Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
D3s is official
- Thread starter FX120
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
video
This is a fairly decent vid done in low light with the D3s. Yeah, it's youtube and obviously the quality can't really be shown this way, but it's still worth a look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R46ca9zBP4A&feature=player_embedded#
This is a fairly decent vid done in low light with the D3s. Yeah, it's youtube and obviously the quality can't really be shown this way, but it's still worth a look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R46ca9zBP4A&feature=player_embedded#
... ahem....about that new Pentax...
Next round's on me, boys and girls!
Pentax-schmentax
I do like the green accents though.An interesting thread, thankfully more lighthearted than it appears. But it seems that some people just don't read what others are writing. And so there is much time wasted writing and reading things that shouldn't have been posted.
I have no doubt that Nikon's 720p can look better than the 1080p I get from my Canon MiniDV camera. Still, I think Nikon was giving a market segment away there by not giving the user 1080p. I happen to agree that Red is the only company who does a proper digital cine camera, but DSLRs aren't that bad if you're looking for good quality video. And WTF is with Nikon's jello-like effect?
I have no doubt that Nikon's 720p can look better than the 1080p I get from my Canon MiniDV camera. Still, I think Nikon was giving a market segment away there by not giving the user 1080p. I happen to agree that Red is the only company who does a proper digital cine camera, but DSLRs aren't that bad if you're looking for good quality video. And WTF is with Nikon's jello-like effect?
the wobbly effect is a sensor issue, I believe I read that on Thom Hogan's site. He says they've tweaked it for the D3s, it's still there, but much less pronounced. I've used a tripod on a dolly and it seems to alleviate the effect. It's more pronounced when you use it handheld FWIW.
I think we're all in agreement with Red.... unfortunately, they're priced way high in the range. It's also tough to get them! A friend of mine who has a company much more successful than mine with a 25year headstart ordered one. His whole kit came close to $100,000 and it took 4 months for them to get it.
Pentax-schmentax
Does Pentax even make cameras anymore?
You've got to wonder what situation really warrants iso 102,400.
Taking pictures of the lens cap of course Ha Ha Ha!!!
Taking pictures of the lens cap of course Ha Ha Ha!!!
As the video guy just getting into photography (6 month hobby) this camera is underwhelming from the video side! I look to you guys to see how high the photography pluses are.
I think they could have hit the ball out of the park if they would have added more frame rates and hit 1080p resolution, they are missing out on a rapidly growing market. Video DSLRs are the future of indie film production and documentary work.
Best Example: War Doc but Danfung Dennis shot on 5D Mark II
http://battleforheartsandminds.com/
I think they could have hit the ball out of the park if they would have added more frame rates and hit 1080p resolution, they are missing out on a rapidly growing market. Video DSLRs are the future of indie film production and documentary work.
Best Example: War Doc but Danfung Dennis shot on 5D Mark II
http://battleforheartsandminds.com/
Did you even look at the video link I posted above? Maybe it isn't the best in the video product catalog these days... but I think you're being a bit dismissive without any real research or experience in video beyond a 6-month hobby. Perhaps there's more than meets the "specification" sheet.
I could have bought a little point 'n shoot that purports to do 1080p video... with a tiny sensor and no low light capability and that lovely little tiny slow zoom lens... but, it has 1080p. I don't think it's even close which will produce the best images/video, so somehow with HD I think it's a bit like the megapixel race.
I've got HD satellite service. Nothing is 1080p, even though my plasma tv is 1080p. Sure, I bought a blu-ray player, but honestly, even at a 63" screen size when I'm watching 1280x720 programming (Fox network, and I believe even CBS programming) I can't say it makes that much difference unless I'm peeking real close at the screen (sure, you can see it if you really want to, but that's not my point.) Of course I prefer 1080p, but do I really suffer with 720p? Nope. The bandwidth required is so much more, and the file sizes would be seriously bigger, and the available record time would be so much less with 1080p for any given CF card. I guess one could tether a laptop and hard drive in a studio, but practically speaking for field work 720p resolution is quite decent. The other factors, optical quality, depth of field, light sensitivity, color, etc. - once you reach 720p - would seem more important. But, I'm not a videographer, so I'd be interested to hear what someone who does this for a living has to say...
Glad you took the time to offer something worth reading...
Dude what are you talking about? I've been doing photography for only 6 months but I've been a movie nut since I was in the single digits.
Not having 1080p is a problem because 1) It makes for better film prints, 2) It's of higher quality than 720p and meets Blu-Ray specifications, and 3) It's future proof (2 and 4K televisions ain't coming to mainstream any time soon). I know my video thank you very much and this camera could have been much stronger with 1080p and multiple frame rates. Also it makes no ****ing sense to release a 5K FF camera and not include 1080p when Canon has a FF camera with 1080p video, for a 1K+ cheaper mind you) and people are jumping all over it. It just doesn't make sense.
I do DO this for a living and that's my POV.
Oh and BTW DirectTV and I believe FIOS as well are now offering 1080p television. Even then most cable shows are 720p or 1080i (one which can only be properly seen on a 1080p television) It's just a sign of things to come.
Not having 1080p is a problem because 1) It makes for better film prints, 2) It's of higher quality than 720p and meets Blu-Ray specifications, and 3) It's future proof (2 and 4K televisions ain't coming to mainstream any time soon). I know my video thank you very much and this camera could have been much stronger with 1080p and multiple frame rates. Also it makes no ****ing sense to release a 5K FF camera and not include 1080p when Canon has a FF camera with 1080p video, for a 1K+ cheaper mind you) and people are jumping all over it. It just doesn't make sense.
I do DO this for a living and that's my POV.
Oh and BTW DirectTV and I believe FIOS as well are now offering 1080p television. Even then most cable shows are 720p or 1080i (one which can only be properly seen on a 1080p television) It's just a sign of things to come.
A poor 1080P implementation would look worse than a good 720P implementation. So 1080P doesn't entail quality.
This isn't a problem for Nikon though. Hell, many of the Pro's hate the fact that video is popping up in their SLRs. The fact is, the D3/s is a camera made for excellent photography not videography.
Read this carefully: This is a $5K still camera. It is not a video camera. Consider video a bonus mode. If you can't see why the D3s is $5K then I can't help you. But don't criticize it on the mere exclusion of 1080P. If that is what you want, but a 5DMkII. I will be out shooting with my D3s and loving everything minute of it.
One more thing, you also have to remember that Canon has been in high quality video for a long time. This is a new format for Nikon so they made need more time to get the video to the level of what Canon may be able to produce.
The D3 is a STILL CAMERA. It doesn't need 1080p. I'd rather have Nikon make a professional still cam and a dedicated video cam, let's call it the V1.
I think this camera, marketed toward the working Photojournalist is pretty damn State of the Art.
Additional, with you being a novice shooter, i'd highly recommend you get something less complex that a D3. It would probably take you a long time to become moderately proficient with it and that time could better spent refining your technique on say, a D5000 or something much less expensive and complex.
Sorry, didn't mean to offend - and my apology for being hasty about your experiences. I misread what you said as being into it for 6 months, but you meant photography, and that you are a video guy.
However, I still think some folks are making too big a deal of the 720p vs 1080p in the camera, because all the video work produced with the Nikon, I'm sure, can also be published in Blu-ray as a final product. My 1080p tv has no problem displaying 720p programming.
Sure, 1080p is better, but is the trade-off for field work when considering the file size and storage really worth it? Would a well-done piece of video shot with the D3s somehow be rejected when edited into a larger piece of work? Many HD videos have a mix of content, and while the end product may be a 1080p movie, some of the source was from film, 720p, and even SD.
Also, as noted by someone else, the target market for the D3s isn't videographers necessarily, but more likely photojournalists, and maybe wedding/event photographers who can now supplement their still work with video. I guess the real question is how much would a dedicated 1080p video cam setup really cost, one that would have the optical and depth of field capability and sensor size of the D3s, which adds a lot of other qualities to the mix besides pure resolution. I'm reckoning it would be fairly expensive. I'd say let's see what folks can do with it before condemning it to the trash heap. And, I have no doubt that eventually Nikon will embrace 1080p, but probably not until they've got it down right. These are just my thoughts.
And, you still didn't say what you thought of the D3s video I linked to... ;:
Peace, brother. Sorry again for the misunderstanding.
FiOS is not. I have it.
Believe me, nobody's going to print out DSLR video to film. You may know your video, but seriously, when was the last time you tried to shoot with a DSLR?
Trust me, they gave no market segment away. Nobody who was going to buy this camera stopped because the video was only 720p. People for whom that actually matters - and aren't buying into it like the megapixel craze - are buying cameras where you can really control all the video minutiae and use it comfortably for hours as well. With an acquisition format that doesn't hate video editors. Nobody takes M-JPEG seriously. That's what these cameras are using.
None of DSLRs are for shooting polished video. Don't compare these to RED. They're not RED.
Okay I have a lot of folks to respond to so here we go.
Last guy to post (no disrespect just don't feel like writing everyone's name in lol, yes I'm lazy, but I just wasted time writing all this so IDK)
Yes people who want video in a DSLR for certain reasons are not buying this camera because it lacks 1080p. You can get 1080p in a 5D and save money and if you don't care about FF you can get a 7D with 1080p and variable frame rates. People are buying and renting DSLRs for video now... believe it.
I've shot with a 5D and 7D before and if you have a Zacuto stablizing rig or a RedRock Micro system its no problem. These cameras put out amazing video, many people believe the 5DMKII outputs video that's "better" then the RED One (which I've used also). Believe what you want but VSLRs are becoming extremely popular.
I also don't see why you wouldn't make prints of 5D footage, have you seen Crank/Crank 2? Those are 8-12 million dollar films with XHA1 and HF10 footage in there for christ sake. You will very soon see 5D/7D footage in the cinema.
Okay pdx yes I've seen that video and its fine I'm just saying when you can get a camera with that additional 1080p and variable frame rates why would you buy this. Remember I'm talking strictly for the video guys (whom some people believe don't seem to exist). The camera produces some damn good images and that's all good but eh on the video and I haven't even mentioned the whole Motion JPEG thing yet... *sigh*
I'm actually not gonna waste time responding to the photogs because they're bitter for absolutely no reason to be honest. "Oh screw video, it doesn't need this or that, its a STILLS camera" get over yourselves. DSLRS will have VIDEO from here on out and if Canon has anything to say about it, it will be more and more implemented and focused upon. I understand Nikon is new at video and I'm not saying this is a BAD camera, I just find it weird they wouldn't include 1080p/Use a real video codec when the 5D is sitting over there racking up sales.
I mean I can't be the only one that finds that to be strange.
Last guy to post (no disrespect just don't feel like writing everyone's name in lol, yes I'm lazy, but I just wasted time writing all this so IDK)
Yes people who want video in a DSLR for certain reasons are not buying this camera because it lacks 1080p. You can get 1080p in a 5D and save money and if you don't care about FF you can get a 7D with 1080p and variable frame rates. People are buying and renting DSLRs for video now... believe it.
I've shot with a 5D and 7D before and if you have a Zacuto stablizing rig or a RedRock Micro system its no problem. These cameras put out amazing video, many people believe the 5DMKII outputs video that's "better" then the RED One (which I've used also). Believe what you want but VSLRs are becoming extremely popular.
I also don't see why you wouldn't make prints of 5D footage, have you seen Crank/Crank 2? Those are 8-12 million dollar films with XHA1 and HF10 footage in there for christ sake. You will very soon see 5D/7D footage in the cinema.
Okay pdx yes I've seen that video and its fine I'm just saying when you can get a camera with that additional 1080p and variable frame rates why would you buy this. Remember I'm talking strictly for the video guys (whom some people believe don't seem to exist). The camera produces some damn good images and that's all good but eh on the video and I haven't even mentioned the whole Motion JPEG thing yet... *sigh*
I'm actually not gonna waste time responding to the photogs because they're bitter for absolutely no reason to be honest. "Oh screw video, it doesn't need this or that, its a STILLS camera" get over yourselves. DSLRS will have VIDEO from here on out and if Canon has anything to say about it, it will be more and more implemented and focused upon. I understand Nikon is new at video and I'm not saying this is a BAD camera, I just find it weird they wouldn't include 1080p/Use a real video codec when the 5D is sitting over there racking up sales.
I mean I can't be the only one that finds that to be strange.
I'm sure Nikon will get to the 1080p point... but in the meantime I seriously doubt they'll lose any sales of this camera for not having it. I can bet the D3s will sell in great quantities to sports and news photojournalists, newpapers, magazines and professional photographers. The folks buying the 5D because of it's video capabilities only wouldn't be customers for the D3s in any case. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon is cannibalizing some of it's own prospective professional video camera customers who choose the 5D instead for the additional still image capabilities.
We'll have to see how it shakes out in the end, but that's one thing I love about technology - just when you think you've got it figured out, it changes...
We'll have to see how it shakes out in the end, but that's one thing I love about technology - just when you think you've got it figured out, it changes...
They might be killing their own sales. A lot of people still say they want a VIDEO camera first and foremost. Those people have a point but I'd still get a 7D just for the quality of the video when you know how to use it and I want to get a DSLR for stills photography purposes. I'm tired of using my HF10 to take photos.
An XH-A1 might shoot lower quality footage - and HDV, bypassable is a large part of that - but that camera offers far more control over the way you shoot than the video functions on a DSLR. That has a lot to do with it. If an operation is serious enough that they're going to print out to film, they're going to use a video camera because it won't drive people crazy to operate it. That's the point you keep ignoring. I mean, that's why people buy DSLRs - so they can control every aspect of a still shot.
I am still not convinced of this. Who says they are looking for a video camera first and foremost? Maybe some indie filmographers on a tight budget, who cannot afford to shoot HD video properly using more traditional gear. But how many of those people are there (and how many are there in comparison to the pool of still shooters who would buy a D3s for its still photography capabilities)? Maybe a more casual shooter would rather shoot video of his family vacation nowadays instead of stills, but are they the people who have a $5000+ budget to spend on a camera body? I don't think there are that many people who like that, especially not compared to working professionals like PJs or wedding or sports shooters who would benefit from a little video capability, but are buying the camera first and foremost to shoot still photos- which is the market this camera has been developed for. High end gear has become very specialized as of late and this is another example of that.
As has been said before it's likely that Nikon did not feel the quality of 1080p video was not sufficient enough for the D3s and instead decided to implement a higher quality 720p solution instead. And for their intended market, the loss of 1080p is not a real issue. I'm sure Nikon decided that the expense of developing a good 1080p solution in the camera outweighed the gain in sales they would get from those indie filmographers spending $5k on a D3s, and that it was not beneficial for them to do so.
I think that some of the negative reaction from still photographers towards videographers re: the development of video into DSLRs is that all of a sudden the video people can use these new DLSRs to shoot video and think that still photography is a dead thing of the past and that video is the future, and therefore some think that all improvements in D(V)SLR technology henceforth should be made in the name of superior video. At least I have seemed to come across a lot of this type of thing (not saying it's specifically in this thread but in general) from around the web.
Erm people want video, but how many of them actually knows how to avoid the Jello effect
Look at many YouTube vids, most people just treat the video that comes with their DSLR like a consumer HD cam. Look at the D300s promo vid, there is still Jello but the videographer managed to minimize the effect, yet people still complains that the D300s video is lousy. And who the hecks spend $5k on a professional camera just to shoot video! As other says, the D3s is still a Still camera with added bonus for recording video. And the type of photographers who owns a D3 level body will likely have tons of lens to boot with and video is just an added feature. Now add up the cost of lens and $5k, that will be a huge bill to fulfill (if someone decides to get a D3s just to shoot video).
Also another thing which makes me damn pissed of with videographers is they now want a flimsy bulky lower res articulating LCD screen for their DSLRs, I bet many still pros will be against having these screen on their build like a tank D3 and D700 and perhaps D300 too (since it shares the same body with the D700 anyway). The videographers should keep in mind that if they want all those fancy video feature, they should get a REAL video camera instead. And stop complaining over articulating screen, they already got full manual controls and different frame rates and to me that is way enough R&D for them, it's time to get the R&D back to stills
Okay Strudel you are overstating the difficulty of shooting on a DSLR. Working on film to this day still presents large challenges, challenges DPs, Directors, and Camera operators are used to (some which they aren't, I'll detail that shortly) but problems nonetheless. Christopher Nolan and his team dealt with the hassle of shooting on IMAX which is MILES more complex and difficult than shooting with an SLR just for 30 minutes of footage. We're talking 2-3 minute max roll time, having to create new stabilization gear to operate the camera, dealing with INCREDIBLY narrow focus, and having to scrap sound from some sequences because the sound of the camera rolling was too loud and effected dialog.
Now an SLR is difficult to use if you don't have the gear to buy the additional equipment. But once you get a Zacuto or Redrock Gear or even a Glidecam you have eliminated a lot of the jello issue or subdued it to a point where its not noticeable again Battle for Hearts and Minds war documentary by Danfung Dennis, he had issues shooting in a warzone, some of which wouldn't be an issue with a REAL video camera (but would be present with most film cameras), but he has footage that looks miles better than what he would get with a regular film camera and he has a less bulky set up that allows him to really get moving quickly on that battlefield (video here battleforheartsandminds.com
Ruarch, most of my colleagues here at SVA have told me that very line so yes that is still very much the mindset. Also in the long run getting a DSLR for video doesn't come out to be much cheaper because you still need to get stabilization gear and come up with your audio solution, you might also want more than the stock lens. I've done the math.
Last guy to post: Yeah I don't know what film guy you're talking about that wants a bulky low res screen. All we've asked for is something like the GH1's screen which is not BULKY and LOW RES, or even the D5000. So yeah um stop being bitter. I doubt this little "bonus" of a feature is hindering the development of making a better stills camera. You people act like each camera release as a major upgrade anyway. Give me a break. These companies push out real huge updates at a snails pace and get people to bite regardless.
Now an SLR is difficult to use if you don't have the gear to buy the additional equipment. But once you get a Zacuto or Redrock Gear or even a Glidecam you have eliminated a lot of the jello issue or subdued it to a point where its not noticeable again Battle for Hearts and Minds war documentary by Danfung Dennis, he had issues shooting in a warzone, some of which wouldn't be an issue with a REAL video camera (but would be present with most film cameras), but he has footage that looks miles better than what he would get with a regular film camera and he has a less bulky set up that allows him to really get moving quickly on that battlefield (video here battleforheartsandminds.com
Ruarch, most of my colleagues here at SVA have told me that very line so yes that is still very much the mindset. Also in the long run getting a DSLR for video doesn't come out to be much cheaper because you still need to get stabilization gear and come up with your audio solution, you might also want more than the stock lens. I've done the math.
Last guy to post: Yeah I don't know what film guy you're talking about that wants a bulky low res screen. All we've asked for is something like the GH1's screen which is not BULKY and LOW RES, or even the D5000. So yeah um stop being bitter. I doubt this little "bonus" of a feature is hindering the development of making a better stills camera. You people act like each camera release as a major upgrade anyway. Give me a break. These companies push out real huge updates at a snails pace and get people to bite regardless.