Still cameras have gotten so good that professionals are now starting to purchase smaller camera systems rather than the high megapixel monsters that have owned the market for years. We may have reached the edge of diminishing returns when it comes to standard still cameras and their functions but we have only scratched the surface when it comes to video.
For the first time in a very long time Nikon has the opportunity to attack Canon's market share and business model. In the past Canon had a still camera line and a completely separate video camera line. Today, almost every camera can shoot both stills and videos; yet Canon has decided to compete with itself with these two mediums. Canon can't release a DSLR that can shoot 4k or raw video before one of their pro cameras, like the C300 has that feature. The problem is that even though the C300 does make filming video easier, the video quality really isn't that much better than significantly cheaper Canon DSLRs. This in house competition is going to force Canon to slow innovation in their consumer DSLR video market.
Nikon doesn't have this restraint. In fact, Nikon has never been a huge player in the video world but they have become one by simply adding a video feature to their still cameras. Why then is Nikon simply limping along and including the same video features in their cameras as Canon DSLRs? 1080p at 60fps was fine a few years ago; today cheap cell phones can outperform these numbers. The footage from my GoPro Hero 4 Silver at 2.7k looks so much sharper and cleaner than footage from my brand new Nikon D750 that it's depressing every time I have to cut the footage together. How can a $300 camera that can fit in my pocket and has a plastic lens out perform my $5000+ camera and lens system?
Nikon has an amazing opportunity right now to take the video market by storm but they are treating "video" as an extra function on a still camera rather than a priority. While Canon and Nikon both take their time to add these video functions to their cameras, Panasonic and Sony are grabbing customers with their 4k cameras that make filmmaking just as important as their cameras' still functions.
So at this point we know that putting 4k video into a still camera is a very simple task (Samsung is putting it into cell phones at this point). So the question becomes why? Why isn't Nikon taking this seriously? Why would they chose to add 4k to a camera that no professional would ever use but then omit it from their most expensive DSLRs. Why doesn't Nikon disrupt the entire industry and release a DSLR with 4k or even 1080p raw video? Why not add a 240fps option? I understand it requires another processor and it will cost more, but they should at least give us the option. So many photographers/videographers just like me who want a camera that can create beautiful stills and videos would jump on this in a heart beat.
I feel like Nikon really changed the industry with the Nikon D800. It was an incredible still camera with a massive jump in image quality, megapixels, and functions. The D810 wasn't that innovative, and I honestly don't know what more they can do on the photo side to create better images. I don't want much more out of my still camera. Megapixels, and higher ISO are not as necessary as they once were. Video is the next big thing and while Canon is trying to figure out how to charge its customers for "pro level video cameras" Nikon should go ahead and put those features in the D900 and give us all something to get excited about all over again. As of right now Fstoppers films everything on Nikon DSLRs. We just wrapped up a 13 hour tutorial filmed on D750s. I love the camera system and I love my lenses, I just want my video quality to at least match that of my freaking GoPro. I don't want to change camera systems but cameras like the Sony a7RII are making it tough to stick around.
Best thing about the GoPro is being able to shoot flat and record higher bit rates then typical DSLRs.
I'm perfectly happy with my D800 shooting stills, have no expectations of shooting video from it to match my Dragon or fs700r. At the heart of it, a D800 is a stills camera. I'm also really thinking hard about going Sony, the a7RII seems amazing!
I completely agree about Nikon having a true opportunity to dethrone Canon's reputation in the DSLR video realm. However, I really would disagree over the idea that GoPro cameras produce a higher quality image than the Nikon D750. It may produce a higher frame rate and even a larger resolution, however those have nothing to do with the actual quality of the image sensor, as frame rate and video resolution tends to be a product of a much better processing engine.
The two factors that solely determine a films image quality is the size/type of image sensor involved and the lens in front of that sensor, every other spec is just a tool that can expand the camera's creative reach. From my experience of working with a GoPro camera and even the Inspire 1's onboard camera, I've noticed that there's far more depth of detail and color in Nikon's video footage over the GoPro alternatives, simply because of the size of the image sensor and the quality of Nikkor glass.
Running the Nikon video feed through a raw output into an Atmos product would produce that higher bitrate that us color fanatics crave.
My D750 footage actually looks blurry compared to 2.7 footage downscaled to 1080p.
Have you tried the flat profile? If you do (even if you don't) remember that you need to add tons of sharpening in post, which the gopro does in camera. Nikon did let me down a bit with it's poor in camera sharpening, but if you turn it off and you are in focus, the d750 footage should crisp up nice and sharp in post. The picture i get from my d750 is much nicer looking than my hero4 footage when it's all put together
We have played with it but haven't used much. I prefer less post production when possible so we actually set our cameras to vivid.
At least try going in and turning the sharpening all the way down, all you need to do is add 'sharpening' in post (or 'unsharp mask' i like to use if its hi-iso stuff), you will notice a crazy difference in the final quality, really. Also, make sure your video quality is set to 'high quality' in camera so there is less compression.
Agree.
Old post I know, but had to chime in. The control, movement, available hardware and lens techniques achievable on an even now older dslr like the D600 is incomparable to a go pro. Go pro is great for some work for sure, but anyone who says they can best a D750 with a go pro in terms of film making (aside from areal footage, but that is the drone/gimbals getting the shot) may not be versed in film making, I would like to see some work that proves this otherwise. I would love to stand corrected in this case.
The fact that your D750 footage looks worse than a GoPro is just a depressing fact. Seriously agree with this article.
That would be depressing if it was this way for all users of a D750, but its not. I shot with a GoPro for over 4 years and stopped with the Hero 4 silver to actually get a D750 and I've never looked back. I think they need to try to do the recommendations made by other posters here and expand their mind regarding their workflow. I love my D750 and would NEVER think to trade it for another GoPro.
always wondered, does using the video function wear out DSLR sensors?
I don't think so... I would imagine the mechanical snapping of the shutter would cause far more damage
After a while pixels start getting stuck (locked on red or blue usually) which sensor cleaning and nikons fancy 'sensor output reassignment' thing they do at the repair place do not fix. It takes a lot of hours for this to happen, but we have 5300s and d800s that are showing these dead/stuck pixels. The cameras we used for photo only have not ever shown this problem
Lee, can you post some sample frames and your settings for the d750 and gopro?
Maybe I'll do a test tonight between the two. All I know is we would constantly notice how much sharper our drone footage was compared to our interview footage. The D750 with a 24-70 set at f/4 would be way blurrier and soft compared to a gopro flying through the air on a drone. We even noticed it on our handheld gopro cameras we used for the Behind the Scenes of Photographing the World. Obviously the low light ability of the gopro couldn't compare to a D750 and 2.8 lens but in almost all bright situations the Gopro looked better.
I think you will start seeing way better results if you turn off in-camera sharpening on the d750 and simply add sharpening in post. It is a simple step that will completely change your footage. On a side note, if it is a Tamron 24-70 with VC i have experienced slight VC problems in video mode that actually added a small vibration when the camera was stationary, over-softening my image. I sent it in and the problem is gone. Are you using an ND Filter?
Video purists will probably scoff at the idea of wanting tone and sharpening baked into the files but for us we try to do as little processing in premiere as we can because at some point the projects get so big and crash all the time. I've never played with in camera sharpening (we shoot vivid) but if the Gopro is adding sharpening in camera then it should be a mute point. The Gopro footage usually looks sharper and better straight out of camera compared a similarly processed file out of the D750/810.
As for the Tamron, yes we have a few of those lenses that we use for video but it's a good idea to turn of VC anytime you are on a tripod. I accidentally left it on while shooting a few timelapses and it was a nightmare trying to get warp stabilizer to smooth out the jpegs in premiere. Talk about crashing a project everytime you had to play it!
I like files that are ready to go as well, but in camera sharpening on nikon cameras is not good. It's one super easy step, that you can probably apply on import to premiere, or easily select all d750 files and 'paste' the sharpening settings to them. I routinely use GoPro and D750 side by side and the d750 footage always exports cleaner.
The gopro is sharpening in a different way, especially if you are shooting at 2.7k or 4k and downscaling, which increases sharpness even more from processing in premier, so the point is not completely moot. It is literally just one simple step that will make a crazy difference when exported, and will your computer will barely notice the difference.
Just try sharpening settings only and see your d750 footage improve drastically. A more professional tool often requires more professional methods but will ultimately produce a better result.
I hope that didn't come off dickish, I just faced this same dilemma and just want to help. I wished someone had told me to sharpen (and add contrast) in post sooner It changed my life. :)
Turning off the on-camera sharpening on my D750 was like the first thing I did when receiving it when purchased. I'm actually kind of surprised this discussion is actually happening.
" it should be a mute point. " I think you meant " Moo point" :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIkJ4BUChxI
We are both wrong, it's actually "Moot" point :/
I feel like Nikon is wise by not investing in such features. I personally wouldn't be a customer. Multi-tools are great.. I love my Leatherman. But I don't need a multi-tool of a camera.
Out of curiosity, what is it you are wanting more from Nikon photo wise? Their ISO is near perfect at this point (no one really wants to shoot clean ISO 500,000 because it looks so unnatural), their AF is amazingly fast, 36mp is pretty much all anyone really needs for commercial work, and the Dynamic Range can always be improved on but that camera is currently the industry flashship.
It always makes me laugh when people say Nikon shouldn't focus more on video because they themselves don't use it. It's like people think that if Nikon improves video then in some way they will neglect the photo side of the camera or the camera price will go way up.
How about making things smaller and lighter?
Frankly, I'm quite happy with my d610's... yet to exchange them for the D750 or? I agree with your points, but I'm not a videographer, nor do I intend to be. Can I appreciate irrelevant (to me) features? I guess. What I would be upset about is a drop in build quality, due to budget shifts regarding a video department or such research. Not worried about that happening either. I'm sensing a general tone towards photography lately I'm not a fan of. Almost like you're suggesting camera manufactures should just stop R&D on the still image side of things
Why would an extra feature cause you to not purchase something?
This is an age-old argument and the answer is still the same: it takes money--R&D, employees, etc.--to create these "features." They don't just magically grow on trees that Nikon is refusing to harvest. So in the end, it's a product that costs more but doesn't do more (if you don't want the features). Why would I want to pay more for something I'm not going to use?
Alternately, if the work output of a company is going to stay the same, adding these features comes at the cost of other features. Or the correct implementation, QC, "bugs," etc. The list goes on. I want better AF, I don't want better video. I want Nikon's next DSLR release to not have to have a recall, I don't want better video. I want Nikon to offer better repair services, not better video. I want Nikon to design more lenses, not better video.
To answer the question you asked in the article, it's the same reason that your GoPro is such a crappy stills camera. It's not a coincidence.
To me it is the other way around. I have been shooting video with Lumix since the Gh1 and with each new GH model I expect they cranck up the video features, but I do love it that they also improve the still quality & features as well.
So the thing is, when I do event co-ops with friends, we try to all do still/video just to have the different angles, but when it comes to stills, my Gh4 is not quite, but almost as close to still quality as my friends nikkon/canon (similar price range gear), but with the video, there is a huge gap with their footage to mine.
So yes, I believe that if you can spend thousands on solely still equipment and a couple more on video alone, fine. Go do it.
But for others like me, gear is exponentially more expensive, (try buying camera gear in retail stores in latin america, we get 40% higher price than US listed prices due to import, taxes and corrupt government customs agents) so then, when you buy it, you want it to do everything.
As purely a photographer with absolutely no interest in videography I want a DSLR with features designed and refined specifically for that. I'd rather spend $1,500 on a DSLR and $500 on a decent lens than $2,000 on a DSLR that has 4k video recording that I'll never use. If Nikon wants to design and build a DSLR that has 4k video capabilities, fine, do so. But don't add it as an extra feature on every camera and then increase the price for customers. And don't let it detract from any R&D that they would do in order to make a better camera for photographs. Nikon is a photography company first and foremost, don't sacrifice the one thing that company was built upon so they can add tons more features they don't specialize in.
I guess I'm just inherently paranoid when it comes to electronics, and my experience with "all in one" gadgets hasn't been good (with the exception of my iphone). It's not that I wouldn't buy something simply because of a video feature - it's that I question it's relevance and would rather not have a feature I didn't use over complicate things
A bit off topic:
True that the Nikon D800 has introduced a new arena in the market because of it's high megapixel count for a DSLR but I wasn't impressed by it that I had to stick with my D700 bodies until a better camera comes out from Nikon. But when the D810 was announced, it was such a relief that finally, a camera worth buying. Though a lot of reviews are saying that only a couple changes has been made, those changes are really the selling point, in my opinion.
A high megapixel monster. A good range of ISO. Can be D4s-ish by using DX to gain 7fps (which is enough for me) by using en-el18a. Good video features. etc etc etc.
The Sony RX100 III (and I'll assume IV as well) have better video quality than any DLSR! Not only does it have a high rate codec, it uses the entire sensor.
Is 4k really such a deal breaker to not have in a camera? I don't think I even know someone capable of properly displaying something in 4k. I know myself, I don't even own a hd tv, its still standard def for me.
4k is now where HD was 10 years ago. It will become the norm. And having waited for many years before doing the leap to HD, and seeing how crappy my SD footage looks now, I just don't want it happening again.
I don't want to export at 4k at this point but 4k downscaled to 1080p looks infinitely better than most cameras native 1080p.
I also like the idea of shooting wider and being able to crop and pan and zoom around the video in post.
For me, video is no different to stills - clarity is a lovely thing to have. If more image information is available why not utilise it and provide the functionality. The guys over at magic lantern proved that the tech has the capability of so much more. Hopefully they'll find an effective way to deal with the copious amounts of data 4K, RAW and slow motion video require.
Thanks for the replies. 4k would never be a deal breaker for me and even on my GoPro Hero 4 Black, I still have no way of even viewing what I have recorded in 4k so its really pointless for me to worry about, especially with how little I shoot video. I still use a 5d2 for that. Always nice to see what other people are doing though.
I totally agree ! my DJI phantom 3, 4Kvideo is much sharper than my D750, thanks for this post, I thought I must be doing something wrong, but turns out we're all in the same boat waiting for Nikon to step up the game
Home run article and I agree with every word written in it. I own the D750 which is suppose to be the "best" Nikon DSLR for video. Yet my kid's Gopro footage often looks as good or better....Been a Nikon lifer, but if/when Sony comes out with an A7S II, I'll be making a major life change.
As a professional videographer of 25 years, I'll switch from shooting on a traditional ENG camera (heavy suckers, even the newer ones!) to DSLR when the manufacturers put in the following features that have been long-time ENG standards:
- Dual XLR mic/line switchable inputs with +48V phantom power, adjustable level, all built in.
- Also a 3.5 mm headphone jack for monitoring said audio, with a switch that switches from Channel 1 to Channel 2 to a mono mix of both.
- Full servo zoom with variable-speed rocker, with DSLR lenses that can work with this feature. Also connections in the lens for remote zoom and focus controls. Also a manual macro adjustment in these lenses.
- Built-in continuous on-camera light (could be a feature built-in to the flash?), and true viewfinder connection (for larger viewfinder monitor, with zebra, peaking/focus assist, false color, underscan) in addition to standard SDI video out (HDMI is flaky crap, especially in the field)
- SMPTE timecode generator/reader, with standard Preset/Regen/U-bit features, start time user settable, etc. Timecode In/Out BNC connectors for jam sync with other cameras/devices.
- Built-in four-position ND filter wheel.
- Manual one-button white balance, and black balance.
- Slide-click mechanism for quickly mounting and unmounting camera to/from tripod, while keeping the camera balance settings intact. This would involve a separate quick-release plate similar to the Sony VCT-14, only smaller.
- Slot for permanently mounting industry-standard Lectrosonics SR Series wireless mic receivers. Audio switch, next to mic/line switch mentioned above, for input - front (built-in mic or better yet, shotgun mic mounted to the camera (in its own mic holder, separate from the shoe mount on the top, which is reserved for the large viewfinder I mentioned before)), rear (XLR inputs), or the built-in slot-mount wireless (for each audio channel).
- Oh yeah, and above all - NO RECORDING TIME LIMITATIONS! Maybe we want to use our video camera to record long events!
I've been a Canon shooter for 6 years, and I've decided to move to Sony's A7rii in August.
I cant wrap my mind around the fact that people are saying a Full Frame camera is worse than a GoPro 1/2.3 inch sensor. With also the quality of glass you get with DSLR. Are people just not handling there post processing right? Videographer please help me understand this?
Well, it's rather simple. The video codecs on Canon/Nikon DSLRs suck for video. They record with absurdly low bitrates which affects things like sharpness, colour and dynamic range profoundly. There is no issue with the quality of image the sensors/lenses are capable of. It's just the way in which the data is being processed and compressed to the card.
So this pretty much why everyone is pushing for external records like the Atmos.
For these reasons is why I'm holding out for the x-pro2. If they're taking this long, and there's rumors of 4k, then I really hope they're putting some competitive video capabilities into it. Right now there's nothing on the market that's enough of an outperformer to justify trading in my 5d for (for both pictures and stills). The dslrs are great with pictures but no ones innovating their video. The mirrorless' are putting out some incredible 4k but they're clumsy with photo taking. But a compact rangefinder style camera with interchangeable lenses and the right specs?...YES! Please Fuji do it BIG!
Because at the end of the day, Nikon is still an Optics company. They are stubborn and refuse to change the way they have been doing business for decades.
They are following the footsteps of Kodak. We all know what happened to them.
Comparing GoPro with Nikon d750 is comparing apples with pears. These cameras have different purposes and Nikon has so many lenses, each with different capabilities. On one hand we have a pretty junky-built camera with a fixed 3mm lens (which keeps everything in focus no matter how you put it) vs what exactly? An old Af-D lens? Or a new Af-p lens that smokes most of older lenses in focusing and noise. We compare a 35mm sensor with a tiny sensor - which has a lot of implications. Any professional gear will give you a lot of chances to shoot yourself in the foot if you don't use it correctly. GoPro is overrated and the only impressive things is how it actually survives crashes and diving.