Actually the development of D-Video might also en up benefiting other areas of the DSLR performance. In regards to how the the DSLR can perform in Sports/continuous shooting the extra power and the ability to maintain exposure and focus will be greatly improved from the development of D Video. Future DSLS or maybe Sports EVIL style Cameras will have to also be a perfect D-Video Camera. Period

In the short term we can argue if we like to have video or not, but the fact is that it is happening, so why should the feature not be improved, because Nikon could if they wanted to

Pete

And Yes software updates can have mistakes, but we all learn from mistakes, right

ted2001 said:
Sorry Niko, the more lines of code in the software the greater the opportunity for bugs. More parts and connections increase the probability of failure and necessarily increase cost. I really don't want to argue cost and technology issues with you, but I also don't like mythology perpetuated. No incremental feature is free to develop, deploy or support. As has been said repeatedly, Nikon is a small company with limited resources...

I understand your point Ted, but only to an extent.
First off, it's not as if due to added video, d90's are breaking left and right, in fact I'd be willing to bet there haven't been any more problems than there were with any of the previous generation nikon dslrs.

I do agree that this is bringing an added cost into the development, but here is the thing you talk about Nikon being a small company with limited resources and your right. Why should they spend extra money developing for the d-movie mode?

Because if they don't we can say goodbye to Nikon as we know it. Wether its right or not doesn't matter, as evident, it is becoming increasingly more important for many people to have video in their dslrs.
No 44% is not a majority, but what do you think would happen if 44% of Nikon's user base bought Canons next time? I believe the cost of Nikon designing a well thought out movie mode is well worth it for them as it will raise sales, allowing Nikon to HAVE the money they need for r&d (for both still and video).

EDIT: sorry for this niko, saw your post after I posted this. so now I'll add something in about canon firmware :)
Canon firmware.

Yeah Poster was right! The next comment should only be about the canon firmware getting pulled. As per MY original topic.

I'm about 2 seconds away from "discouraging" any further HD video threads! My goodness!

this thread is getting hot.

No one is forcing you to post anything ted.

This is quite a waste.

ted2001 said:
More parts and connections increase the probability of failure and necessarily increase cost.

Ted re-read my post.

There are people who don't like auto focus on cameras so, like HD video, all you have to do is not use it.

Nope, wrong again Niko! Both auto focus and VR have been wonderful enhancements to a line of lenses. I just don't need camera bodies that shoot video (if you can keep on topic?).

Niko don't you dare bring logic into this discussion!

By that logic ted Nikon should have never developed auto focus or put VR in any of it's lenses. Because we all know how much resources and extra unreliable parts that technology takes up too.

Sorry Niko, the more lines of code in the software the greater the opportunity for bugs. More parts and connections increase the probability of failure and necessarily increase cost. I really don't want to argue cost and technology issues with you, but I also don't like mythology perpetuated. No incremental feature is free to develop, deploy or support. As has been said repeatedly, Nikon is a small company with limited resources...

I'm old school too, but I don't understand why there are so many video haters? If you don't want it then just don't use it. It's silly to think that by Nikon putting resources into the development of video that somehow takes away from the quality of it's still photography. Nonsense!

No, just making a point, that it is a silly argument. Video is in DSLRs, and that isn't going to change, whether you like it or not.

I guess you're so bereft of real comments that film needs to be brought up. Clever!

ted2001 said:
That 44% using video represents a majority is not correct.

Nobody said that it was, but 44% is almost half of the DSLR users polled, not a number easily ignored. If you want a camera without video, by all means buy a D3000, D700 or D3X. And hay, there's always film cameras, after all if you are a real purist you must shoot film. Nikon must waste tons of money on those digital contraptions. Video in the DLSR has nothing to do with the weight of the camera, or it being a jack of all trades.

Just take a deep breath and think about it. It's not like Nikon is putting Swiss army knife behind the flap for the video out/USB ports! If anything the approach by Nikon so far, shows that they aren't putting much R&D into the feature at all.

I know that Ted but since the video feature is a software based I think it wouldn't add to the weight and price since all the DSLRs are adding the video feature as a must.

I understand that you want simplicity at small sizes but since the feature is coming with the camera why not have it perfected as it should.

THe auto ISO in movie mode which we video users want to be fixed is like you shooting pictures in auto mode. I am sure that you want to control the ISO to you're liking and not what camera tells you.

This is all the fuss that we have with Nikon. If Nikon fixed some of those problems that we have addressed here we wouldn't have this discussion.

I'm not against anyone wanting and using video with their DSLR, but having it on my DSLR would be as handy and useful for me as air conditioning on an ice flow.

That features implemented in software have no baring on product cost is not realistic. The recent Canon snafu was related to changes in firmware mostly associated with video.

That 44% using video represents a majority is not correct.

As in an earlier thread, I prefer simplicity, small size, low weight and no more features than I really need. I'm not sure I want my camera to be a jack-of-all-trades. I also understand why others would, but everything added comes at some cost.

PB PM said:
Oh I'm sure you can, but I'm not interested in being a professional videographer. I do enjoy shooting video for fun, and I did shoot some video when I had a D90. Video is the only feature I miss from that camera. Next year when I get the D700 replacement I'll take advantage of that feature once again.

I find it fun as well PB. What I like about the video is that I don't have to carry with me 2 bags any more. I have 2 things in one. I take pictures and video at the same time.
I don't understand why people don't find it convenient the movie mode.

Once you get the hang of it is piece of cake to use it, all you have to do is be more steady when you shoot.

Dear poster, this blog is created to discuss and share ideas on our cameras. To some people it may look that we are whining but to me and to some other is more like a discussion.

I to share all you're points mention above about the video mode on DSLRs but some people find it wast of time for Nikon to bother with D-movie at all, I don't.

But there is nothing we can do people have rights to their opinions. I don't agree with them as well because they are against the video and I need the video on my DSLR.

valonqe said:
I am making the leaving from it PB and so other production houses here where I come from. I can say that if you know how to use it it is difficult to tell from any other professional cameras.

Oh I'm sure you can, but I'm not interested in being a professional videographer. I do enjoy shooting video for fun, and I did shoot some video when I had a D90. Video is the only feature I miss from that camera. Next year when I get the D700 replacement I'll take advantage of that feature once again.

valonqe said:
And you're point Poster ?

this is the beauty of democracy, we can discuss about everything. If you don't like the video in DSLR then don't use it. Leave it for those people who want to use it.

I don't need High ISO and faster frame rates but do you hear me complain. There are some people that need High ISO, faster frame rate etc, etc but on the other hand there are a group of people that want to use video.

Why people are threaten by video mode on their DSLR's? Is there for us to use it. If you don't want to use is then don't. Its simple.

My point is that you people are fucking whining too much. I agree with you that the video feature while not really of importance to me is the new marketing gimmick for camera manufacturers. Some love it, some need it, some just don't care. It makes all the economic sense for Nikon to have the video feature, it makes them more competitive against their rivals. They don't want to die, because of their lack of competitiveness. Whether you like it or not, video feature will be in Nikon DSLRs as a standard feature now. So stop your whining about Nikon waisting resources etc. They're are not wasting the money and time to implement this feature. They have to do it to be competitive. It's a necessity now. Therefore it's not waste of time or money.

End of rant. Carry on with your discussion.

PS- Those of you who want the video feature to be implemented faster, how about you let Nikon know about it. Get together and do the "Boston Tea Party" but with your Nikon cameras. You are in the power to make them change, you have the power to support them through buying their products or not. If you don't like them then move on to other company that listens to their customers.

PB PM said:
Did you actually read my post? You know, the part where I said, "...still photographers who say that video doesn't matter to people who buy DSLRs are flat out wrong." Guess not though, considering how you responded. Actually, if I had video I would use it on some occasions, but I wouldn't try to make a living from it.

I am making the leaving from it PB and so other production houses here where I come from. I can say that if you know how to use it it is difficult to tell from any other professional cameras.

And you're point Poster ?

this is the beauty of democracy, we can discuss about everything. If you don't like the video in DSLR then don't use it. Leave it for those people who want to use it.

I don't need High ISO and faster frame rates but do you hear me complain. There are some people that need High ISO, faster frame rate etc, etc but on the other hand there are a group of people that want to use video.

Why people are threaten by video mode on their DSLR's? Is there for us to use it. If you don't want to use is then don't. Its simple.

bmxdad said:
Maybe PB we should remove the RAW feature, I bet you majority of people is not using it. Yes I know you don't want to use Video, I am not a big fan either, but that does not mean that the video feature is not important. So either Nikon stands back let the other guys move on, with improvements in video or Nikon gets going and make it work, because they could if they wanted.

Why are you so against it anyway, I think it could be fun to use, but at present stage the feature would be difficult to use properly

Pete

Did you actually read my post? You know, the part where I said, "...still photographers who say that video doesn't matter to people who buy DSLRs are flat out wrong." Guess not though, considering how you responded. Actually, if I had video I would use it on some occasions, but I wouldn't try to make a living from it.

Geez, you people are like Democrats and Republicans talking about Nikon encroaching and messing up photographer's life by implementing a video feature. ohh noes communism , fascism, Marxism, and many other -isms are coming to the photostore near you.