Nikon D5 Specifications Surface

rs

Dec 29, 2012
1,024
0
UK
dilbert said:
If the D5 can do 60fps 4K video, then for sports, do you set your camera to shoot 4K video at 1/500 and get 60fps of 8MP stills whilst "shooting"? Or do you continue to do 15fps at 20MP? With those big lenses, you don't need to crop and what's your target media? Never bigger than an A4 print, so 8MP will be perfectly fine.

Good look with more severe compression than JPEG, metering optimised for the whole footage rather than per frame, manual focus, and tracking subjects with the combination of no mode 3 IS available on superteles and laggy live view only. And no doubt no viewfinder of any type during video too!
 
Upvote 0

rs

Dec 29, 2012
1,024
0
UK
neuroanatomist said:
GMCPhotographics said:
Has Nikon produced any interesting new lenses in the last 3 years? Everything they seemed to have launched recently is a Canon portfolio clone (24mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4 ect...)

Seriously, guy...they came out with new supertele lenses that have fluorite elements! How can you question Nikon's innovation?!? ;)

Let's not forget that Nikon were early adopters of Phase Fresnel lenses, FF bodies and CMOS sensors ::)
 
Upvote 0
Mar 25, 2011
16,848
1,835
expatinasia said:
dilbert said:
Indeed, Sony's mirrorless cameras are much more of a threat because if Sony can get its AF working well with adapters plus Canon/Nikon glass then buying same-brand bodies is no longer a requirement or expected outcome for those two companies.

If the D5 can do 60fps 4K video, then for sports, do you set your camera to shoot 4K video at 1/500 and get 60fps of 8MP stills whilst "shooting"? Or do you continue to do 15fps at 20MP? With those big lenses, you don't need to crop and what's your target media? Never bigger than an A4 print, so 8MP will be perfectly fine.

No, sorry. I am not sure you have any idea how much support CPS (or the Nikon equivalent) offers photographers, especially those doing sports. Sony only launched its pro support recently, but my CPS contact knows me for a long, long time and she has helped me a lot in the past. Then there are the other benefits, such as exclusive promotions etc.

Sony is a long, long, long way away from getting that part of my business. Frankly, I doubt it ever will, but who knows.

At a lot of events you have to sign contracts, and there is a lot of issues about shooting video. Even if you are going to use that video to take stills from you could be risking your accreditation and future. I would never shoot video to take stills from at a sporting event. I do not think that is the intended purpose ok Nikon shooting 4K video.

The 1D X battery lasts most of the day shooting stills at a sporting event, how many batteries would you need to shoot almost an entire day of 4K video so you can take stills from it, while breaking your accreditation agreement? No chance.

For me, Sony is doing some very interesting things with phones (Xperia Z5 Premium) and the RX100 line. The A7R II is also very interesting from a video perspective but not sport photography.

I had forgot about the Nikon lockups, weren't they fixed 3-1/2 years ago?

If you are a professional, the main reason for changing systems will be a payback for the money invested. If you are losing money due to a unresolved issue, that might happen quickly.
 
Upvote 0
Mar 2, 2012
3,187
543
dilbert said:
At what point will Canon/Nikon stop pushing FPS higher to prevent the frame rate from stills cameras from being perceived as video?

Never.

If having something built into a camera which can be perceived as video was something Canon/Nikon wanted to prevent, they wouldn't include video capability in their cameras.

Perhaps (I really doubt it) certain leagues will impose a maximum framerate on stills shooters, but just like not using video, it would be on the individual to abide by the contract.
 
Upvote 0
Mar 2, 2012
3,187
543
dilbert said:
3kramd5 said:
dilbert said:
At what point will Canon/Nikon stop pushing FPS higher to prevent the frame rate from stills cameras from being perceived as video?

Never.

If having something built into a camera which can be perceived as video was something Canon/Nikon wanted to prevent, they wouldn't include video capability in their cameras.

Note that the limitation on length of video you can shoot in terms of time is specifically there because in various places around the world once it goes to 30min+, the camera gets taxed at a different rate compared to now.

So Canon/Nikon are already "hobbling" DSLRs to control which taxes are applied to their goods.

Which is significantly different from not pursuing higher frame rates for stills capture due to the prohibition of video capture by some private organizations... while maintaining video capture functionality.

If a legal trade agreement applied a 5% tariff to cameras capable of say 24fps stills for 30minutes, then you'd likely see that functionality avoided.

But again: no, Canon and Nikon are not going to stop developing higher framerates because the NFL or the Olympics or whomever won't let photographers shoot video. The first thing they'd do, were they to do anything, is disable video. That they don't makes it clear that the arbitrary restrictions some of their customers will face at select events are not of concern.
 
Upvote 0
Mar 2, 2012
3,187
543
dilbert said:
3kramd5 said:
dilbert said:
3kramd5 said:
dilbert said:
At what point will Canon/Nikon stop pushing FPS higher to prevent the frame rate from stills cameras from being perceived as video?

Never.

If having something built into a camera which can be perceived as video was something Canon/Nikon wanted to prevent, they wouldn't include video capability in their cameras.

Note that the limitation on length of video you can shoot in terms of time is specifically there because in various places around the world once it goes to 30min+, the camera gets taxed at a different rate compared to now.

So Canon/Nikon are already "hobbling" DSLRs to control which taxes are applied to their goods.

Which is significantly different from not pursuing higher frame rates for stills capture due to the prohibition of video capture by some private organizations... while maintaining video capture functionality.

If a legal trade agreement applied a 5% tariff to cameras capable of say 24fps stills for 30minutes, then you'd likely see that functionality avoided.

But again: no, Canon and Nikon are not going to stop developing higher framerates because the NFL or the Olympics or whomever won't let photographers shoot video. The first thing they'd do, were they to do anything, is disable video. That they don't makes it clear that the arbitrary restrictions some of their customers will face at select events are not of concern.

Is pressing the shutter down and getting 24 images a second for 2 seconds shooting photography or video?

It's shooting stills. One could certainly turn it into a short video. Regardless, the point stands that turn key video functionality is built into canon and Nikon cameras, and it's silly to think either company would hamstring stills capabilities as a reaction to a video prohibition some fraction of their customers will face, while maintaining the video functionality.

"Some of you may be contractually prohibited from shooting video from time to time, so here is a camera with native video capabilities - use them at your own risk. Oh BTW, to protect you from yourself, we have limited the stills framerate such that you can not possibly construct a video from a series of still images. This is for your own safety since, while we believe you can avoid enabling video mode, we aren't sure you will be able to resist the temptation of shooting high framerate stills and sequencing them in Photoshop."

Silly.
 
Upvote 0
dilbert said:
If the 1DXMarkIV existed today and could shoot 24fps of 10MP images for as long as it took the card to fill, using DPAF to keep things in focus, how is that any different to using the 1DXmarkIV to shoot video? Sure, in name it is different but that's not a lot.

Will sports stadiums and their contracts need to go into details such as this because the line has been blurred about what it means to shoot stills?

Or will the FPS rate for stills photography (in normal cameras) hit a "glass ceiling" somewhere under 20fps?

It is very easy to see who is shooting video and who is shooting stills at an event, especially when you are on the ground close by. The whole movement and approach is different, so I doubt it will affect stadiums - or more precisely, the events - at all. Plus the bigger the events, the more difficult it is to get accreditation and it is not something that someone who earns a living from would risk.

If someone is stupid enough to upload video when he or she was contractually not allowed to do so, then it is not hard for organisers to track it back if they wanted to.

Who knows what the future holds, but I hope I do not have to shoot video (which I can't use) only to watch it all again and then cut it up into stills. What a nightmare. I would prefer to just take the stills.

And even if fps goes all the way up to 20 fps without locking the mirror up, most photographers aren't going to keep their finger down any longer than they do now, as they don't want to have to go through so many stills either. I try to get it right in as short as burst as possible.
 
Upvote 0

rs

Dec 29, 2012
1,024
0
UK
dilbert said:
If the 1DXMarkIV existed today and could shoot 24fps of 10MP images for as long as it took the card to fill, using DPAF to keep things in focus, how is that any different to using the 1DXmarkIV to shoot video? Sure, in name it is different but that's not a lot.

If that hypothetical scenario existed, 24fps stills are very different from 24fps video. For a start off, one is thousands of individual files per minute, unsynced, without any audio, and the second is an all in one file which just works. And secondly, whoever heard of a stills camera which can shoot at 'up to' any particular frame rate shooting at that frame rate consistently come rain or shine? There are always mitigating factors which restrict this such as ISO, shutter speed, aperture, and of course focus acquisition and new tech such as anti-flicker. Video has to shoot at the stated FPS regardless.

And what stills photographer in their right mind would buy the largest, fastest card money could buy and want to shoot at max frame rate continuously until the card is full? Therefore I can't see stills camera manufacturers ever knobling the data rate required for FPS and file size of a top of the line stills camera to keep it below the data rate of storage which is affordable to fit in there.

And then we get onto the points you previously ignored. Focusing. Metering. Tracking subjects. Optical viewfinder.
 
Upvote 0
dilbert said:
What is the difference in shooting 24fps of photographs and 24fps of video if all you're after is THE one frame to get THE magic moment (sound be damned)?

The answer in one word is "work".

What I mean by this is the amount of work that needs to be done post event.

Let's say for example, that you have a guy running towards you along the sideline of a pitch, and you know there is someone else coming in from your left to tackle that person. With stills you know exactly what it is you are looking for and should be experienced enough to track, and take a few stills. I will only take about 2 or 3 shots out of the potential 12 fps - I do not lock up the mirror and I do not keep my finger down because otherwise post event workflow takes too long.

I can do that with a monopod, and I can happily move my camera around as much as I like.

With video I would prefer a tripod for better stability, I would most likely press the shutter button earlier and release later resulting in more footage to go through to get that one shot I wanted and my actions would need to be purposefully smoother

Plus, forgive me if I am wrong, but video files are much larger in size than stills. I can shoot a whole day of action in stills with only one 64 GB 1066X CF card, though I am always happy to have the second there in the slot just in case.

The 1D X battery is also amazing for stills. It will last me a whole day of action, but not video. I have two batteries, when I shoot stills I rarely use the second but with video I have managed to finish both in a day and I only took 7 or 8 videos.

And, editing video is not fun. To get just that right moment when both players eyes are open, down to the millisecond is a headache. With stills you have either got it or not. Move on, next sequence, play.

So basically, the answer to the question is work. It is easier to take stills for stills work, as it is easier to take video when video is required.
 
Upvote 0

rs

Dec 29, 2012
1,024
0
UK
dilbert said:
What is the difference in shooting 24fps of photographs and 24fps of video if all you're after is THE one frame to get THE magic moment (sound be damned)?

Am I on your ignore list? I'll say it again:

Focusing. Metering. Tracking subjects. Optical viewfinder.

Do you want any more reasons?

Compression. Mode 3 IS. Shutter speed. Number of frames to filter out in post. Aspect ratio.
 
Upvote 0
Mar 2, 2012
3,187
543
dilbert said:
If shooting video is effectively the same as shooting stills...

If a venue prohibits visitors from bringing ice cubes because they fear them being used as projectiles, but they allow drinking water, would you argue that ice should be allowed because it can be turned into drinking water? Or that drinking water shouldn't be allowed because it can be turned into ice? That ice and water are effectively the same thing?

dilbert said:
...why shouldn't you be able to shoot video and extract the moment in time from that you want as a still image?

Well that's an entirely different question. Organizations who prohibit video do so because they're made lucrative exclusivity agreements with broadcasters. I doubt they'd be very interested in paying their lawyers to engage in a philosophical debate about whether video should be allowed even though video isn't allowed because stills can be turned into video and video can be turned into stills.

"Some of you may be contractually prohibited from shooting video from time to time, so here is a camera with native video capabilities - use them at your own risk. Oh BTW, to protect you from yourself, we have limited the stills framerate such that you can not possibly construct a video from a series of still images. This is for your own safety since, while we believe you can avoid enabling video mode, we aren't sure you will be able to resist the temptation of shooting high framerate stills and sequencing them in Photoshop."

Silly.

Is it?

Very. It would be less so if the cameras in question lacked native video functionality due to the prohibition, but they don't, so it's a very silly line of thinking that they'll affect stills framerates due to the video prohibition.
 
Upvote 0
Nikon rumors site also uploaded a test report saying that the iPhone 6S shoots better 1080p video (downscaled 4K) than the Nikon D750 (full-frame 24Mp DSLR). Is this also true for the Canon equivalents, say 5D3 ? It's good to know where we stand. Maybe Apple is the direct competitor in some aspects not Nikon. Mind iPhone 6S shoots 12Mp stills. I wonder how the lower-level Powershot range compares.
 
Upvote 0
I find a wry irony when photographers get their "knickers in a twist" (a UK phrase) over video capabilities in modern DSLR cameras. When Mr Lecia invented the 35mm stills format...he designed a camera around the copious amount of free (movie) film he could pinch from work. The irony here is that the 4:3 aspect 35mm format was a movie format first and grafted it into photography. So there's always been a link with film / movie work...albeit a tenuous link.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
GMCPhotographics said:
I find a wry irony when photographers get their "knickers in a twist" (a UK phrase) over video capabilities in modern DSLR cameras. When Mr Lecia invented the 35mm stills format...he designed a camera around the copious amount of free (movie) film he could pinch from work. The irony here is that the 4:3 aspect 35mm format was a movie format first and grafted it into photography. So there's always been a link with film / movie work...albeit a tenuous link.

Except that the 135 stills format is a 3:2 aspect ratio and uses the film 'sideways'. The various movie formats for 135 film never approached, and can't, the individual image area of stills 135 use. Movie formats have varied between 1.375:1 to 2.32:1 with the biggest area use being the anamorphic 2.39:1 CinemaScope at 408mm², compared to the stills 135 format 864mm².

As you say, a tenuous link at best ;)
 
Upvote 0
Jan 22, 2012
4,473
1,329
neuroanatomist said:
dilbert said:
What is the difference in shooting 24fps of photographs and 24fps of video if all you're after is THE one frame to get THE magic moment (sound be damned)?

No difference at all...in dilbertland. So you go right ahead and capture THOSE magic moments with video (motion blur be damned).

:)
 
Upvote 0