Nikon D5300 Review and why DSLRs are dead for video

[tosvus]

you wasted a lot of effort proving my point, and clearly not having understood my original remark. Dslr sales are largely driven by stills photographers. I was talking about the filmmaking community.

 

 

Besides, while Americans are a bit slow to adopt in general (bigger is better syndrome), we will start coming around eventually, I have no worries about that.

Hi tosvus it should be the mirroless crowd who should be afraid >

 

As you can see from the latest numbers the sale of Mirrorless is down by 47% while the dslr only by 12%. So if I was you I would be a bit concern because Panasonic has given an ultimatum to all its branches, either you get profitable or we close the section down. I am sure that I will still be able to buy Nikon cameras in 10 to 20 years. By then they perhaps will have but some evf in place of the mirror system, but I am not loosing my full frame d800 quality optical viewfinder for some video geekness. There is a plethora  of other ways from back lcd with a loupe and external monitor or evf to use. They, and I completely understand them, are not going to alienate millions of photographers that cater for 95% of their business to put today's inferior evf comparer to optical viewfinder.

 

I feel dumb to write what I wrote above, because I think that Panasonic is doing a fantastic job with the gh line, but it was... For soccer mum ... when people have been doing fantastic job with much lesser Canon cameras the last 7 years.

[jurgen]

Well, because they are a photographic company with no dedicated film division. You could ask yourself the same with Arri; why are they so allergic to photo cameras?

Arri doesn't include a stills photo mode on their cameras, and their top management isn't quoted in interviews as saying, "Stills were a major design focus on the Amira." Arri makes cinema cameras for a highly specific field of work. Nikon designed the D5300 as a "hybrid" camera aimed at a consumer market that values both stills and videos. It isn't simply a semantic difference.

[Damphousse]

Canon just released a BRAND NEW digital SLR. The Canon T5/1200D. It's the obselete 550D with:
-a much lower res. screen (400k)
-Smaller viewfinder
-Absent Self-cleaning sensor
-Weaker/plasticier body with the memory Card slot underneath
-Absent microphone input!
-Slower Con. shooting.
And oh, they'll be selling that for 600$

They basically took an old obselete camera, AND took out significant features, put it on sale for a higher price.

Remember when entry-level buyers were comparing the 550D to the Nikon D3100? So Yes, Nikon is two full generations ahead!

So at least Nikon IS upgrading their line-up very well. With the D3300 they gave us in this time frame (between 3100&3300) lack of moire/aliasing, huge Dynamic range pump, 1080 at 60p, clean HDMI out, higher resolution screens, headphone jacks, not to mention photographic upgardes,
While in the same time frame Canon gave us nothing. Not a single thing. None. Zero.

Nikon is the wrong company to rant about at this particular point to be honest. They don't have to give us 4K or otherwise they're crap. It's silly. They in fact created the near-perfect video DSLR with the d5300 putting ergonomics aside. and The D7000/600/800/4 upgrades will be fixing those ergonomic issues very soon.

This article should be redone for the Canon t5/1200D. While the d5300 should get a proper review with technical insight and comparisons, you know, like a camera review! :)

 

C'mon, man!  If you are going to make a point, make it.  Don't post stuff you know is 100% false.  The MSRP for the T5 is $550 WITH kit lens.  And those kit lenses easily sell for $100 on Craigslist.  So even if for some strange reason you wish to pay MRSP you can get that camera for $450 once you dispose of the kit lens.

 

I agree with Andrew's overall thesis.  If you want solid video and you can pay a minimum of $2,000-$3,000 it seems increasingly a DSLR isn't your go to choice.  Having said that if you want to spend $400 you can get a refurbished T3i with one year warranty for $300 and a f/1.8 nifty fifty lens for $100 and be shooting some nice low light beautiful bokeh videos with a little help from our friends at magic lantern.  That's the situation I find myself in.  I am a photography hobbyist.  I already have Canon glass.  And for me to jump into the video world all I needed was $300 for a Canon T3i.

 

The number of people that are going to drop $800 on a Nikon 5300 is going to be less compared to the number of people that have purchased a T3i.  But when you want to talk about small numbers I just don't see the average person buying a $1,500+ camera (body only) just for video.  Most people have never heard of black magic.  Most people would scoff at the idea of paying $1,500+ for a 16 megapixel mirrorless camera.  So these are not mass market items.  That doesn't diminish what they can do.  I need to see more footage but personally if I had the dough I would use my DSLR alongside some 4K option.  I've done multiple videos of intimate indoor events with my humble t3i and 50mm 1.4 lens.  It is cheap and it doesn't intimidate people.

 

Full frame 5D MK III raw makes sense for certain things.  It is a look that you can't achieve with a Black Magic camera nor anything in that price range from Panasonic.  But honestly for an every day kind of shooter for people with the cash the Gh4 looks interesting.  Horeses for courses I guess.

[Guest 89e2bdf5797fbbdc17c2cc6da1413fa0]

Matt I think that the term nightmare is not appropriate. I don't know why on the internet people always talk to extremes when camera X will blow camera Y because it has 4 megapixel more, 1/2 stop more DR etc etc. Put a loupe on the back screen, add a pistol grip if you need more handling, or add rail system etc etc. You can also add a Ninja and get peaking, false colour/zebras for exposure, visual sound monitoring and a 3.5 jack to monitor with a headphone. I don't have any of these unless you buy a Cannon 5dmark 3 in the canon world. So you have all these solution and when the the $ +300 D7200 will have a weather sealed metal body with a headphone jack and all the buttons so that you have to go very rarely in the menu. So I would not say nightmare in case of the D5300 handling.

Well, it's not unusable. I actually really enjoy using it, particularly when I have plenty of time and my subject matter is not of the run & gun variety. 

 

My use of the word nightmare is partly an attempt to bridge the gap between the polarizing that, as you say, is going on here. I don't want to get in a Nikon vs Panasonic war. I'm really just trying to talk from an objective point of view. If the people here who have problems with the D5300 feel the need to use words like "nightmare" to describe the design of the Nikon, then I'm happy to go along with that in order to establish some middle ground. It is really annoying to shoot video with compared to a Panasonic. But it's a bloody DSLR, not a mirrorless! Andrew just hates mirrors, and he's picked on the D5300 to show that yet again. Personally I agree that the future of low budget filmmaking cameras is in mirrorless, but at the moment there is not a Panasonic camera that matches the D5300's image.* Yes they are sharper, but low-light, DR, colour, S35 sensor, organic image all add up to an image that for me is sometimes more appealing than for example my G6. But ultimately that's a personal thing. I just like the 5300's image a lot. But I do wish it had peaking, a histogram, zebras, aperture control in LV, autofocus that doesn't suck, buttons in the right place, an EVF. But at the end of the day it's what's on the screen that matters, and with practice and perhaps a few add-ons you can shoot whatever you want with the 5300. It's a bloody brilliant video camera. 

 

Without question the GH4 is going to force a change in the low budget ILC video market. I just hope that either Nikon decide to build on the lovely image the 5300 has and go for broke with video in some way or other, or the GH4 and its successors give us an image that is more than just super-sharp - I want the organic, low-light, great dynamic range quality of the D5300, just with a little more sharpness and ease of use. I worry though that MFT sensor will never look quite so filmic, even with a Speed Booster. We'll have to wait and see. If the GH4 is all of those things, I'll be over the moon.

 

BTW, I will be looking seriously at buying a Ninja - but it seems daft to loose 60p wit the 5300 ATM.

 

* I haven't seen enough of the GX7. I'd love to see some low light footage shot with a GX7 and Speed Booster. And some dynamic range examples with the same. That might give us a ballpark idea of what the GH4 image will look like. I believe FuzzyNormal has a GX7 (not sure if he has a SB though) - any chance of a few example shots Fuzzy?

[Andrew Reid]

Increasingly I am going to be looking at $1000-$3000 range because for 3 years we've had 'meh ok' video on $800 cameras and after a while it gets boring. If I'm not passionate about something I won't write about it.

 

For those who do enjoy the D5300, feel free to let your views be heard. I don't have anything against it. It just doesn't really turn me on. Especially not as a 5D Mark III owner, as even the stock Canon ALL-I video mode on that is better than the D5300 and it's full frame.

[Andrew Reid]

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.

[tpr]

For those who do enjoy the D5300, feel free to let your views be heard. I don't have anything against it. It just doesn't really turn me on. Especially not as a 5D Mark III owner, as even the stock Canon ALL-I video mode on that is better than the D5300 and it's full frame.

 

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.

[Andrew Reid]

You're not really talking about image quality, you've mentioned one thing - low light. Yes the 5D Mark III's rather lacklustre video mode (pre-raw revolution) and the 12 month old D5200 were pretty close in that respect.

 

The D5300's improvement in low light is mostly in the fixed pattern noise, cleaner sensor readout, rather than any big noise reduction at high ISOs.

 

It's not a big deal to me.

[Guest 89e2bdf5797fbbdc17c2cc6da1413fa0]

You're not really talking about image quality, you've mentioned one thing - low light. Yes the 5D Mark III's rather lacklustre video mode (pre-raw revolution) and the 12 month old D5200 were pretty close in that respect.

 

The D5300's improvement in low light is mostly in the fixed pattern noise, cleaner sensor readout, rather than any big noise reduction at high ISOs.

 

It's not a big deal to me.

 

The dynamic range of the D5300 stomps on the head of the stock 5D3 by almost 2 stops (even without Flaat). I can point you toward proof if you wish. It has 60p. It has an articulated screen. It has a solid codec so I don't see the All-I of the 5D as a real bonus. It's almost 1/4 the price of the 5D3. It has a S35 sized sensor. It beats the 5D3 in low light.

 

For someone who loves Panasonic and Blackmagic, you're trading a lot for the full frame look of the 5D!

[Andrew Reid]

Let's be clear...

 

You can flatten out the image... iron it right down to such a low contrast that you basically have LOG or CineStyle and 12 stops dynamic range on a DSLR.

 

And you then have no choice but to add contrast back to the image with the grade and that loses you almost all the dynamic range you just gained because you're doing what the image processor did instead automatically, crushing the blacks so they are black and making the highlights bright again. Unless you keep the flat image as it is, which looks... dreadful.

 

So let's be clear by what we mean by dynamic range... I'm talking about the final end result. There's a big difference between flattening out an image, removing all the nice tonality and colour in the process, and getting those extra 2 stops, and to having 13 stops in your FINAL GRADED IMAGE with 14bit raw.

 

To have 12 or 13 stops as your starting point with LOG or a flat image is one thing, to have the final end result look like it has great contrast, colour AND a wide dynamic range is quite another...

 

With the necessary hard grade of flat DSLR footage, the codec just falls apart.

[Andrew Reid]

I can point you toward proof if you wish.

 

Yes please, vs 5D Mark III stock ALL-I codec with flat profile too.

[skiphunt]

Oh geez... seriously, this thread is getting comically absurd. Doesn't anyone have something they wanna go shoot? ;)

[skiphunt]

Ahh... wait a minute... I get it.... Just like with motorcycles and other toys people obsess over. There are those who're are really into specs, tread patterns, new kinds of braking systems, synthetic vs non-synthetic oils, reading all the data, comparing speed tests, etc. And there are those who are really just interested in riding. Those two conversations obviously have crossover, but really aren't the same thing.

 

Nothing wrong with either interest of course, ie. gear enthusiasts vs cinema enthusiasts... But conversations about imaging gear details often get confused with conversations about actual cinema. 

 

Now that I've finally clued in to this... does anyone know what forums the storytelling, cinema geeks hang out? Something on reddit perhaps?  :)

[Guest 89e2bdf5797fbbdc17c2cc6da1413fa0]

Yes please, vs 5D Mark III stock ALL-I codec with flat profile too.

I said without a flat profile. Perhaps 2 stops is a bit optimistic, but have a look ...

 

(from Oleg Kalyan over on DVXuser) http://yadi.sk/d/XkAaSjyLDupLF

[Gethin Coles]

I see nikon in exactly the same way. In addition: after a nikon service I had to adjust AF fine tune on a couple of lenses. Manually. But then I noticed that the lenses were not focused through the viewfinder. Yes the focus screen shims had been setup incorrectly. SLRs have mechanical components with tollerences and inconsistencies and things that move and change with time (and heat for all I know). I get about 8/10 keepers with the d800 autofocus. But the a6000 shows the SLR is not necessary for fast accurate AF. Let's get this in a pro camera. It allows for things like Face focus (including which eye to keep sharp), hyperfocal aperture priority mode. ( specify 2 focus points, camera selects aperture to keep them both in focus). It allows for tracking with intelligence and prediction: for video this means organic looking follow focus.

But really there is a bigger point here: its not about what nikon or Sony or Olympus engineers can design; imagine if computers only ran Microsoft software, or how sucessful the iPhone would've been with a closed app ecosystem. The real coup will be from the first hardware manufacturer to provide an open montetised application environment for these computers that also happen to be imaging devices.

[BobbyMurcerFan]

You're not really talking about image quality, you've mentioned one thing - low light. Yes the 5D Mark III's rather lacklustre video mode (pre-raw revolution) and the 12 month old D5200 were pretty close in that respect.

 

The D5300's improvement in low light is mostly in the fixed pattern noise, cleaner sensor readout, rather than any big noise reduction at high ISOs.

 

It's not a big deal to me.

Andrew,

 

With all due respect, it's a huge deal for the low budget filmmaker. The FPN in the 5200 is a major PITA. I've had to use a combination of a luma key, asymmetrical blur (vertical only, not horizontal) and NeatVideo just to get it kind of acceptable. Also, FPN eats into codec efficiency.

 

If the 5300 actually removes FPN, it is a total winner and definitely worth the hassle and dealing with stupid UI elements like Baby Mode.

 

Honestly, I really suggest that you update your review of this camera if FPN is indeed gone.

[Danyyyel]

you wasted a lot of effort proving my point, and clearly not having understood my original remark. Dslr sales are largely driven by stills photographers. I was talking about the filmmaking community.

 

 

Besides, while Americans are a bit slow to adopt in general (bigger is better syndrome), we will start coming around eventually, I have no worries about that.

 

No I did not waste my energy, I just put markets fact and figures and not just your speculative that American will in time buy the M43 cameras because (bigger is better syndrome). What the figure are telling is not slow growth but negative growth. So do you think that the filmaking buyers will be enough to sustain a Panasonic M43 division by itself. Do you think that selling the gh4 in the ten's of thousand will be equal to Nikon selling the D5300 in the hundred's of thousand or even millions. In the end if Panasonic does sell enough M43 camera they will just stop doing it and their biggest market by far is the photographers. And it will be a shame if it happens.

 

Guess what, I think Nikon i working feverishly to implement good to very good video autofocus in there camera, to cater for..................... The soccer moms to put just beside the Baby button. Because for now it is the soccermoms that won't like the Nikon cameras because half of their shots are going to be out of focus when they put it on all automatic.

[Aussie Ash]

BobbyMurcerFan "If the 5300 actually removes FPN, it is a total winner and definitely worth the hassle and dealing with stupid UI elements like Baby Mode."

 

The new Expeed 4  image/video processor arguably has more improvements for

video than still images

new 50p/60p video capture

faster maximum video data rates

removal of FPN 

Here is one of the first tests re FPN of 5200 vrs 5300 posted by Matt

Posted 08 December 2013 - 10:36 PM

StuS, on 08 Dec 2013 - 2:04 PM, said:

Oleg has also done a D5300 vs D5200 test.  Clear banding in the shadows on the d5200, none on the d5300.  Have a look.

http://yadi.sk/d/-W9s7oihDurQD

 

Thanks. This guy knows what he's doing. I was already convinced but this confirms conclusively that the D5300 doesn't suffer the same FPN problems of the D5200. For me this is a clear reason to choose the 5300 over the 5200."

 

I have seen NO sign of FPN on video taken with my D5300,the camera does take some

getting used to for video but does take great footage.

The reviewer  seems to lack a grasp on how Nikon are rolling out Expeed 4 .

[Danyyyel]

Oh geez... seriously, this thread is getting comically absurd. Doesn't anyone have something they wanna go shoot? ;)

Skiphunt, the problem is that unfortunately this is not a review, it is an article that brings up as many question as it replies. I was at least expecting a bit more factual things like this review  http://www.eoshd.com/content/9653/nikon-d5200-review and what a change from the first reply in the vimeo comments from Andrew

 

The D5100 is no benchmark for this camera. D5200 is in a completely different league when it comes to video. Nikon have made all the right kind of improvements and the sensor is completely new.

 

In fact the Eoshd reviews have even been a bit better lately with some having the 13 stop scene with the vintage camera and film cassette for people to judge. In this case we are left with just words that for many looked to lack research (One example is the lack of Banding/fix pattern noise, which makes a big difference in the image quality between the D5200 and D5300), or a bit biased towards mirror less camera.

 

In this article the D5300 has been compared to the DR of bmpcc, the stabilisation of the Olympus, the ergonomic of the Panasonic. Do you think it is fair to compare one camera against 3 or 4 other ones. WTF The Olympus for example has only 30p!!!!!!! the bmpcc has a smallish sensor so we are back to before the large sensor camera look and lens is a big problem and it is worst to use than the D5300. The Panasonic are better for handling but cannot compare to the image quality of the D5300 apart from sharpness. Perhaps this is the problem of Nikon, that they don’t have some catchy feature to parade above. They should perhaps add a coffee makers for bloggers and reviewers witness its cameras. Building a well balance camera with good to very good qualities is not just fancy enough.  

 

Until we find someone to really test the D5300 or future D7200, all these speculation will go on and on. Because some of us know or are still guessing that these cameras are little gem more so for their price. If you look at image from the review above the D5200 was killing the gh3 in low light. If you see the example from oleg kylan from Matt the D5300 is again killing the Canon 5dmark 3 in DR.

 

Looking at the review above is a little bit ironic for me, because I realise that it is because of Andrew that I started investigating the new Nikon and chose to buy a Nikon D7100, then a Ninja rather than buying a D600 and selling my gh2 as my secondary body for my d800 (photography). I even thought about BMC and then Bmpcc, but it was too inconvenient with my already established Nikon lens and the post workflow. There are a lot of things I am with Andrew on the fact that Nikon could do much more, but a review should be a review with set parameters and controlled situation for a fare result. Then it is up to eveyone to decide if the camera meets his criteria or not.

[Guest 89e2bdf5797fbbdc17c2cc6da1413fa0]

The bottom line is that while Andrew's article (notice I didn't use the word review?) about the D5300 makes an important point about the future of low-budget filmmaking, he's chosen to crap all over what is actually THE BEST NON-HACKED VIDEO DSLR AVAILABLE at the moment to do so. Andrews claim the stock 5D3 is 'better' doesn't have any basis. If you really like full-frame, then yes obviously. But otherwise the D5300 has better DR, better low light, 60p, articulated screen - and it's 1/4 the price. In 6 months time this camera is going to drop in price considerably, and no doubt will start cropping up on ebay in a shorter time. The D3300 has the same image and is even cheaper.

 

A lot of 'lowest-budget' filmmakers, students, enthusiasts and artists who don't necessarily need commercial level features (no-doubt a large chunk of the people who come to this website for advice due to its facade of catering for them) are going to be put off buying what really is a SUPERB FILMMAKING TOOL for a really great price by this article that isn't actually about the D5300.

 

Suck up to Panasonic/MFT as much as you want Andrew but please take a bit of responsibility for the status that your site has as a go-to destination for people who don't want their creativity hampered by their means.

 

Once again, from your 'About EOSHD' page:

 

 

One of the guiding principals of EOSHD is that nobody should be blocked from practicing their art and executing their talent as a cinematographer or filmmaker due to the cost of equipment. All the equipment I recommend on the blog has to be accessible for nearly everyone.

 

And from this thread:

Increasingly I am going to be looking at $1000-$3000 range because for 3 years we've had 'meh ok' video on $800 cameras and after a while it gets boring. If I'm not passionate about something I won't write about it.

This is the closest you've come to actually acknowledging leaving some people behind.

 

In the last few months you've told us how awesome the Alexa and Cooke lenses are, crapped all over the best genuinely-low-budget DSLR out there ATM and tried to write it off as irrelevant due to the approach of a camera that will cost over twice as much (the GH4 - which will also require the cost of a Speed Booster to get the same Super-35 look of the D5300). No doubt the GH4 is going to be awesome - I'm excited by the prospect of owning one in a year or two. But ATM the D5300 is an important camera for the smallest filmmakers among us.

 

So I'm asking you to stop picking on the little guys and get comfortable with the idea you've outgrown a certain demographic. Otherwise you're just a bully.