correct this very easily, if nikon nx picture style creator would let you fix the debayer color matrix it would be great but it doesn't. I also tried to replicate a nice Log curve I created with the Adobe tool but there is no way to do so, whites still get crushed without nice rolloff and underexposing just gets you a terrible amount of noise in the shadows. If there were a way to import a good camera profile into the nikons it would bring them a lot closer to BMCC/BMPCC prores. You could even surpass the final quality because if you have a very rigid style you can just record with a few preset styles very close to the final result and the nikon sensors are way better than anything else we have around (not taking pro-grade film cameras into account).

[skiphunt]

Look at the guys face, he looks like he is ill, I know the problem, it was even worse on older nikons (D3 is terrible at JPGs)

I have a d800 and you can't fix the yellow error with HUE control, in ACR you can load camera profiles which correct this very easily, if nikon nx picture style creator would let you fix the debayer color matrix it would be great but it doesn't. I also tried to replicate a nice Log curve I created with the Adobe tool but there is no way to do so, whites still get crushed without nice rolloff and underexposing just gets you a terrible amount of noise in the shadows. If there were a way to import a good camera profile into the nikons it would bring them a lot closer to BMCC/BMPCC prores. You could even surpass the final quality because if you have a very rigid style you can just record with a few preset styles very close to the final result and the nikon sensors are way better than anything else we have around (not taking pro-grade film cameras into account).

 

With regard to the skin tone in the sample above only... yes, the guys tone looks off, but the woman's skin tone is very good. If it were the camera's profile, both would be off... so, it's likely the guy just has an olive/yellowish natural skin tone (or bad makeup) the woman's tone is very lovely throughout so I don't think it's the Nikon to blame in this case.

 

I don't think anyone here is implying that you can get the same level of control with as raw/prores. There's no doubt you can do amazing things with incredible control using the 5DMk3, BMPCC, etc. That's a given.

 

But, for those who're not willing to jump through the extra hoops, and invest in more powerful computers, software, storage, etc. not to mention all the extra time and money... then, I think some of the options like the D5300 and RX10 may get you plenty close enough for most real world projects without all the hassle.

[Danyyyel]

Nikon does a niche $ 3000 camera just for photographers without video and the world wide web of video shooters bloggers etc. erupt in anger. Predicting its downfall etc. with all type of silly argument that the company will disapeer etc.

 

Nikon release a camera which is truly hd resolution, looks like having no moire/aliasing, very good low light that will challenge the 5dmark3 and DR in the 12 stop range. They eliminate the big problem that plague its predecessors like banding, added 60 fps at full 1080p and no ones talk about it. This shows you how silly people are, from pseudo expert and bloggers that only look at the spectacular and not the concrete things. More so that if it follow the other latest Nikon camera trend you could add an external recorder to film with 220 4.4.2 prores.

 

The closest you could compare it to is the Canon $600/12000 C100/C300 and both of them don't give you 1080p at 60 fps. For sure they have other qualities for video but this D5300 is only $ 800 and can take gorgeous 24 megapixel photos with 14 stop of Dynamic range.

[Danyyyel]

My D5300 will be here Nov 27th.

 

I plan on setting it up for 1080P at 60 fps.

I have a BlackMagic Shuttle II to record uncompressed RAW

a Ninja II to record DNxHD 36 (probably more like 72Mbps).

and a Camax HD external monitor.

 

I will be hooking them all up at once and comparing footage to my D800e and V1.

 

@RRRoger, Hi tell us your experience. I have a D7100 and a Ninja 2. The first thing I noticed is that the Ninja footage is that there is a jump in resolution and a little more detail in the shadows and it is better to get rid of the Fix pattern noise. If the D5300 hdmi output is uncompressed and 4.2.2  I would invest in one so that I don't have to deal with the fpn and the 60p.

[Danyyyel]

With regard to the skin tone in the sample above only... yes, the guys tone looks off, but the woman's skin tone is very good. If it were the camera's profile, both would be off... so, it's likely the guy just has an olive/yellowish natural skin tone (or bad makeup) the woman's tone is very lovely throughout so I don't think it's the Nikon to blame in this case.

 

I don't think anyone here is implying that you can get the same level of control with as raw/prores. There's no doubt you can do amazing things with incredible control using the 5DMk3, BMPCC, etc. That's a given.

 

But, for those who're not willing to jump through the extra hoops, and invest in more powerful computers, software, storage, etc. not to mention all the extra time and money... then, I think some of the options like the D5300 and RX10 may get you plenty close enough for most real world projects without all the hassle.

 

Yes I think it is definetly his skin tone or makeup which is getting the guy a more olive green colour. For me Nikon produce some very good jpg and these can be corrected in 2 sec in any grading software. A little colder white balance etc.

[Danyyyel]

@skiphunt, I can't understand too much you choice between the D5300 and Sony Rx10. One cannot even be categorised at a large sensor camera while the other one is a Cinema 3d mm sensor size. The fix lens at 2.8 on such a smallish sensor will be more like f7/f8 on an Apsc size sensor. Compare that to the Nikon where you can add some very fast primes or the superb Sigma 17-35 1.8 zoom. Even if you put the more common extended zoom like the 18-140 f 3.5/56 you will still have more light than the 2.8 on the Rx10. There are also some very good variable ND now for not too much money. For me one is only good if you want camcorder type of image and flexibility and the other one much more cinema type quality image with a little less flexibility. For me they are very very different type of camera and for very very different use.

[dahlfors]

Have you tried viewing on some other monitors? Some monitors exagerrate certain colors while they downplay others.

It's only in some certain shots where his color is off on my Macbook Pro and on my HP LP2475w monitor. On the other shots the skin tone looks correct (with his skin tone being a SLIGHT bit more yellow than the woman's). Looks like it is either 1) colour bouncing off something, or 2) wrong white balance on some shots.

Canon seems to be praised for the skin colors all around the net. What I see up here in Sweden on the nordic skin tones, is that Canon stills & movies are oversaturated out of the box, and skin tones aren't people's true skin tones. It rather looks like they've gotten a fake tan painted on their faces and saturation upped a few steps. Some people enjoy that I guess. Personally I like to shoot natural/neutral colors, and that's where Nikon's profiles are closer, if white balance is set correctly.

I don't have much experience with other kinds of skin tones though, people up here tend to be pale and tend to show up with their natural look, be it in h.264 clips or raw stills.

[Michiel78]

Very interesting discussing. I'd like a new camera for traveling next year. Video is main objective, but good stills are a bonus too. Needs to be small. And I'm looking for an organic, filmic look.

 

RX10 looks very promising, all-in-one package, relatively small. I assume it's better for video than for photography. Seen some footage, but what's been said here as well, the footage has a sterile video-like quality to me. A little bit the same as the Panasonics, which also have that strange sterile look to me.

 

D5300 is a strong contender too. Quite small, even with just one or two lenses a little less flexible than the RX10, but: less flexibility stimulates more creativity. Large sensor, choices of lenses (albeit not as much as mirrorless mounts). Also a very, very nice stills camera! I'm leaning to this camera!

 

BMPCC was my first choice but it seems it's still a v1.0 camera, which needs so much extra gear I think it's no longer practical...

 

X100S seems great for stills, but no word on video-functions...

[skiphunt]

@Danyyyel, the reason I'm considering the RX10 is because the first project I want to shoot will likely be while traveling with a backpack in Mexico. Ideally, I'd prefer to have someone very talented shoot it for me and let them carry all the gear and play with all the raw/prores conversions, storage, extra gear, etc. However, the reality is... that the subject matter and project are of high-risk, ie. the content may be completely uninteresting to all but a few. This means, it's not likely I'd be able to raise the funds for a larger production with hired crew. 

 

I think I have an idea of an alternate, hybrid way to go about it and creatively use some style that doesn't require the dynamic range of a raw/prores system. It may be that I can at least get a couple extra people to help, but I'm preparing for the worse case scenario, ie. that I have to do all the shooting and pay for it myself. This is the most likely scenario by the way. ;)

 

So, keep in mind that I'll be working solo and carrying everything I need on my back including clothes, batteries, storage, etc. for at least a months time. Keep in mind also that I don't want to have to many variables that can go wrong. I want to know for sure I've got what I need without having to grade it first on location, before I move on to the next location. 

 

Also, I don't want to attract too much attention. I want to look as much like some tourist making a home video to avoid the usual questions regarding permits or looking so "professional" that it attracts thieves. 

 

I've narrowed it down to the D5300 and the RX10 for the following reasons.

 

The RX10 is small, has a headphone jack and audio level monitoring so that I wouldn't necessarily have to use a separate audio recorder. Sony has long made small recorders with excellent low-noise preamps. I don't know if the RX10 incorporates excellent preamps or not. 

 

The RX10 also has a nice lens range for most uses. I've used a small sensor Nikon P7700 compact camera while traveling, and it's range of 28-200 was just about right across the board. Used on this recent moto trip: http://skiphuntphoto.com/moto-southwest-2013

 

With the RX10, I wouldn't need to bring extra lenses, it's got a click less aperture ring built-in, the image stabilization and auto-focus appear to be very good and accurate on the tests I've seen so far. On paper, this camera meets all of my needs. I practice, from what I've seen so far... the footage looks like it was shot with a video camera and does not have a cinematic, organic look at all. It's definitely sharp and pristine, and the stills look good up to about ISO1600, but the video stuff looks sterile and flat. It may be a talented colorist could pull more out of it though, but I'm guessing that smaller sensor is to blame. 

 

Still, it would make producing my project on my own so much more easy than doing it with the D5300 that would require a dual sound system, tripod for stabilization, and relying solely on manual focussing since it's AF appears to be nearly useless. 

 

The D5300 is attractive to me because it's only $800... I already have other Nikon glass and SB strobes... so far, it appears that the D5300 is capable of producing a very impressive detailed image in very low light, even beyond iso 6400. This means I'll be able to utilize natural light and reflectors more often than not. The D5300 also appears to be cable of producing an organic/cinematic image with the right lenses. And, it is certainly capable of producing very fine still images that I plan to incorporate into the project as well.

 

Neither of these cameras will require I buy tons of more storage, a faster computer to process raw/prores files, or spend loads of time tweaking grades. 

 

Ultimately, I want to have the best possible image with the least amount of light, and have the freedom to stylize the look with a variety of glass. And have a kit that requires the least amount of extra computing power and storage. If I see proof that the RX10 can produce an organic/cinematic image that doesn't look like a very sharp digital video camera... then I'd have to seriously consider the RX10. My guess is that when it comes to the pure image in low light with detail and low non-distracting noise, with my stated constraints.... the D5300 will likely serve me better. 

 

I don't know the right answer to be honest. All I know is that I don't want to get distracted by all the extra variable that go into a current raw/prores work flow. I'm posting stuff here because I'm interested in those who pay attention to the pixel minutia, etc. all the time, to tell me I'm wrong, why I'm wrong, and what would be a better solution. So far, going by my own parameters and budget... it looks like either the RX10 or D5300 could work just fine. Which is great, because I'm looking forward to getting my head out of the pixel-peeping pool and out into the shooting world with whichever camera I pull the trigger on. :)

[BrunoCH]

I think skin tones are very good on a D5200. On Mai 13, I got some issues with the daylight who changes all the time. Juan Miguel wasn't ill but he's a South American and he needs sun after a long winter in Paris. 

You can check skin tone on this samples : Some secondes (in and out point and save as... in MpegStreamclip) of original D5200 files.

127,1 mo ; 7 differents skin tones. (green tone on the DSC 0178 is a wall green reflexion)

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rhrbyk21m5v6xdg/x8qhi7ZPft

 

If D5300 doesn't produce FPN, I want one.

[skiphunt]

Just found the first docu-narrative-journo piece using the RX10 in a few of the same conditions I'd be using it. Although, the footage mostly looks very good for an "all-in-one", the fellow who made it was less than thrilled with it's performance overall. His issues are related to what I suspected would be issues. Looks like another plus in the D5300 column for me. 

 

Here's the video:

 

Here's his thoughts of the RX10 in real world use: http://***URL not allowed***/news/?p=22136

[Michiel78]

I understand you, skiphunt! I'm in the same boat, although I don't need the camera for work, just for fun as I'm trekking in New Zealand coming year and I intend to make a small film of it, in the style of Brandon Li (rungunshoot.com). Having mostly filmed my travels with an ordinary videocamera, I really want the organic look, something like the BMPCC can provide (but unfortunately needs to much gear).

 

What I really like about the RX10 are stabilization (although it's said to introduce moire; see slashcam reports), autofocus (even though I'm always falling for AF because it seems so handy, many pro's do it without. And I myself am in a constant battle with the AF of my regular cams so I think its time to skip it altogether... although something like focus peaking would be very welcome then, don't know if thats available on the D5300). So in the end, two important arguments for the RX10 seem to become less valid. And most importantly, until I see some graded real life footage softening the sterile RX10 look, I tend to go with the D5300...

 

(I heard something about Panasonics upcoming organic sensor with an amazing DR, perhaps thats what the future GH4 and RX10's going to need).

[Guest c2dd7b52878779b55f43cc8c269267c1]

So far, going by my own parameters and budget... it looks like either the RX10 or D5300 could work just fine. Which is great, because I'm looking forward to getting my head out of the pixel-peeping pool and out into the shooting world with whichever camera I pull the trigger on. :)

 

I really think all you travelling guys that are torn between the RX10 and D5300 should be looking seriously at the Panny G6. It falls between the two: it's a really small, very complete system, has an EVF (so no large loupe needed), focus peaking, 60p, decent onboard audio (& levels) and interchangeable lens mount - tiny MFT lenses if you need small, but can take pretty much any lens you already have or want to buy so you don't need to invest in MFT glass. It's good in low light - not as good as D5300 but I would guess better or the same as RX10. But of course you can put fast primes on it - and if you need it to be even better there is the option of the Speed Booster (which also improves organic look no end). 

 

Skip, I don't want to make your decision more complicated, but having read what you want to do and talked to you at length, I really think you should consider this camera. For around the same price or less (?) of the RX10, you can buy a G6 and Nikon-to-MFT Speed Booster. You then have all your current Nikon glass to put on it. It has most of the benefits of the RX10, takes very good stills, and particularly with the Speed Booster has the organic look and wide-aperture possibilities of an APS-C (S.B. also gives the bonus of clickless aperture). It's very small and functions like a proper video camera. It has no significant moire or aliasing problems. Resolution is unbelievable. If I was doing what you are wanting to and had both cameras, I would leave my D5300 at home and take my G6. For sure.

For some reason a lot of people aren't drawn to Panasonic cameras, but it is SUPERB. EOSHD has good reviews of both the G6 and the Speed Booster. Check them out. I have a Lumix 14mm f2.5 to cover the wide end, but otherwise I use entirely Nikon glass with a Speed Booster and it works like a dream. I haven't got a lot of G6 stuff online yet, but if you'd like to see something let me know and I'll send you a link with pw. It's gives the same image as the GH2 (think how much great indie stuff has been filmed on that camera), but is much improved in the shadows/low light and doesn't need a hack. Check out this low light vid Brandon shot on his old GH2 (it's funny too):

 

 

The only reason I'm looking at the D5300 is because I need a second camera and it offers something a bit different.

[xenogears]

Recently i owned a D5200, the only positive thing i can say about it is that the video quality is good, but i prefer the Lumix GH3, video quality is great, a much better roughed body and weather sealed no bigger that the D5200, excellent lens selection, audio also is very good and can be monitored too, no time limit recording on the NTSC model, more video codecs to choice from, i don't have problem with the EVF but some does.

[Guest c2dd7b52878779b55f43cc8c269267c1]

Recently i owned a D5200, the only positive thing i can say about it is that the video quality is good, but i prefer the Lumix GH3, video quality is great, a much better roughed body and weather sealed no bigger that the D5200, excellent lens selection, audio also is very good and can be monitored too, no time limit recording on the NTSC model, more video codecs to choice from, i don't have problem with the EVF but some does.

 

No doubt the GH3 is a very awesome camera, but it is considerably more expensive than the G6 and considerably bigger. The G6's image is very close to the GH3's and its file sizes are smaller. The G6 EVF is better, and it has focus peaking. 

 

Considering we're talking about someone who needs a small camera for travelling, has a certain budget in mind and isn't wanting to do much grading, it's hard to argue that the GH3 is the better option. Yes the GH3 has a headphone jack, but that's one expensive feature if it's the only reason you choose it over the G6. And you'd be sacrificing other features: the focus peaking and good EVF are extremely useful if you're using non-MFT lenses. The GH3 was within my budget but I went for the G6 for similar reasons. I use a small Sony audio recorder (SX1000) Velcro'ed to the side of the camera (and a Sennheiser MKE400) if I need audio monitoring and decent pre-amps with a small footprint.

 

Also, the D5300 is smaller, much lighter and has a more robust body ('monocoque') than the D5200. So the GH3 would be the bigger, weightier option in either case. I'd also find it hard to pay the premium for the GH3 when it will probably be superseded in the GH line with some major spec upgrades in the not-too-distant future (GH5). It is obviously a brilliant camera, and actually at a very good price now, I just don't think it's a very pragmatic choice for certain people right now.