Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

To me those clips don't surpass 5DII quality - would anyone be surprised if a 5DII had shot those? On paper the D800 is great, but image-wise it appears like Nikon is playing catch up.

The clips benefit from high production values, but the video quality itself looks soft with fairly clear moire/aliasing issues. The C300 is priced at a premium, but for that you get detailed, artifact free images. The D800 images (to my eye) don't convince, but I'm really hoping this is Vimeo/Youtube at fault because I can't afford a C300!

Canon is about to bring the 1DX to market (annoyingly without a headphone jack and clean HDMI). The 5DIII is surely just around the corner. They've had more than 3 years to come up with serious improvements to their original DSLR video implementation and they have promised (in the literature) much improved suppression of rolling shutter, moire and aliasing, along with superior internal codec; I'm quite optimistic the new generations of Canon DSLRs will handily beat the image quality we're seeing here.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

Nikon D800 Preview: 3. Key Technology: Digital Photography Review
"Movies can also be shot at two different crops from the sensor, FX and DX. This makes it easy to vary the field-of-view for grabbing footage, even if you’ve got a prime lens mounted. However, the ‘FX’ size is a significantly cropped version of the full sensor (it’s 91% of the sensor’s width), so the field-of-view will be a little narrower than you’d expect for any given focal length."

However, DPreview also reported in its D4 preview that the 16mp camera also employs a 91% crop in FX video mode, so it's not sensor specific...

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

In terms of potential for better image quality in video, the D4 then seems to be superior as it has a more sensitive sensor (with similar technology), far less pixel count, thus much less raw data for the IP (similar or identical) to deal with.

Whatever the tech behind the D800's video is, I can see no reason why Nikon can't do better with the D4 for about twice the price.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

The uncompressed 8-bit 422 is the big difference, isn't it? We'll know soon enough whether its worth anything in a few months.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

Won't the D800 in DX mode equate to the D4 in terms of video quality? Wouldn't the sensor readout be approximately the same, if the technologies were developed together?

Is it safe to presume that the D800 will be 'sharper' in DX mode?

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

It might have the same number of pixels, but each photosite would be smaller. Smaller photosites collect less light and therefore have higher noise.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

That's the great hope: it will be a huge difference if the image being output via HDMI is largely crisp and artifact free. But simply capturing direct to ProRes via HDMI isn't going to rid footage of moire, aliasing and softness due to poor scaling.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

Does anyone seriously think that Canon, after introducing a $16K camera, is now going to shoot itself in the head and put out a 5DMkIII that isn't seriously hobbled? I am happy to be proven wrong, but ... it just wouldn't make any sense for Canon to do that.

Time will tell what the D800 is all about. I am invested heavily in Canon, but my current hopes are centered on Nikon now. If I had $16K it would buy a Scarlet or used RED ONE package.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

Canon might - the C300 is still a niche camera. I can see only rental houses, highend big city shooters, and perhaps TV productions buying into the camera - in other words, it will hit it's sales ceiling relatively quickly. Don't forget lots of people still LOVE the Alexa and have no plans of diving into the C300. Bigger productions will still either go RED, high end Sony, or (gulp) film.

There's another factor as well, and that's lens sales. If they're selling the Mark III like hotcakes, then they're also selling lenses, batteries, grips, etc in big numbers. While a $16,000 camera won't sell in anywhere enough numbers to generate substantial lens sales, a $3,000 Mark III likely would.

One other thing - it'll still be a DSLR. That means short battery life, no XLR or SDI ports, no internal 4:2:2 50Mbps recording, no built-in ND wheel, no lanc, and of course, the love/hate DSLR form factor.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

I think it's tending to be overlooked that the 5DMkIII is first and foremost a camera designed for high quality STILL PHOTOGRAPHS. In that case, it is anything but "hobbled"!

I also think the engineering issues of getting video from a sensor designed for still use are not being taken anything like seriously enough. The more you learn about it, the more you appreciate the challenges, and in many respects far from "hobbling" the surprise may be that video from DSLRs is as good as it is, without compromising the still performance.

Price differentials normally have to do far more with economies of scale than absolute tech. From what I'm hearing, C300 sales are already pretty high - but are inevitably going to be small compared to the DSLR market. But that's because so many people buy DSLRs for stills!
No, impossible to say without knowing a lot more. That may not seem logical, but AFAIK at the moment *ALL* such cameras with multi-megapixel sensors have to ignore a percentage of the photosites to get a high enough read/processing speed. It's conceivable that in full frame mode only (say) 25% of the sites are read, in windowed mode it may be (say) 50% of the window. (Which may be more than 25% of the total!)
It may be a big difference in terms of ease of connectivity, but don't read too much into it. Any HDMI signal is going to be uncompressed and 422 by definition (and may be 10bit) but that by no means says that all HDMI signals will be the same! It would be quite possible to have a rubbish front end, which could still give an uncompressed 8-bit 422 output. It's quite conceivable that a good front end feeding an internal H264 codec will outperform a bad front end feeding uncompressed 422.

To continue with the food analogy, if you start with poor really ingredients, the best chef in the world will struggle to cook an exquisite meal. That's why "uncompressed 422 output" means little in itself.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

So many people are pissed off at Canon because they think they have let down their customers. They switch to Nikon and brag about how Canon dropped the ball or that the D800 is a 5DII killer. Why are they comparing the 5DII to the D800 anyway? I laugh at them for getting so mad as they sell off all their gear. It's Canon's 25th anniversary this year and they will deliver as good if not better than what Nikon is offering. I love the specs of the D800 and look forward to people shooting with it. People are so impatient and stupid.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

David, as someone who's finicky about image quality but has very little understanding about the engineering behind it, I always appreciate your insights. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on what Panasonic's doing that's special with the GH2. I shot extensively with 5DIIs before picking up a GH2 - while it obviously doesn't have the low light performance or DOF control of the Canons, it eats them for breakfast in terms of detail and suppression of artifacts.

Phil Bloom's comparison using a hacked GH2 shows it's very close indeed to C300/F3 resolving power, and in my own observation GH2 footage output to a blackmagic card, footage blown up to 400% is on par with my XF300 (which the BBC tests put at around 900-1000lines). There's no comparison with 1st generation video implementation in Canon DSLRs.

Unfortunately, GH2 HDMI output is only 4:2:0, which is rather a big handicap. And it's a little too small/fiddly to be taken seriously (clients often look with kindly bewilderment at it's toy-like profile and say, "you're shooting with that?" = rarely had that issue with a kitted out 5DII/70-200 2.8 combo).

My hunch is the next series of Canon DSLRs will deliver - they've had more than three years to upgrade video implementation, and with the 1DX they've already promised improved codec and much reduced rolling shutter and unwanted artifacts. It will be very interesting to see how the D800/D4 fair when we get some less compressed, full res samples.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

It's a valid comparison in that they are the two firms' semi-pro full frame cams. Given that the D800 is three and a half years newer, I would hope that it's the better camera.

But the other shoe has yet to drop. Canon hasn't had any pressure to upgrade the 5D2 - until now. This situation won't last long...

My guess, however, is that the decision between Canon and Nikon for video will no longer be clear. Those who want uncompressed recording and can budget for a Ninja might choose Nikon (assuming Canon's HDMI is still "dirty".) Those with Canon lenses might stick with Canon. We'll need to compare quality and features to know which camera is best for which users and for which shooting situations. But I doubt that there will be a clear, overall winner like there has for the past three and a half years.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

<<<So many people are pissed off at Canon because they think they have let down their customers.>>>
So you believe that the $16,000 C300 is the right camera for the right price? For me it is a let down. A HUGE let down. Totally over priced for a 30 fps, 1920x1080, 8 bit machine.
Others find it a great deal. That's cool - so tell me, have you purchased yours yet?

<<They switch to Nikon and brag about how Canon dropped the ball or that the D800 is a 5DII killer>>
Me, myself and I do NOT want to switch. I'm a Canon guy. That said, I need a camera I can afford that produces cinema quality HD video with the ability to record with decent bandwidth. I love what the 5DMkII does for its price point, BUT I need higher bandwidth and real HD signal output, which it does NOT do.

<<Why are they comparing the 5DII to the D800 anyway?>>
I'm comparing the D800 to the C300 and more importantly, $3K to $16K.
You sound like a 5DMkII owner who feels threatened. This is not about that.

<<I laugh at them for getting so mad as they sell off all their gear.>>
I haven't yet, but may have to. Had the C300 been $9K and had 10 bit 4:2:2 out, I would probably find the money to buy that. But $16K? I'd buy a Scarlet if I had that much money.

<<It's Canon's 25th anniversary this year and they will deliver as good if not better than what Nikon is offering.>>
Well, either you're guessing or you broke your NDA. Either way, your statement remains to be delivered. From my experience, Canon is always FAR behind everyone else. The 5DMkII was really a still cam that Canon added video so PHOTO journalists could shoot a bit of video and save the BBC some money. Canon leadership in Japan was probably shocked to find that, although requested for years and years previously - here on the former XL1 Watchdog website, there is actually a market for film makers who want to use 35mm glass for HD video acquisition.

<<< I love the specs of the D800 and look forward to people shooting with it. People are so impatient and stupid.>>
Here we agree.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

This isn't a comparison to the C300 (Nikon D800 with video features thread). I was speaking generally about how people were reacting to Nikon's recent announcements. We're comparing apples to oranges with the C300 and D800. The C300 was designed for a specific market and type of shooting that will sell regardless of it's cost. Yes, I'm disappointed with the price and specs, but I'm not in the market for one so I don't care that much. BTW I don't own a 5DII and I don't feel threatened. You say that Canon is always far behind, but the 1DX looks to be par with the D4 as a flagship camera. I agree with you about HDMI, but can we be real and state what percentage of people with actually drop the money on an external recorder?

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

Another thing I should point out about the C300 in comparison to DSLR cameras. Have you ever downloaded a full 1080p video shot on one? It has true 1080p clarity that the D4 or 5D don't come close to IMHO. I downloaded the "Why" video and viewed it on my monitor and it looked no different (DR set aside) than any DSLR video. Anyone who has owned a Sony EX1 will know what I'm talking about. You can tell
true 1080p on a 24+'' when you got it. DSLR video looks softer and not as sharp, period.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

Actually won't it be the same? It's still an APS-C size with 16 MP, as opposed to the 7D with 18MP. Same pixel pitch, same sensor size. If the sensor readout is only within this area, it will be (theoretically) sharper and about the same quality as a 7D in DX mode.

Don't know if this is true, but I've read somewhere that 36MP is the same as APS-C pixel density, only its on a fuller frame.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

The HDMI protocol does not distinguish between compressed and uncompressed data. You can send any kind of video via HDMI. But I get what you're trying to say, and I agree with you.

I have faith in Nikon to deliver uncompressed. After all, they've been shouting about this from every rooftop since the first press release. And, they have nothing to lose, unlike Canon.

The cool thing about Nikon is its glass. It can be used on EF mounts (and pretty much any other modern mount) without loss in quality. Can't say the same about Canon's glass. In this 'war', the bodies are going to come and go at a frightening pace, and the better mount to invest in is Nikon's. Just my feeling.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

Hi Sareesh,

On the photosite size question, I thought we were comparing the D4 in full frame mode vs. the D800 in crop mode. I wasn't referring to the 7D.

Regarding the HDMI item, it was David Heath who wrote that rather than I. That said, HDMI is always uncompressed. HDMI receivers aren't required to have MPEG-2, h.264 or any other video decoder.

I think what David was referring to is that even though HDMI is uncompressed 4:2:2 at 8 or 10 bits, that doesn't mean that the source signal was ever that good to begin with.

As an example, there are DVD players with 1080p upscalers and HDMI outputs that output uncompressed 4:2:2, but the signal quality for that product would still only be as good as MPEG-2 encoded standard definition, even if the signal capacity is much, much better than that. I think that David was making a joke that if the video from the D800 was ugly, the HDMI output wouldn't help.;)

Regarding Canon, their DSLRs put out uncompressed 4:2:2 from the HDMI output today (at least when not recording.) The two problems are that 1) Canon makes the signal "dirty" with the focus box and other menu items, and 2) Canon scales the 16x9 signal to fit within a smaller window - and the scaling is done with yet more pixel skipping. Canon's HDMI output is uncompressed but it's not clean. :(

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

Firstly, I don't have a GH2, haven't used one, and haven't seen any proper test results from one, so I can only talk in generalities. Yes, I've seen Phil Blooms test results and (as stated on the thread) I would be wary of concluding too much from them. (Too many variables.)

From Phil Blooms postings, it did strike me that the F3 and the C300 were way out in front of the rest, (maybe shouldn't be surprised), the FS100 and GH2 somewhat behind, and the AF101 lagging at the rear - at least in terms of resolution.

In general, (and forgive me if you already know) if you want to use a Bayer sensor for video, the approach most likely to give good results is to read the whole sensor, do a deBayer as for a still photograph, then downconvert in high quality to 1080 output resolution. And do that at frame rate. That's what the F3 does, and even with a relatively low pixel count sensor (just over 3 megapixel – optimum for 1080) the power consumption is quite high. I leave you to speculate what the heat and power requirement would be if you wanted to do the same with a 12-16 megapixel sensor, even if you could get the silicon to manage it. It does not happen in cameras in this price range.

So, again in general, if you want to get video off a chip with a high pixel count, what do you do? Basic principles are:

1/ Don't read all the pixels on the sensor.
2/ Don't deBayer - do something like the C300, (Just look at the low power consumption of the C300 compared to the F3)
3/ After 1 and 2 above, make the raw output lower than 1080 resolution, then upconvert - don't downconvert a high res signal.

You can get a clue as to what is happening by power consumption, sensitivity, and most especially zone plates. If the camera isn't reading all the photosites, that's going to affect the sensitivity. Make allowances for sensor size, one chip v three chip etc and it's possible to deduce quite a lot from relative sensitivities.

Have you seen Alan Roberts zone plate test of the 5D? If not, http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/w...on_5D_DSLR.pdf . Really nasty isn't it? (Sorry, don't know how later models compare.) Things to look for are symmetry, true resolution (circles centred to bottom left), aliases or "false resolution" (circles centred elsewhere), coloured circles (hint at pattern used for sensor/readout) etc.

And to really answer your question about the GH2, I’d like to see a properly done zone plate from it. I’ll leave one question in your mind. It’s been commented on that it has been found to be sharper than the AF101. On the face of it that sounds strange – how is a £3,000 (plus lens) dedicated video camera from a single manufacturer beaten by a far cheaper model from the same manufacturer, primarily designed for stills. Ridulous, doesn’t it seem?

The only answer that makes sense to me is that fundamentally they are reading the chip in a very similar way – but the AF101 has an optical low pass filter designed for video, the GH2 doesn’t. That may make the GH2 look better on side by side viewing of raw camera footage – but likely with much more aliasing. I can hear people now thinking “so what? If it looks better, who cares about the aliases?” And the answer is in what was said before – the real nasty about aliases is that they can screw up codecs. It’s quite possible that two cameramen may shoot the same scene with a GH2 and an AF101 and the GH2 look better at first sight. Put them both through a broadcast transmission chain and the GH2 may fall apart far faster than the AF101. I’ll leave you with what Alan Roberts says at the end of his look at the 5D.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

Yes, just so. You may record internally (and compressed), then replay out via the HDMI. The HDMI signal will be uncompressed, 422 etc - but all the compression artifacts are still there. Same with any imperfections in the front end when a live signal is output. All that saying "uncompressed HDMI, 8 bit, 422" tells you is what it can be connected to. It's completely wrong to infer anything about quality either way from it. Could be fantastic, could be awful.

As analogy think back to film. You may have two cameras, one a cheap disposable, the other a top end Canon or Nikon. In each case they advertise "uses 35mm film". What does that tell you? About relative quality - absolutely NOTHING! But it does tell you what size of enlarger will be needed to make prints.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

Thanks for adding so much to the discussion David, your writing is lucid and thoughtful as always.

As someone without the same depth of technical/video engineering knowledge, your comments help illuminate what we can expect from the next generation of DSLRs (primarily designed for stills), and the inherent image penalties.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

Thanks Josh. If I can point to any one single thing, it's to try to make clear that good quality video and good quality stills have conflicting demands for a designer - it's very difficult for any manufacturer to reach a decent compromise at reasonable cost and with power/heat etc etc constraints. That's before we even start to consider ergonomic conflicts. It may be more realistic to just accept having two cameras - one for video, one for stills, each optimised for their strengths!

And so often there is a polarisation of opinion - buckets have to be seen as full or empty, whereas in practice they are half full. I've got a Canon 550D for personal use, and there's the conflict. Part of me can't believe that a DSLR can give video of that standard, the other part is only too well aware that it is not up to the standard of a good true modern video camera, either in sheer quality terms or ease of use. On the other hand, it's better than other "real" video cameras from years gone by!

For personal use, there is no way I am going to spend the money on such as a C300, it's not justifiable. But if you're going to be making a drama with any sort of budget at all, the cost difference between it and a DSLR is negligible when spread over the lifetime of the camera. Certainly negligible when compared to other costs of the production - and if it can save on lighting bills, it may actually lead to an overall cost saving. Same if you're a broadcaster and trying to keep your transmission bitrate as low as possible. A totally false economy if you have to pay out for a higher bitrate to compensate for the coding problems caused by a bit of extra aliasing. (Assuming the bandwidth is there - in the UK there is one HD terrestial multiplex to squeeze 5 channels into. Barely makes it even with decent source pictures.)

And if there is one other thing I really wish to get over it's not to fixate on individual specifications. The obvious example here being the uncompressed HDMI output. It's certainly not a bad thing, but it's a big leap of faith to assume that it will automatically make for high quality. And unfortunately marketing people don't normally help, and that doesn't just apply to cameras. Their job is to sell, and if that means talking things up at the expense of accuracy, well..... what do you expect? Not tell lies, but if selective with what they emphasise, and if people misunderstand in their favour........?

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

The thing about the clean HDMI output isn't that it gives perfect quality; it's that it removes that particular bottleneck. Heck, you can record to a PC with a RAID without compression in a tethered situation.

That really leaves the sensor quality, the number of photosites that can be read, and the signal processing quality as the only questions - for people who are willing to budget a separate recorder.

Keep in mind that a recorder pushes the system price up to about $6k and you lose the smallness and simplicity of internal recording. Another $1.5K and you can have a 1D-X...

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

David, I appreciate your posts, but this one is very misleading.

In fact, "uncompressed HDMI, 8 bit, 422" says a lot for the D800. It tells us that the signal has been has been demosaiced, gamma encoded, white balanced, color balanced, chroma sub-sampled and quantized to 8-bits, Everything that the camera does to the image has been performed on image, except for running it through the compression codec.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

Yes, please don't think I'm being critical of the uncompressed HDMI output (I did say "It's certainly not a bad thing...."), quite the opposite. If there's a problem, it's that people are inferring that it automatically means a great front end - it may do, it may not - that's the real point I'm trying to get across.
Well, yes, but doesn't the internal codec recording also tell us the same thing? Can't that be taken as read? My comment was really about relative quality, and a big factor there is HOW the demosaicing is done, not that it's done at all. If a simple read out has to be done, the dimensions of the C300 chip are optimum - larger dimensions must lead to compromises.

To my mind, the big advantage of using the D800 (or any other DSLR) for video is going to be cost, if you're going to be comparing it with the C300 (which seems to be the new large sensor yardstick). This is how I see my 550D - far from perfect, but it gives me pretty good video capability in a still camera that I would have anyway. Once you start to factor in the cost of external recorders, devices to improve ergonomics etc that advantage starts to get eroded. (The internal codec of the C300 is fully broadcast compliant.) A few thousand dollars may be highly significant if you're a student on a shoestring - insignificant for even a modest broadcast budget. Let's not forget the camera cost will get spread over many productions.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

I do certainly agree that clean HDMI out of a DSLR can be a "be careful what you ask for" feature. That signal has to be recorded, like you've pointed out.

And no way is an external recorder going to work as smoothly as built-in recording. The best external recorder out there that is made for the somewhat budget conscious is the nanoFlash. It's excellent, but not cheap. And as good as it is, it's not as straight forward as recording internally.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

<<<And no way is an external recorder going to work as smoothly as built-in recording.>>>

Right. That is next price point barrier to cross. An inexpensive camera, like a D800, that features SSD recording and can record either uncompressed or something like ProRes HQ or RED RAW.
This seems like it should be do-able.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

Have you heard of the Atomos- Ninja external recorder, they are about 1,000. Are they any good.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

I have heard of the Ninja. The price seems too low for what is truly required - a robust recorder with many more features than one might at first think needed.

I've been looking at both the AJA Ki Pro Mini and the Convergent Designs Nano.
Both of these companies have good reputations and are making continuous improvements.

As always, YMMV.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

And an external recorder can only record as good as it's given. It can be an improvement, no doubt, but if the front end of the camera isn't very good, it can't make that any better.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

Maybe one day we'll have a camera with a non-proprietary SSD slot for uncompressed DPX image sequences. I won't even mind a DIRAC codec in an MKV container.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

As someone primarily insterested in documenting climbing/skiing/trekking, the D800 sounds fantastic on paper, apart from perhaps the low-light. Bear in mind I haven't upgraded from my HV20 and HV30 yet (I was hanging on for clean HDMI out). Aliasing and moiree are less of an issue for me, as opposed to greater MP and decent video, with the chance of recording to a ninja if I ever get out of 'amateur' ghetto.

However, I still am considering 5dii, as well as the APS-C cameras (although having shot in a previously life on 645 film, I MUCH prefer larger sensors and less distorted perspective - i.e. full-frame).

Here's the rub - given it's unlikely I'll be using a ninja much (the others are out of my price range), I would have thought the Canons with magic lantern have a big advantage over the 800d (bitrate, all the rest of it).

Any thoughts as to how the in-camera codecs stack up? Or is it too early to say? Extremely impressed with the NEX-5n footage I've seen too. Need the photo-side that DSLR's offer (otherwise I'd jump at the FS100 - although a bit out of my price range).

Agnostic as far as glass goes, have some older Canon FD and radioactive FL lenses that could be adapted to most mounts (love my 58mm 1.2!)..

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

I just read on another site that a large quantity of Nikon D4 and D800s were stolen from a van in Dublin.

Might delay these new products availability (well legal availability anyway...) for a while in this part of the world.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

Can anyone answer me this, between the Nikon D4 and D800, which one will give you the better video, if at all. The difference, one 16 megapixel and the other 36 and one more light sensitive(D4) than the other. Can one say or predict according to what they offer. Would be much appreciated.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

Jerry, I think at this point, without full understanding of their image processing, nobody can be certain.


To add my instinct on the previous HDMI debate, I think the quality of the signal depends on the amount and the quality of processing, before the uncompressed "spit out". Again is a wait and see situation.
My most favorable feature of the D4/800 is their windowing capacity. Essentially an 1.5X extender without fstop or quality loss. Nikon lack of video division gave us two very useful tools to play with...

I think this is future of cameras. Cameras that can go from FF to S16(2/3inch) or even 1/3 would be ubiquitous in the future. Manufacturers won't like it, but eventually they have to comply to the forces of market.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

The d800 vs d4 debate when it comes to video is the one I look forward to learning more about. When reading about both cameras you see a lot of mention of both cameras having essentially the same video specs. This would seemingly translate into a conclusion that for the independent micro-budget filmmaker that is considering these cameras to purchase, that it would be a no-brainer to go with the half-price d800 over the d4. Since the video specs are the same.

BUT

It would seem to me that as a micro-budget filmmaker without access to as much lighting as one would like - the fatter pixels of the d4 would provide better low light shooting outside at night, dimly lit night interiors etc. When moving about with only a china ball and a c-stand I think I would want the sensor of the d4 on my side to maximize the lack of additional equipment.

So while it seems like the d800 is better suited because of the price tag - my thoughts are that the d4 with one more crop setting than the d800 [fewer lenses], and better low light, and wireless control [small crew] that it is the d4 that will actually be the indie-filmmakers choice.

Should be interesting to learn more about them both and see if any of that ends up to be the case.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

Canon t3i has this out of the box, 3x-10x windowing and you can adjust it anywhere in between, even 'zoom' while you are shooting. This was a feature I requested on a longshot about a year and a half ago and they actually implemented it..

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

Agreed. I eagerly await test results from professional cinematographers as to the pluses and minus of the new Nikons. One of my colleagues in another department has put in for a D4 and a Sound Devices 240 recorder. That should be a sweet rig - ProRes and two SD mic preamps with limiters - YES!

Does anyone know if Nikon has built in the possibility of being able to control a D4 via an iPad app? Being able to program rack and control *fine* focus remotely while monitoring HD would be huge.

Re: Nikon D800 with video features
 

Does anyone know if Nikon DSLRs are able to shoot video with their Active D-Lighting curve applied? Would be a great option for increasing DR in the video if it did.