studio460 said:
Not quite apples-to-apples, but with the D7000, now I don't have to buy one of these!

Don't know what the problem is, a couple of them hanging on your BlackRapid, what's the problem? :-)

Not quite apples-to-apples, but with the D7000, now I don't have to buy one of these!

bhoveyga said:
Another popular trick is a wheelchair... you sit in the chair and shoot, somebody else pushes.

[Off-topic: Wheelchairs are good, but expensive-the kind with air-filled tires are best. Wheelchairs are also especially good with a hard-mounted Steadicam. That's how, inventor/operator, Garrett Brown shot all of the "Big Wheel" sequences in "The Shining."]

> You could also use a really good tricycle (I'm not kidding), since laying track in public walkways is usually a problem.]

Another popular trick is a wheelchair... you sit in the chair and shoot, somebody else pushes.

WaterEngineer said:
I am trying to figure out a way to do a dolly on the cheap.

[Off-topic: You could make your own for next to nothing. I just Googled, "dolly kit wheels," and this cool set of bracketed wheels came up in Amazon--only $115. Just add plywood and PVC pipe! You could also use a really good tricycle (I'm not kidding), since laying track in public walkways is usually a problem.]

WaterEngineer said:
Studio wrote:

Nice time-lapse! It would've been ultra-cool if you could've pulled off a nice waist-level dolly shot of all of the finished work!

Street painting season is just firing up. Bookmark Jennifer's webpage and watch for new videos of this strings work.

I am trying to figure out a way to do a dolly on the cheap.

Hi WE,

Her work is terrific!

My best,

Mike

Studio wrote:

Nice time-lapse! It would've been ultra-cool if you could've pulled off a nice waist-level dolly shot of all of the finished work!

Street painting season is just firing up. Bookmark Jennifer's webpage and watch for new videos of this strings work.

I am trying to figure out a way to do a dolly on the cheap.

Hi,

@WaterEngineer

"Studio460 and Mike Gunter:

"You two make a ton of sense and have the most lucid, logical replies on this thread."

Studio and I are a team. He's sense, lucid, and logical. I'm a ton.

The 'Red' products are, ah, less affordable than DSLRs, and will suffer some of the same foibles, such as CMOS sensors and thus, rolling shutters. Nonetheless, your D90, _assuming_ you see the AE lock to "AE" only, and use a nice tripod and no tilting and no panning - I am stifling your creativity on this somewhat - and you have your lighting design consistent, you results will be nothing sort of breathtaking.

@bhoveyga

"Shooting serious video requires specialized gear, and even more modest projects that don't require the equipment you mentioned (say a low-budget small-market 30 second commercial, ENG, or perhaps a wedding) still require at least a fluid head and some provision for quality audio. Still, I do feel the one-camera solution has some professional appeal that reaches beyond those serious amateur photographers who occasionally want to shoot a bit of video."

That is true as far as it goes. There's hardly anything worse than shaky footage, but without going too far into it, shooters can ameliorate their jittery style somewhat and bring home some worthwhile footage. It will take some education and training, perhaps a tripod or monopod, but more than that, the will and desire to focus on smooth footage.

@Studio

"Yes, it's a hugely disturbing trend (or, a hugely "liberating" one, depending on which side of the negotiating table you're on) that's also happening with reporters and field directors."

More of a union thing. At one point, a long time ago, we had to decide, are you a writer or a photographer? Some of us were both - for a short while. Now the pendulum is swinging back for some.

@spraynpray

"That right there has always been my problem with the current VDSLR's. If you are including it in consumer models, it needs to be simple to use. Save the full control modes for the pro range or give multi-modes on both ranges."

At my first reading, I didn't really know where you were coming from, but then I think you might have something that could 'separate' the low-end models from the high-end models. I'm not sure that's a good idea (and that's just me). IOW, the more the technology is out there, the more it is developed. I'd like to see certain technologies reserved for pros, but perhaps not this one. But when you start to 'cherry pick' which ones, it's hard to decide which ones.

@SkinBrit

"Although I'm very pleased with my "stills" taken on the day, they don't convey the same feeling of power and shear noise that I got by filming a few minutes of video on my D3s. I am not a videographer and don't have any particular desire to be one, but on that day I was very happy to have the flexibility of both, and not having to invest in a video camera for the rare occasion that I need one. So long as video doesn't distract Nikon from making great still cameras (and I don't see why it should) I'm all for it."

Which, of course, is the point. Video is just pictures, too, only at, in your case, 25 stills per second.

My best,

Mike

I've never waded in to this discussion before, so here's my tuppence hapeny's worth. Last year I was filming an air show at the BBC Top Gear test track near Guildford in Surrey UK, I took some nice shots of the Harrier jump jet & Euro fighter. One of my shots of the Harrier is of it stationary 100 feet above one of the buildings, with the heat haze coming out of its exhaust nozzles. Although I'm very pleased with my "stills" taken on the day, they don't convey the same feeling of power and shear noise that I got by filming a few minutes of video on my D3s. I am not a videographer and don't have any particular desire to be one, but on that day I was very happy to have the flexibility of both, and not having to invest in a video camera for the rare occasion that I need one. So long as video doesn't distract Nikon from making great still cameras (and I don't see why it should) I'm all for it.

studio460 said:
Thankfully, V-DSLRs are difficult enough to shoot video with, that most reporters who are also forced to shoot video are still using crummy Handycams. But, things are definitely changing.

That right there has always been my problem with the current VDSLR's. If you are including it in consumer models, it needs to be simple to use. Save the full control modes for the pro range or give multi-modes on both ranges.

Mike Gunter said:
Hi,

But, if I might also add...

I was at a small party of retired journalists, and a former _Sacramento Bee_ reporter was telling me that their on-line photojournalists are now being tasked with taking VDSLRs with them and doing small Web scenes for posting. He went on to say that was the 'latest' requirement would have the working photographer more knowledgeable about motion pictures and editing software. That's a current kink.

My best,

Mike

Yes, it's a hugely disturbing trend (or, a hugely "liberating" one, depending on which side of the negotiating table you're on) that's also happening with reporters and field directors. These people aren't even photographers! This sort of thing is happening everywhere. Thankfully, V-DSLRs are difficult enough to shoot video with, that most reporters who are also forced to shoot video are still using crummy Handycams. But, things are definitely changing.

valonqe said:
. . . I could never do that with my XLH1 camcorder, not to mention the depth of field that we get with VDSLR.

We've come a looooong way from the 'ole 1/3" XL/XLH-1, haven't we? I can't believe those things are still selling for $9,000!!!

WaterEngineer said:
Studio460 and Mike Gunter:

You two make a ton of sense and have the most lucid, logical replies on this thread.

Gee, thanks!

bhoveyga said:
I agree completely. Shooting serious video requires specialized gear, and even more modest projects that don't require the equipment you mentioned (say a low-budget small-market 30 second commercial, ENG, or perhaps a wedding) still require at least a fluid head and some provision for quality audio.

Exactly! And, good fluid-head tripods are expensive! I have a beat-up, old Vinten Vision 5, that I bought used for $1,000 (the Sachtler Video 20P heads we use at work cost about $8300). If you thought still gear was pricey, welcome to the over-priced, highly specialized world of uber-expensive filmmaking equipment!

And, it doesn't end there--as bhoveyga mentions, there's also audio to consider! In Hollywood, the two most popular short-shotgun mics are the Sennheiser MHK-60 ($1,599), and the venerable, Sennheiser 416 ($999). I own a cheap-o AudioTechnica AT835B ($300). Plus, you still need a fishpole (about $700 for carbon fiber) just to hold it, and some type of SMPTE-capable digital audio recorder. Not to mention that a good wireless lav set-up costs about $2,300. And you kind of need at least two of those. The list goes on, and on . . .

WaterEngineer said:
Jennifer's work can be seen here, and there is a link to videos:

http://www.amazingstreetpainting.com

Nice time-lapse! It would've been ultra-cool if you could've pulled off a nice waist-level dolly shot of all of the finished work!

Studio460 said;

>> I believe the assertion that people are buying V-DSLRs to "carry only one piece of gear" is a bit off the mark. Filmmakers shooting with V-DSLRs typically use an entirely different set of tools and accessories to shoot motion video (Steadicams, dolly track, follow-focus rigs, jib arms, HMIs, etc.).

I agree completely. Shooting serious video requires specialized gear, and even more modest projects that don't require the equipment you mentioned (say a low-budget small-market 30 second commercial, ENG, or perhaps a wedding) still require at least a fluid head and some provision for quality audio. Still, I do feel the one-camera solution has some professional appeal that reaches beyond those serious amateur photographers who occasionally want to shoot a bit of video. I work at a TV station and our parent company also owns a newspaper in an adjoining city. We share news coverage in our respective mediums as well as providing content for each other's web sites. A still camera that shoots good quality video could be a valuable tool for both of us.

>> Adding video capability to a DSLR allows the manufacturer to sell the same product to essentially two different market segments: filmmakers and still photographers. The fact that some of us are both, just makes the deal that much sweeter.

I feel the potential benefit for those in this latter group is something that may prove to be quite profound once we've all had time to settle in and experiment a bit (I for one have only had my D7000 for three days). The serious still photographer who discovers video as another creative outlet could be very well served by the V-DSLR. Again, the convenience of carrying one piece of gear should not be looked at lightly in this case. Speaking for myself, I can't count the number of times that I have been out in the woods shooting stills and wished that I'd brought my video camera with me when a bird started preening his feathers or a couple of deer locked antlers or a spider started spinning up a beetle she'd just caught.

This has been a really fascinating discussion so far. I do hope that the person who initiated it (and other still photographers who are unsure of the value of the video features in their new cameras) will take the opportunity to dive in and play. The next time you're out shooting wildlife, just grab a video clip or two... a flock of geese taking to the air, an egret catching a fish, whatever. After you collect a few dozen nice clips, edit them together over some classical music, burn it to DVD and have a watch in your living room. If you find your heart beating a little faster, you may discover that you now have a whole new medium of expression to explore.

Studio460 and Mike Gunter:

You two make a ton of sense and have the most lucid, logical replies on this thread.

You each made me consider old thinking and see from a new way. Thanks.

My personal experience:

I purchased my first DSLR, a D90, after being a long time film user. When I purchased the camera, I thought this video is silly, I will never use it. However, that has changed.

My girlfriend is a chalk artist street painter and I have gotten into doing video of her experiences at street painting festivals. I am now hooked and would not now give up the video functionality.

So true what you say about costs, etc. However, I still would like to play with a RED Epic.

Jennifer's work can be seen here, and there is a link to videos:

http://www.amazingstreetpainting.com

Hi,

But, if I might also add...

I was at a small party of retired journalists, and a former _Sacramento Bee_ reporter was telling me that their on-line photojournalists are now being tasked with taking VDSLRs with them and doing small Web scenes for posting. He went on to say that was the 'latest' requirement would have the working photographer more knowledgeable about motion pictures and editing software. That's a current kink.

My best,

Mike

studio460 said:

Adding video capability to a DSLR allows the manufacturer to sell the same product to essentially two different market segments: filmmakers and still photographers. The fact that some of us are both, just makes the deal that much sweeter.

Totally agree with you Studio. Having two things in one body totally rocks. Even though you mention that us filmmakers have a lot of gear to carry with us but sometime just the camera itself is enough to capture e a story especially in low lights. I could never do that with my XLH1 camcorder, not to mention the depth of field that we get with VDSLR.

allenh said:
Can someone please explain to me why Nikon feels that I need video in my DSLR?

Short answers:

1. Because they can.
2. Because they have to.
3. Because it adds another market segment to their customer base.

Willis said:
I don't know the first thing about shooting video. It's not much like photography at all. Sure it might be nice to film you kid's basketball game . . . but do you really need depth of field for that sort of thing? I'd rather have a camcorder which will do that job better.

So that means that it's up to the enthusiast/pros to make use of the video. So how 'bout it: How many of you guys are both photographers and videographers?

Although I started in still photography, I transitioned to video, and later made a career in television. I shoot TV for a living, and shoot stills as a hobby (but hope to transition to stills someday).

I think the key difference here is that many filmmakers (i.e., directors of photography) also shoot stills, but I would venture to guess that the majority of still shooters aren't also filmmakers or directors of photography. I think that's at the crux of the reason for the varied responses here.

bhoveyga said:
While I agree that a dedicated video camera is often best, I do concede the point previously made that integrating video into DSLR's has both improved the product overall and expanded the market appeal, thereby lowering prices.

If, by a dedicated video camera being "best," means "easiest" to shoot, or more appropriate for say, local news, or a kid's birthday party (or a basketball game), then yes.

But for narrative-style filmmaking, the modern V-DSLR is a godsend. Also, let's make sure we're comparing apples to apples. It's simply not a fair comparison to equate video shot with a DX-sized sensor, shooting 1080p24 video, through a fast piece of Nikkor glass, with video shot on a similarly priced, 1/8th-inch sensored Handycam with its inherent, near-infinite, depth-of-field, lack of interchangeable lenses, and consumer-ish "fly-by-wire" focusing.

The new D7000 is the first manually controllable V-DSLR to accept Nikkor lenses directly (save, for the Nikon D3s). To the low-budget filmmaking community, the D7000 is basically Nikon's version of a scaled-down RED ONE, for 1/15th the price (not including the $3,500 viewfinder, $2,000 batteries, or the $500 F-mount adapter).

Clearly, the benefit of using a V-DSLR over a traditional, 2/3" video camera is its much larger imager. Sony's top-of-the-line 2/3" ENG/EFP camera, the HDW-F900R, still sells for about $70,000. That's not including the $36,000 HD lens, or the $10,000 color viewfinder. But for all that money, you can't get anywhere near the shallow depth-of-field characteristics that a DX-sized motion-imager can deliver. For about 1/100th the cost of an F900, the D7000 gives you an imager nearly four-times its size.

But, it's "only" DX, you say? The DX/APS-C sensor is about the same size as a Super35 film frame--in the film world, "DX" is what they've been shooting "full-frame" 35mm movies in for decades. The most-commonly used Super35-sized (APS-C) video camera used in major-studio feature film and television production currently is the Sony F35 (below). This thing sells for about $250,000.

Sony "Panavised" F35 APS-C camera with Sony SR-1 dockable 4:4:4 HDCAM-SR videotape recorder.

But, the real beauty of the advent of the modern V-DSLR, and the Nikon D7000 in particular (at least for filmmakers), is the vast array of excellent, and HUGELY inexpensive (by comparison), range of Nikkor lenses. A single film lens can cost $20,000-$50,000. A set of fast primes: $50K, $100K, $150K, and up. Picking up a used, mint-condition Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 manual-focus AI-S lens on Ebay for around $500 . . . priceless.

bhoveyga said:
Furthermore, I think the video DSLR offers compelling advantages beyond just the convenience of carrying one piece of gear.

Agreed. However, I believe the assertion that people are buying V-DSLRs to "carry only one piece of gear" is a bit off the mark. Filmmakers shooting with V-DSLRs typically use an entirely different set of tools and accessories to shoot motion video (Steadicams, dolly track, follow-focus rigs, jib arms, HMIs, etc.). Adding video capability to a DSLR allows the manufacturer to sell the same product to essentially two different market segments: filmmakers and still photographers. The fact that some of us are both, just makes the deal that much sweeter.

DaveyJ said:
I for one am not very fond of real photo manipulation

What exactly is real photo manipulation as opposed to fake photo manipulation?

Hi All: Some wonderful points here in this discussion. bhoveyga makes some very good observations here. I for one am not very fond of real photo manipulation, I always just try to get the image the way I saw it went it seemed important enough to photograph!
But there is more suspicion about photos than ever before. One of the two inventors of photography, somewhat immortalized by the name of photo print referred to as the daguerreotype, even faked his own death to try to gain more attention for the new medium.

>> So that means that its up to the enthusiast \ pros to make use of the video. So how bout it: How many of you guys are both photographers and vidiographers?

I do both, tho my roots in still photography go back a lot further. While I agree that a dedicated video camera is often best, I do concede the point previously made that integrating video into DSLR's has both improved the product overall and expanded the market appeal, thereby lowering prices. Furthermore, I think the video DSLR offers compelling advantages beyond just the convenience of carrying one piece of gear... our fast lenses with their interchangeability and shallower depth of field offer the videographer creative control he can't get at the same price point with a dedicated video camera. Then there's the image quality and low-light performance of our larger chips. There's a good reason that some pros are shooting video with DSLR's these days. This is not just an add-on convenience feature like power windows in a minivan... it is a powerful tool that's worth exploring.

>> I don't believe that you should 'fix it' in post.

Not to be contrary but one could make the case that EVERYTHING gets 'fixed in post.' As someone who has had a darkroom since 1968, I would suggest that the concept of the 'straight' print is an illusion. Even if you never crop, never change paper grades, never dodge or burn, there are still darkroom decisions we make (not to mention environmental variables) that produce variations in the image, some subtle and some significant. Those who do not do their own darkroom work may be quite unaware of the huge range of results possible at the hands of whatever person (or machine) is producing your prints. Shoot two identical rolls and send them to two different photo finishers if you don't believe me.

But back to digital. The sad fact is that the degree of manipulation possible in Photoshop today has given a lot of people (even some photographers) the idea that there is something inherently wrong with manipulation, when the simple reality is that most photographers only make the same sorts of adjustments that were once routine in the darkroom. They're not swapping heads or moving trees. Years ago, when someone asked if you did your own darkroom work, an affirmative answer was usually met with respect and admiration. But today, when someone asks if you computer-process your images, the question is posed with suspicion and narrowed eyes.

kyoshi - many nikonians may be afraid of it for that reason. Maybe me too. But most of my dislike is just because I'm a crusty old-timer curmundgeon.

While I host a disdain for video becoming a prominent factor in still DSLR's, I don't think Nikon is ready to push aside still photography development for a better SLR like Canon obviously did. What I like about the video function is the ability to record location and vocal data. Often before I shoot I will take an establishing shot or write something about a client situation etc. While a nikon gps would be handy (or a D3 with voice noting) the video makes it easier for me to do with what I've got, as I can record voice notes or location details on camera.

I think part of the reason many nikonians are scared of video is because of what the competition is doing. Canon seems to have done little to nothing innovative since the 5DmII in terms of still photography and is using video as a key marketing point (they also haven't done any useful lens updates either and the 8-15mm doesn't count)... Sony should have pursued their growing advanced amateur and pro market a little more along with their Nex system as their customers are starting to get a little antsy, and pentax only seems interested in getting their existing customers to upgrade. Luckily the D7000 not only was a successful addition to the nikon lineup but proved that nikon thinks the most about their core users advanced still photography. The release of updated primes in fact reinforces the idea.

I say video is here to stay and seems to be rapidly gaining in being a must have feature on a modern DSLR camera. I'll bet Nikon USA gets a high proportion of letters about that feature on their cameras. My D90 really has become my go to camera although I have great use and respect for my D300 and D700....they don't have video. We have about ten video cameras. The Nikon D90 videos are easier to use. The D3100 and the D7000 are really getting there in that department now. Maybe there are better movie cameras out there but Mike Gunter's point that the Nikon DSLR with video gets both jobs done is I believe the accurate current view.
Also I have Nikon D90 videos that though not perfect are very valuable to me as some subjects as still just don't do justice to a subject. I think that the D90 started a revolution in technology that is most welcome. Also Canon was just ready to release their version. The current D7000 overall capabilities are remarkable. If you are every shooting fast paced (and I KNOW some of you are) the auto focus and other electronic gadgets are incredibly good. These feature actually add little to the weight or cost of the camera. I have shot the camera that this thread is based on.....and I'd take my Nikon F5 way over that camera. As to zoom lens shooting wildlife and scenes at the edge of cliffs, etc., zoom lens really are a plus.

Omg not another one of these threads.

Super Shooter - good point.