It's cool, but... I can't imagine where I would actually use it. Also, something similar that works with many exsisting (Canon) cameras:
dslrcontroller.com/

It's 8-bit. 4:2:2

It's a start! : )

that will come with the d4s silly.. incrementalism.

Hmmm about resolution, I might sound bad but, isn't 1080=1080? Well I might be wrong... ;-) And from what I've heared it's going to crop, not line skip.

It must line skip at full-frame. Nikon even admit the 2.7 'crop' may be cleaner.
I don't agree that the video looked any more 'soft' than a 5D2. Its a full-frame at the same 24mb internal rate.
A hacked GH2 would probably look better off internal recording. But then a 100mb external record of this probably looks as good or better with a range of other features.

@Krystian, sadly 1080P isn't really 1080P in the world of DSLRs. Canon's downres their huge sensor image 25 (or more) times a second to create the 1080P image, they do this by line skipping, resulting in a soft image. There may be 1080 vertical lines of pixels but it can't resolve 1080 lines of resolution, only about 650-700 I think. The GH2 doesn't line-skip which means it does much better and resolves 850 lines of resolution. The C300 is even better and has all 1080. That's why the 5D and all canons look soft and are really 720P cameras despite the numbers, ,though some people like the soft look as it can be quite cinematic. One of the 1DX's (the D4's main rival) main selling points for video is that it does not line skip.

An uncompressed HDMI will not gain you more resolution, just makes the resolution it already throws out look better, particularly when you grade it heavily. The GH2 is a cheap consumer camera with the same number of pixels as the D4, if the D4 doesn't produce as detailed video, that's a big fail I think.

And if Panasonic put that sensor in a camcorder body and charged 5k for it they'd make a lot of money. I'd buy one.
The GH2 is sharper, but not better. As you point out, that slight softness is the DSLR 'look'. Also, I personally hated the GH2 as a stills camera for what that's worth.
If max bang for the buck is your need, I think the GH2 is a contender, although I can think of far more people making money off their 'worse' T2is and 60ds. Which is weird, no?
I think the 1DX will give slightly better video, but its $8k and doesn't have the XQD slot which I can see coming in handy. At least this Nikon might nudge Canon (and Panny) in the right direction.

Agreed on the GH2 being a poor stills camera, but in terms of video (especially hacked) it really is better than a T2i in almost every way that counts (I own both), the fact it's not used as much out there for video is more to do with marketing, lens, camera and accessory availability than video capability (though the former are important considerations).

The soft canon look is 100% fine for web stuff but pushing it to full HD is a little more tricky and limiting and most (not all) professionals want more than 720p resolution. The Alexa, RED and now the C300 shoot much higher resolution than canon DSLRs for a reason and it shows when you watch clips (or feature films) made with them (film is of course higher resolution too).

I really want a high iso, well built camera in the 5K range with decent resolution, codec and reasonable dynamic range to tempt me away from my GH2 and 5D. The FS100, 1DX and D4 all seem to do 2 of those 3, it's just a shame one doesn't do all 3, the closest being the 1DX. I think Nikon, out of nowhere almost spoilt the party, but forgot to bring the mixers :) But heh, everybody has a different feature set they want and we can't all be happy, for many, any of the above will be more than enough of a camera. I guess I just want a C300 but don't want to pay 20x GH2 price for a camera that isn't 3X better image wise, but I'd settle for paying 10X more lol!

Well I own a GH2...it not that bad as you make it out to be...I shot a perfectly usable picture the other day at ISO 2500...but that was a fluke though...

I believe Dan is based in Beijing and James is in Kingston upon Thames, UK you would be better off if either were in the USA!
Why don't you translate it yourself?
It may be easier :)

It is only $6000.00 dollars. Plus lenses of course. Only for real Pros basically.

The cheaper version will be probably be the D800 due later in the year for half this price.
$6k is very reasonable for this. If you want a great cheap video camera buy a used 60D. They're incredible for the money.

I have the 7D.I think more high end lenses will produce incredible images that a great body...just saying.what is a camera body without a good glass

@jean I agree people get so technical about all the resolution and stuff but i think if you have a good glass and a decent body rather than a great body and decent glass your video will be higher quality lenses are very VERY important

a great sense of storytelling Jacob...

I've always had Nikon, but I shoot video, so back in the day I bought a 7D (Nikoner buying Canon is something you don't see that often) along with a few lenses.
The 7D is quite good at video, but nowhere near the 5D in terms of sharpness and quality of footage.
I've been waiting for Nikon to put something out that could record video decently (i did buy a D90 but it was horrific), and now it's time to sell the 7D, which pretty much sucks at high ISO (and I hate the APS-C sensor) and buy myself this magnificent D4.

Nikon has the best glass ever.As a photographer, i prefer Nikon for the quality of pictures.I would switch to D4 if i could afford it.You are right,5D is way better.With what i want to do as a photojournalist,i hope that i get to afford the D4 someday

until canon come out with the 4k dslr, 7Dii and MK3

imo canon have the video DSLR market down, and this camera wont change that.

Then again, if you have got some nice nikon lenses....

That was the first thing I noticed too. Awesome.

I've never had a problem with Nikon skin-tone. And are we assuming that the clip above was shot with a D4? I suspect not.

You are probably right that this wasn't shot with a D4, but I guess skin tones come down to preference. I am really impressed that they have lots of "this has never been done before" and canon just has faster processors and you can see the audio levels as their improvements from the mark IV.

Yeah, the war is on for certain now, and we will all benefit.

This was probably shot with a canon as that's what dan chung uses I think! Mark's right though, we all benefit from this camera fight, the 5k market should be a ripe market for people stepping up from 5D etc and it wasn't looking very competitive until now. Hopefully this will scare Canon a little bit, they've handicapped the 1DX because they have the C300 and might pay the price of not having the best DSLR for video.

Yep, Canon was so busy trying to protect their C300 from the 1DX, they neglected to protect their 1DX from the the D4. I'd laugh if I weren't crying.

You have to consider though that the C300 is mainly a videocamera, if not "just" a videocamera, while both the D4 and the 1DX main purpose is photography.
I am getting the D4 real soon, and i'm getting an amazing photocamera and videocamera..

Atomos Ninja.

You never really could use canon glass on nikon, due to electronic aperture and only one adaptor in the world that could resolve that problem but it's for a few video cameras. i can't imagine it ever being designed with a nikon mount.

And the Nikon D90 was the first to use video in their system....

Yes and as Canon and Nikon tries to out do the other, its nothing but good for us users/customers

You sure do.
And you really can't put the D4 and the 5D on the same level, they're on totally different levels.
the D4 costs double the price of the 5D.
Also, the 5D is quite old now...

I hope Canon can beat the price point for this D4...Way Way outta my range :(