or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › Nikon D3200: an alternative to T3i
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Nikon D3200: an alternative to T3i

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:


While the original D3100 featured 1080p HD capabilities, the D3200 has improved on this and added additional frame rates and greater control over how you make movies. The new model has added the option to record at 30, 25 or 24fps in 1080 resolution as well as the ability to record at 60 or 50 fps in 720 format. Additionally, the D3200 supports full-time autofocus while filming and offers the ability to manually adjust your exposure settings, too. An external stereo microphone jack and conveniently located movie-record button are also incorporated into the design for greater recording possibilities and functionality.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/indepth/...el-even-higher

post #2 of 25
The little Olympus OM-D E-M5 is a mirrorless alternative to the big, cumbersome Canikons. It has a power zoom lens plus a 5 axis image stabilization system just like camcorder. And unlike the dull, bland video of a camcorder, the OM-D has bright, vivid video: http://vimeo.com/41128696
post #3 of 25
Thread Starter 

Here are some test shots I made with the Nikon 3200: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM76yhfDbxY Feel free to comment on YouTube video page.
 

 


Edited by Ungermann - 1/23/13 at 11:55pm
post #4 of 25
U- congrats on the new camera - as a long time Nikon shooter, I have a soft spot for new Nikons.

Nice images in your video - and I like the D3200 for the price - but it has pretty significant moire on the shingled roofs, though. Sadly, the T3i has that problem too.

That said, if I had to go back to a DSLR with mirror lock-up in video mode (and moire), and my choices were the D3200 and the T3i, I would get the D3200 because of price and because of Nikon's 20 minute video clip length limit as opposed to Canon's 12 minutes.

Cheers,

Bill
post #5 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunerww View Post

it has pretty significant moire on the shingled roofs

Yep, this is why I included shots with the roof. You missed moire on the wooden posts and on my son's T-shirt (this one is harder to spot). I am not sure whether I will be keeping it.
post #6 of 25
Yeah, I saw it on the wooden posts - I was trying to be gentle :-)

Maybe Mosaic will come up with an anti-aliasing filter for the APS-C Nikons, like the one they're working on for the D800 and the T2i/T3i.
post #7 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunerww View Post

Yeah, I saw it on the wooden posts - I was trying to be gentle :-)

No need to. Not my fault and Best Buy has 30 days return policy without restocking fee. ;-)
post #8 of 25
D3200 looks great. Affordable full-frame Nikon and Canon DSLRs are supposedly on their way.
post #9 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD90 View Post

The little Olympus OM-D E-M5 is a mirrorless alternative to the big, cumbersome Canikons. It has a power zoom lens plus a 5 axis image stabilization system just like camcorder. And unlike the dull, bland video of a camcorder, the OM-D has bright, vivid video: http://vimeo.com/41128696

I wasn't at all impressed by the video, though the image stabilization sounds nice and still probably better than plenty of camcorders, especially in low light. I can certainly get better from my T2i than what I saw in that video. It looked like it was on Vivid setting, which is an awful setting most of the time. I guess people are attracted to that way too high contrast look even though it looks unnatural and crushes dark detail into oblivion (look at the truck under the gas station and the dark areas on the bush).

My T2i with Technicolor Cinestyle would have retained dark detail on the truck and bushes instead of crushing the shadows into complete blackness. Nasty stuff. Hopefully that camera can be customized for higher dynamic range than what that video shows. It pops due to it being too high contrast, but not in a good way, IMO.

I hate that high midtone contrast look as well. Looks the exact opposite of pleasing film. It also makes skin tones look brutally harsh accenting any skin flaw in a way our eyes never would. Overall the video looks ok, but definitely not impressive or natural.
post #10 of 25
Thread Starter 

Another short video. Took the camera to a blueberry farm. All handheld. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO6C872T68Y

 


Edited by Ungermann - 1/23/13 at 11:54pm
post #11 of 25
Thread Starter 
This is a short video I shot in a park with the D3200: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1TLtceRZzw

post #12 of 25
This very nicely done. Artifacts and softness be damned!

Was this shot at 72060p?
post #13 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

This very nicely done. Artifacts and softness be damned!

Was this shot at 72060p?
24p. I don't remember whether it was 1080 or 720. In either case, it resolves 550 lines max, so no point to shoot in 1080. I usually prefer 720 to minimize macroblocking.
post #14 of 25
There is no 720 24p option on the camera. But the Youtube video only offered 720. I would have thought 720 60p was the best option for the video on the camera.

What does You tube do to convert 24p to its streaming 30p?
post #15 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

There is no 720 24p option on the camera.
Indeed. Thus I shot in 1080p24.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

But the Youtube video only offered 720.
Yes, I rendered it into 720p24.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

What does You tube do to convert 24p to its streaming 30p?
YouTube uses variable frame rate with average rate no higher than 30fps. If you upload 30fps or lower, YouTube still messes with your video, changing constant rate to variable, but it preserves average rate. So, if you upload 30p then the average rate will be 30fps. If you upload 24p, then the average rate will be 24fps. They improved their algorithms a lot, I don't see objectionable stuttering of frame blending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

I would have thought 720 60p was the best option for the video on the camera.
Depending on what you want. I prefer using 24p lately not because I am super-stoked about film look, but because this format is supported best worldwide. My parents abroad can watch decent-looking DVDs on their DVD player, I am planning to render to Blu-ray, and 24p is fully supported on 50 Hz HDTVs and Blu-ray players. It looks good online. Lower frame rate means fewer artifacts. Neither Vimeo nor YouTube display full-blown 60fps anyway. A year ago I was sure that this would change soon, but now seeing that most mobile phones - which are the shooting device of choice nowadays - shoot 30fps tops, I am not so sure about prospects of 50/60fps online.
Edited by Ungermann - 1/24/13 at 1:52pm
post #16 of 25
Thanks. All reasonable.
post #17 of 25
I like what I viewed. If the only problem is roofs and fence posts, shoot something else! I vote you keep it.

Bill
post #18 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ungermann View Post

YouTube uses variable frame rate with average rate no higher than 30fps. If you upload 30fps or lower, YouTube still messes with your video, changing constant rate to variable, but it preserves average rate. So, if you upload 30p then the average rate will be 30fps. If you upload 24p, then the average rate will be 24fps. They improved their algorithms a lot, I don't see objectionable stuttering of frame blending.

I shot some separate videos in 24p, rendered to 24p in Vegas/uploaded to YouTube. I mistakenly rendered one video to 30p and once it was on YouTube it looked sharper than the 24p videos (same environment/similar footage).

Would there be a reason rendering 24p to 30p would be a bad (or good) general practice for YouTube uploads?
post #19 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by xfws View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ungermann View Post

YouTube uses variable frame rate with average rate no higher than 30fps. If you upload 30fps or lower, YouTube still messes with your video, changing constant rate to variable, but it preserves average rate. So, if you upload 30p then the average rate will be 30fps. If you upload 24p, then the average rate will be 24fps. They improved their algorithms a lot, I don't see objectionable stuttering of frame blending.

I shot some separate videos in 24p, rendered to 24p in Vegas/uploaded to YouTube. I mistakenly rendered one video to 30p and once it was on YouTube it looked sharper than the 24p videos (same environment/similar footage).

Would there be a reason rendering 24p to 30p would be a bad (or good) general practice for YouTube uploads?
No idea what is happening there. Most LCD monitors refresh at 60Hz, so 30Hz may be a better frame rate in terms of motion. Still, my 24p videos uploaded as 24p look no worse to my eyes compared to 30p videos.
post #20 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ungermann View Post

No idea what is happening there. Most LCD monitors refresh at 60Hz, so 30Hz may be a better frame rate in terms of motion. Still, my 24p videos uploaded as 24p look no worse to my eyes compared to 30p videos.

It looks like there is less blur with the 30p render. I'll have to try some more footage to see if actually matters to anything...at least in my mind, as I'm sure the general audience would have no idea what I'm talking about.

Thanks for the reply.
post #21 of 25
Thread Starter 
Made a short review with the D3200. Aliasing in the first shot is quite pronounced, and couple of images are not in focus, but otherwise not too bad ;-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5oR7HsLudI

post #22 of 25
Thread Starter 
A 2-minute video about my son learning how to play tennis. Yep, the last half a minute is out of focus, it is hard to focus on faraway objects using the screen in bright sunlight.


Edited by Ungermann - 8/19/13 at 10:53pm
post #23 of 25
A nice video. I liked the camera angle - on the ground - and the cut-edits. And the relatively shallow dof was nice in highlighting the subject. Was this shot 72060p (Youtube only showing 720 max)? Anything special done in post-edit with color?
post #24 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

A nice video. I liked the camera angle - on the ground - and the cut-edits.
Thanks. Notice it is not only cuts in video, but also relatively smooth audio flow, I don't cut audio at the same points where I cut video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

Was this shot 72060p (Youtube only showing 720 max)?
Nope ;-) I see no point in uploading 1080p, at least from this camera.


Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

Anything special done in post-edit with color?
No. Only adjusted levels a bit.
Edited by Ungermann - 8/16/13 at 7:06pm
post #25 of 25
Nikon D5200 is a great choice now. It doesn't have moire/aliasing problems that plague most DLSRs and it has very good low light.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Camcorders
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › Nikon D3200: an alternative to T3i