Is anyone else waiting for a Nikon 5D?

<p>Of course, not literally.</p>

<p>I want to replace my D300 with a Nikon that does video, but I don't want to be a sucker and buy a DX sensor body (D300s, D90, D5000, D7000), or even an FX sensor that doesn't do full 1080p (D3s), right before Nikon finally comes out with its answer to the Canon 5D (full-frame, 1080p HD video).</p>

<p>Why is Nikon so slow coming out with a full-frame DSLR that does full 1080p HD video? Is anyone else keeping their wallet in their pocket until Nikon catches up to Canon?</p>

<p>Sucker?</p>

<p>Having no interest in a 35mm-like (Nikon D-SLR) body) camera <strong>that shoots video</strong>, <em>the Nikon D700 does just fine</em> as it is....</p>

<p> </p>

<p>So...why don't you just buy a Canon 5D MKII and be happy with it? You can always use an adapter for your Nikon lenses.</p>

<p>Actually, if you have any substantial investment in Auto-Focus Nikon lenses, they will not be AF on a Canon 5Dii, nor will the aperture mechanism work. The Canons are great for shooting old manual Nikon lenses, but for the most part, the new AF lenses are not much use on the Canon bodies.</p>

 

Hmm ... having a D300 and waiting for another DX body, most likely the D400, I seriously doubt my suckerness (suckicity?). FX is about two stops ahead of DX in terms of image purity at high ISOs, but even in short focal lengths FX demands at least twice the price for lenses - at similar performance levels. Now look at 400+ mm. A 70-300 VR gives you 450mm at quite good quality. The 80-400 is thrice the price, the next option at 400mm cost ten times the price.

 

On the other hand, the wide-angle problem for DX is solved. The Sigma 8-16 is a stellar lens. In mid-range we have two f2.8 zooms that give you sharp images AND are stabilized, something that you don't get for FX at all, at least not from Nikon. Using DX, I have bought around 20 lenses over the last four years. On FX I would have had to be much more selective, but how can you be selective when you don't know what fits your style? I strongly suppose DX is a better option for the majority of photographers. But then, that all is a matter of philosophy and religion :D

 

And video? Even on the 5D MKII? just look at what the professionals use: Yes, they use a 5D, but only along with all kinds of extremely expensive accessories, that turn the humble DSLR into a camera of cinema-style proportions. This encompasses supports for shoulder-holding the camera, focusing helpers, viewfinder extensions and so on and so forth.

 

Thus: even if you are really into DSLR video, expect the camera to be the cheap part :)

<p>The old farmer's adage about "horses for courses" comes to mind here. While video might be a nice feature in an SLR, video cameras are designed for it and do it much better. I see, for example, that you bought a D300 for shooting photographs and not one of the myriad video cameras that take photos as well as video.<br /> I've tried video SLRs and found them much harder to hold steady while shooting video than actual video cameras.</p>

<p>The main reason for this is that video cameras are designed with video in mind and SLRs are designed with stills in mind. Another major problem with using a DSLR to shoot video is that they limit how long you can shoot, which suggests that they really aren't designed for video. A video camera will allow you to shoot continuously for <strong>hours</strong>, while the 5d will only let you shoot for only <strong>30 minutes</strong>.</p>

<p>Sure, last year the television show <em>House</em> was shot with a 5dmkII, but do you really have thousands of dollars to spend building a custom stabilization rig? Also, to quote Greg Yaitanes, the director of <em>House</em>, "focus was hard with these (Canon L series) lenses". Something that Greg doesn't mention is that for shooting movies, there is a specific job of "focus puller" in addition to cameraman. The focus puller's entire job is to focus the lens while the cameraman controls the rest of the camera. I don't know about you, but I don't normally go to shoots with one of those.</p>

<p>If you're looking for 1080p video you can get it in a mini video camera for as little as $100 USD...and it comes with a zoom lens. You can get a professional Canon XLH1A video camera with a 28-600mm lens for the same price as a Canon 5d MkII with a 28-300mm lens.</p>

<p>If I were you, I'd buy a decent hd video camera that you could carry when you need video. They come small enough that you can stuff it in a bag, and they are designed to be held during video.</p>

<p>I'm waiting for a Nikon full frame that costs what the 5D does, but for the 21 MP, not the video.</p>

<p>After two years, I'm still amazed at how great 720p is on my Panasonic 42" Plasma that I bought at Costco for $640, and on my cheap Dynex Best Buy 19" LCD. My twin brother bought a high end Pioneer Kuro 1080p for close to $3000 because he wanted 'the best,' now he says it was just not worth it. 1080p is not very important to me, and certainly not on a still camera, that's why I have a separate video camera.</p>

<p>If you so interested in video, why not invest in a <em>video camera</em>? I have always thought video on a DSLR was rather gimmicky and not of much use. If you want high quality 1080p video, get a digital video camera.</p>

<p>Ditto Scott Murphy's resopnse.</p>

Get a video camera or a superzoom. Lumix FZ100 and Canon SX30 comes to mind. FZ100 allows a

shotgun mike "just like a real video camera".

<blockquote>

<p>If you so interested in video, why not invest in a <em>video camera</em>?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because I do not want to carry another camera, a different sets of batteries, chargers ... when I travel and when I hike. A DSLR should be fully capable of capturing fine video. The problem for Nikon is that until the end of last year, the implementation of the video feature is rather poor on Nikon DSLRs, including the D3S and D300S. Hopefully it is better on the D7000.</p>

<p>That said, the Canon 5D Mark II is not a camera I want. I don't care for its AF capability for a second. As I mentioned in other threads, the time for Nikon to add video capability and more pixels onto the D700 is overdue. Not that I think many of us need more than 12MP, but it is getting harder and harder to push a 12MP high-end DSLR onto the market.</p>

<p>... and because I won't buy a video-only camera. The D7000 just misses the mark by not having a higher frame rate. 1080 isn't enough. It's got to have the frame rate too, as well as AF/MF, and AE/ME capability. I'm hoping the next D700 will have all this. If it does, I'll buy it.</p>

<p>Am I waiting? The answer is "No."</p>

<p>I *WAS* waiting, but it seemed like it was taking a long time and I was missing high-resolution opportunities. So I bought the <em>other guys</em>' 5D(II). That was a year ago. I'm glad that I'm not still waiting. My portfolio is glad, TOO! ;-)</p>

<p>If and when the high-resolution-but-not-8000-bucks Nikon shows up, I'll evaluate it. And a year later when it's actually available in stores I might even buy one, especially if they fix the clunky Live View implementation and a couple other pet peeves. I still have all of my Nikon lenses and speed lights, so I'm ready when Nikon offers a body that looks promising. Until then I'm happy to carry my lightweight 21MP/1080p camera with me almost everywhere I go while the D700 waits at home for special occasions like sporting events in wet weather. For everything else the "<em>other guy</em>" is doing a very impressive job.</p>

<p>I don't care about video on DSLR's, and will never "upgrade" my system just because of this "feature". Shooting video is an entire different ball game, although I certainly understand the convenience aspect of not having to carry another camera just to shoot video. No matter how fine the resolution (e.g. 1080p vs. 720p) or how high the frame rate is (e.g. 30p), without proper stabilizing rigs, the final product will be decidedly amateurish. Now would you like to carry an extra tripod, or at least an extra video fluid head, to shoot decent video on your vacation? How about a stabilizing shoulder support? Some of these things cost as much as a f/2.8 zoom lens just to start, and it goes UP from there.</p>

<p>If you just want to shoot amateurish video (albeit at a high resolution and high frame rate) there are tons of consumer level, pocketable videocams out there that don't weigh much more than your DSLR kit lens.</p>

<p>Isaac, you are absolutely right that proper support is critical for video. My wife shoots video and I know that very well. Fortunately for me, my Wimberley gimbel heads also works very well for video, but that only works with long lenses. Therefore, as long as I am shooting super teles for wildlife video, everything is ready except for the right Nikon DSLR body.</p>

<p>Shun,</p>

<p>"A DSLR should be fully capable of capturing fine video."</p>

<p>Yet you lament the extra $50 or so you guessed to have the ability to meter with MF Nikon lenses. I would think fully supporting still lenses would be at least as important as adding in video.</p>

<p>Why aren't people clamoring for better still camera features in their video cameras ? Because it's just not it's primary purpose and it just doesn't do a great job of it. Yet, we "need" to have super quality video in a still camera ? How much less would a D7000 cost without the video feature ? </p>

<p>In my view, stuffing video in a still camera is the result of not having a better way of capturing pictures and being forced by the marketing men to " Add features ! " to stay ahead of the other guy.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I find that I enjoy shooting video of scenes that I am photographing from a tripod. If the light is good, I'll grab a clip that's anywhere from 20 seconds to a few minutes long. It's fun to watch the clips while reviewing the still images because video, even cheesy clips like mine, adds another dimension to the experience. The camera is already mounted on a tripod, so I don't need fancy stabilizing gear.</p>

<p>Stanley Kubrick filmed amazing scenes with a single camera that never moves. The scene where Alex talks to Mr. Deltoid in A Clockwork Orange is brilliant, and the camera never changes position. I find the hyperkinetic camera movement adopted by television in the 1990's to be rather distracting (NYPD Blue, The Shield, etc.). I already own the tripod - no shoulder harnesses needed!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Dave Lee - So...why don't you just buy a Canon 5D MKII and be happy with it? You can always use an adapter for your Nikon lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>JDM von Weinberg - Actually, if you have any substantial investment in Auto-Focus Nikon lenses, they will not be AF on a Canon 5Dii, nor will the aperture mechanism work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And there's two sides of the coin. I have a 5D II to go with my Nikon system. On a Red Rock, or on my home made glide-cam (about $200, someone keeps adding an extra zero when he talks about costs) the MF or AF-D Nikkors focus better and have better aperture controls that the Canons. The AF-S Nikkors pretty much need to be preset.</p>

<p>JDM, you might be interested to know that there are now two different Nikon to Canon adapters for AF-S lenses that allow aperture control. Supporting the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 on Canon FF is a cottage industry in itself. ;)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Jake Watrous - The old farmer's adage about "horses for courses" comes to mind here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, Jack, it sure does. Just not the way you think.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Jake Watrous - While video might be a nice feature in an SLR, video cameras are designed for it and do it much better.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, the typical video camera is too long to fit well on a Red Rock or other twin rail rig. They're awkward on tripods, too. DSLRs are built more like "movie cameras" than "video cameras" are. Video cameras shoot lousy movies. ;)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Jake Watrous - I see, for example, that you bought a D300 for shooting photographs and not one of the myriad video cameras that take photos as well as video.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That might be because still photography is a priority and there aren't any video cameras that take stills as well as a DSLR. But there aren't any video cameras that shoot movies as well as a DSLR. It might also have something to do with the fact that there weren't any video capable DSLRs on the market when D300 came out.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A video camera will allow you to shoot continuously for hours, while the 5d will only let you shoot for only 30 minutes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How many movies have you seen with a single shot longer than 3 minutes, let alone 30?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Scott Murphy and Ronald "ditto" Muscio - If you so interested in video, why not invest in a video camera? I have always thought video on a DSLR was rather gimmicky and not of much use. If you want high quality 1080p video, get a digital video camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What a great idea. You two are obviously quite experienced, can you recommend a good 1080p video camera that can</p>

<ul>

<li> use the $25,000 worth of Nikon lenses I already own</li>

<li>match a 5D II in low light ability of a 5D II</li>

<li>shoot shallow DOF like a FF camera can with my Nikon 85mm f1.4, 135mm f2, 50mm f1.4, and 70-200mm f2.8.</li>

<li>offer as good optical quality at 14mm equivalent as my Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 does,</li>

<li>offer as good quality at 1000mm equivalent as the 500mm f4 on a 2x TC does</li>

<li>shoot macro as well as the 200mm f4 micro-Nikkor at a 15 inch or better working distance</li>

<li>support something like the 85mm PC-E Nikkor</li>

</ul>

<p>I am with Kevin and Shun! Nikon should be able to figure out how to get good video, more MP and a decent price for their D700 replacement. A Canon 5DMKII with a D300's body and autofocus would be perfect. </p>

<p><em>Nikon should be able to figure out how to get good video, more MP and a decent price for their D700 replacement</em></p>

<p>I don't think they have to figure out anything to do that - they're simply not going to do it. Nikon doesn't want to give out everything at a low price point if they can charge more. Canon could easily put 1D Mk IV's autofocus into the 5D II and provide everything that most people would want - but they are not going to do that since they don't have to. They will put those things into the 1Ds Mk IV and charge $8000 for it. Same is true of Nikon - they're not going to put high resolution and fast autofocus into the same mid-priced FX camera because it would totally destroy the $8000 camera (D3X/D4X) market. Canon chooses to skimp on AF and build quality in their 5D series cameras while giving out their best sensor, whereas Nikon gives high speed, good build quality, and fast autofocus in the D700 but not high resolution. This will not change. If Nikon puts a high-resolution sensor into the D700 successor, they'll cripple it in some other way. Otherwise there would not be a D4 series at all, since no one would want one if they got the equivalent of a D3X in a $2500 D700 body with FullHD video. In the next generations of bodies, there will not be substantial advances in DSLR image quality or autofocus for still photography similar to that in the D3 generation - they will improve things but only in small steps. Nikon has said that they will not engage in a price war with Canon. This means they will not make an overly competitive camera at an aggressive price point unless the market situation changes and Canon users somehow force Canon to give out top AF in a 5D series body - which is unlikely to come out. While they could put 40MP into a 1Ds Mk IV and 1D Mk IV AF into 5D Mk III, no one would care about the former since the gain in image quality is very small compared to the drawback of increasing processing times when going through and editing the 40 MP files on a day-to-day basis. Thus there is no further incentive for the high-priced model if they make the mistake of giving out everything they have in the 5D class of camera. Marketing people, not engineers make the decisions in matters like this and the key point is that pricing is not based on costs but how much people are willing to pay for the product.</p>

<p>For fully-functional video functionality with practical autofocus I suspect that Nikon would have to spend a few years in figuring out algorithms that work as well as Panasonic's (maybe they'd have to pay hefty license fees?) ... and then introduce a new series of Nikkors that properly support the new AF. This is what micro four thirds manufacturers have done; although four thirds lenses can be mounted, they do not autofocus as effectively. I believe the problem is that the existing lenses were not designed to make micro-adjustments in focus quickly and precisely enough to figure out in which direction the focus has to be adjusted and how much, using only the data from the camera main sensor, all very quickly without appreciable delay to the user, while the subject moves unpredictably.Nikon's contrast-detect (live view/video) autofocus is jittery, slow, and often its behaviour could only be described using the word "clueless", whereas Panasonic's system is able to follow focus on subjects moving across the image without hesitation at least using their 20mm f/1.7 lens. </p>

<p>If we accept that Nikkors aren't going to provide adequate autofocus during video and if Nikon doesn't copy Sony's approach, then this means Nikon DSLR video continues to be manual focus for all practical purposes. If MF is to be used, you probably want to use MF Nikkors (or Zeiss, Cosina etc. manual focus lenses, perhaps with gears for focus pulling) that provide adequate MF feel and precision, a laptop or other accessory screen that taps into the live view data feed and provides a high-resolution image big enough for manual focusing, , all mounted on some support and perhaps even a second camera operator to maintain focus while shooting. This is already quite a production setup and most still shooters who are casually interested in video probably aren't going to be bothered with it.</p>

<p>Joseph, how about selling your $25000 worth of Nikon lenses for - say $12000 - and buying another set of new video-Nikkors for another $25000 (or maybe $30000? Price hikes always seem to come with new releases)? Would you still want a Nikon DSLR for video if you have to get all new lenses for AF to function properly? Or would you be using manual focus. I think a smarter approach is to go with a manufacturer that actually knows something about video and has made lenses for that purpose than wait for Nikon to make a genuine hybrid camera that probably makes a poor still camera.</p>

 

<p>I don't completely get the whole "video in the still camera" thing. Sure, handy to have, but nothing I would chose a body over. Yeah, I suppose if you're a wedding photographer, maybe. That or if you're actually a video person and want high quality lenses on the cheap.</p>

<p>I'm neither, but each to his own I guess. I suppose if I had it, maybe I would try some videography for fun.</p>

<p>Forgetting video - personally, while all of my DSLRs are DX, I just don't see the point of buying another DX body when clearly FX is the way of the future. In that case, the D700 being fairly aged in the digital scheme of things, is probably not a great choice only in that in all likelihood within a year they'll have a replacement and you'll be kicking yourself for not waiting. I think the only way I'd buy a D700, though it's certainly an excellent camera, is used or refurbished, but even then I'd probably be kicking myself when the D800 (or whatever) comes out. It is definitely time for a refresh in that space.</p>

<p>I am very happy with the D3X and the D2X, if I had to go for another Nikon it will be the D700, other wise I am all ok, the video is not of my interest.</p>

<p>It's not something that I need or want so I do not have an interest in how well it would function. However I think the vidio function is a big deal to many people and I can see why they would want it to function at the same level as Canon's apparently does. </p>