I am so tired of Nikon rolling out DX cameras with video and ignoring FX. I’ll never go back to DX after using the FX, but it came out two years too late. Nikon is still trying to catch to Canon on full-frame, low noise bodies and fast primes.

It’s not about technology vs. hard core photographers. It’s about Nikon improving their sensors on their DSLR’s. You feel that video would improve photographers skills an abilities on day to day bases. You are wrong. Improving the sensor by increasing the mega pixel rate, noise reduction and increase ISO settings would be the most important aspects in DSLR camera.

I also want to tell you, that you are tech. guy and you don’t understand what professional photographer wants in a camera. For example do you think a wedding photographer needs video in a poorly light church, say Roman Catholic yes or no?

Why is Sony leading the pack? What makes their cameras more special then Nikon or Canon cameras? Do you feel that Sony has a better marketing plain when it comes to selling their cameras? These are some questions you have to ask yourself. When you answer these questions, you come to the same conclusion that I see. Nikon is going backwards instead of going forwards on how to improve their cameras.

I prefer Nikon would improve their sensors and lower their prices on their cameras. Sony that makes sensors for Nikon, has their cameras at lower price and higher mega pixel. Why is Nikon not doing the same?

who is laughing now?
C

i do not have anything against video but i spend enough time trying to master photography. i honestly think that people feel that video and still photography is more closely linked to eachother than it is….

the last thing i want to see is inexperienced photographers/videographers advertising their paid services , spreading themselves too thin and doing a poor job at it. in the end it hurts the professionals and i don’t think merging the two is a great idea….

if they were to put out a serious video-first camera, that would be something completely different. get another crew for the R&D, it might even be something i would want to buy, but if a camera body can only hold so much, all preferences goes to a better still, not for more “doodads”.

however, i suspect the market will disagree with me, since so many amateurs are into those cheap extraneous items, which made so many switch to Canon’s 5DmkII.

i personally think it is a good thing

there are some things that just lend themselves better to video

what has videophiles slobbering at the mouth is the access to large sensors and interchangeable quality lenses – at an affordable price

the problem with the DSLR video is that it is only using a subset of the sensors to produce the video and is thus not reaching its full potential – not to mention the problem with ergonomics

what i continue to lobby for is a dedicated F mount video camera – with APS-C and/or FF 16:9 dedicated HD sensor with 4K phtotosites (2K G 1K R 1K B)

give it a raw output capability, dual memory cards, and all of the doodads and manual controls you would expect from a quality video camera

and then price it competively – $1500 APS-C, $2500 FF body only

add a couple of pins for a motorized zoom but keep it compatible with existing F mount lenses

unlike Sony and Canon, this would not cut into existing camcorder business – but on the other hand – it very likely would cut into those camera companies businesses and steal a lot of thunder away from the 5D mk II

We see the same in the computer industry, pretty much every group of system administrators will tell you how superior (and secure) their platform is and how the upstart is rubbish. It used to be MVS admins yacking on about VMS, then the VMS people about UNIX and now its UNIX about Windows. It has nothing to do with the merits of the system they know, it is all about the fear that their skills will become obsolete.

I would like to see either XLR connectors on the camera or a box that you connect up the mics to that plugs into the camera.

I think that in addition to putting video on the basic DSLR, there is a huge opportunity for a video-optimized body that takes F-mount lenses. A video optimized body would have an electronic viewfinder instead of the mirror and an electronic shutter.

The big potential gain for still photographers is an electronic shutter. I would much rather have the ability to sync flash at any shutter speed than a third of an ISO stop.

Having used pro-video equipment costing $5000, I am unimpressed. I do not think that any of the current generation of pro-video is worth buying at the moment. For $500 you can buy a Canon HD-Video camcorder that records to solid state media. Virtually all the pro recorders are still based on obsolete tape transport. That is a huge disadvantage as the transport noise forces you to use off-camera mics and messing around with tapes.

It is obvious that within a couple of years, all those $5000 models will be in the skip along with the tape transport and the Betamax tapes. But at the moment you don’t have a viable alternative at a realistic price.

The one thing you get with pro-video that you can’t get at the moment in the DSLR world is the ability to do focus pulling. That really should not take long to fix.