>>Wow, >> >>I surely would be looking for something else for video if >>that's your primary consideration. For less money you >could >>be into a Blackmagic Cinema camera. Get 2K RAW video. >Hell >>of a lot better than a D800 for $1k less. Or for $1k more >get >>their 4K version. >> >>-P >> >http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagiccinemacamera/ > >Perone, Does not that depends on your final use?
Nope. Not for me. Just like stills. Even when I am delivering to the web, I still shoot my D800 or D3s on RAW and not JPG basic.
>Some of us do not want/need huge RAW Video files.
So don't shoot them. Shoot ProResLT
>If your highest use is DVD or even BlueRay for viewing on TV, >even DNxHD 36 might be overkill,
Not really, for much the same reason as shooting 12MP JPG isn't overkill for delivering 8x10.
>but the minimum 220 MegaBytes per second of the BM is just way >too much to deal with.
Who said the minimum was 220mbps?
>I only use a Shuttle II for one reason: >Uninterrupted recording. >I erase those huge files as soon as I have converted them.
Cool. Do you erase your RAW image files from the Nikon as well?
>I also use the D800 primarily for my "Home Movies", > but enjoy all the other attributes of these cameras too. >And, the BlackMagic makes a lousy still camera.
The BM is about as bad at stills as the D800 is at video. Pick your poison.
Incidentally, the BM is shooting a frame size about equivalent to the D2h (which put untold photos on the cover of a great many magazines) but it's doing it at 24-30fps in RAW. Without the equivalent of an external recorder, the D800 is writing video at the equivalent of a D1.