Hi to all! @ Mike Gunter: Both of us is going to buy the D7000. Again in my business we own about a dozen video cameras. My son, grandsons, and guys we work with use the video rigs. They also use D90, D200, etc. They will also use my D300 when I am not. My oldest grandson thinks the D700 FX is the best DSLR camera ever made. He means based on price, features etc. But he is mostly doing videos with Final Cut Pro and Studio, and he thinks FX needs a D700 replacement. The D7000 if it is anything close to the D3100 which I have shot with will be a little off video wise (for still I think it will be the bomb in terms of wildlife and action photo sequences. I do agree with an earlier post you made on how you are doing your work shows about audio and we are trying to research buying a sound system to do credible live sound. I think quickly to Sergio Leone great movies where the first twenty minutes is riveting live sound. We need good live sound. I am not sure that sound can be done on the D7000 or if it should be separate stereo recording. Many of the D90 recordings I have done were polluted by wind. So we are researching stereo in outdoor setting to record accurately and not be so defeated by wind. I myself think the D7000 24 fps will be OK for me, but my use of the D3100 was not very inspiring. The video on that camera jumps and makes me think I'd be better just using a humble SONY camcorder. I have those with underwater housings even. Sony's sport housing might even have some utility for your outfit with an outdoor sports show. We are also using some greenscreen stuff but that again is my son, grandson's and their guys. Nikon needs to get their video set up for broadcast and firmware allowing such updates is greatly needed. I would even go to a Nikon DSLR devoted to video if it could address such necessary features.

Hi all,

@TaoTeJared Terrific video! Many years ago I wrote a an article for an on-line publication on how to make an use a greenscreen that PBS is still listing their guides for those folks who want guidance on how to build and use inexpensive chroma key using for their new submissions.

http://www.digitalproducer.com/2003/06_jun/tutorials/06_02/guntergreen.htm

Software-wise, it is quite dated, but making the greensceen is good.

@DaveyJ, I don't think the D7K will be too weak, at least I hope not. I am concerned that the only frame rate is 24fps. I'm not to impressed with that. I'd rather have 30 and 25fps. While the market is clamoring for 24fps, it isn't broadcast rates, and darn few will transfer their video to film.

More useful rates would be 720p50fps, 720p60fps, 1080p50fps, 1080p60fps. That would be something. I'm hopeful firmware will update the rates.

My best to all,

Mike

Very Good post Mike!! It makes me think my D7000 intended set up will be a little weak in many applications. Compared to a production application and a show like Mike is doing, I find myself very far out in the field, usually alone trying to capture events or scenes which to do right would require a lot more, more than just getting a DSLR that does video too and trying to add some sound gear, etc. My compliments to Mike Gunter for insight I did not have. NR sure seems to get really great input. Now off to see what ToaTeJared posted!! Thanks guys!! I would like to see a Nikon DSLR that was designed MOSTLY for video.

Very good post Mike. I'm not a video guy at all so it is interesting to see where the costs and what you need that are outside the camera!

A little off topic but I love seeing what people are doing with video.
http://vimeo.com/13762496

The making of it.

http://vimeo.com/13774835

Hi,

My current 'daily bread' comes from both video and stills. I occasionally DP a hunting show on Outdoor Channel, mostly it's the narrative pickups, but the pay is okay, and we just finished a nice run on PBS for an educational series. That has been done on a Panasonic camcorder in HD DVCPro.

I'd like to be able to have one kit that covers still and video, but I'm not sure that is practical now or in the foreseeable future.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in the 'video now and forever camp', but I'm not doe-eyed about it. Even if Nikon or Canon or PlaySchool were to come up with a terrific camera that had the F-mount and resolve the rolling shutter issue, the accouterment to use the film making feature in a DSLR form factor would run up the cost pretty substantially, likely more than 2x the cost of the kit itself. DSLR film making systems are not easy to use either. Sound is nearly always a separate steam picked up by a individual engineer in the crew; the audio bit-rate is far too low for broadcast.

In the hunting show I've done, I've gone off with my talent and shot him doing audio pickups with nothing but the camera and a wireless microphone, simple and effective. With a DSLR, it would require at least one, but more than likely 2 more people to do that at a cost of somewhere around $80 an hour more - just for time - and likely an additional $25 an hour for equipment and these are 5-hour gigs for small time shows done on micro-budgets.

In the same example, we used P2 media and copied to a hard drive on location, and passed it to the customer. In a DSLR scenario, it (audio and video) would have to be mixed and edited, more cost to client.

Granted, most folks are looking at creating 'new and complete' content, but then, all this still applies.

As to the original post, and to Studio's most excellent augmented reply, I'll add this; since the discovery of Nikkor lenses by the press corps during the Korean War who switched their Lecia lens to Nikkors, a ton of movies have been made with Nikkor lenses. The number of converter adapters available for them on the market says something about that.

Whether there should be a separate model devoted to video is an intriguing notion. Panasonic, as Studio mentions, has a video camera coming out that is 4/3s aimed at the indie crowd supposedly priced around $6K without lens. It will likely be much less since it has a lot of competition priced much lower, too. Sony has a 'handicam' model at $2K that will be out soon that does a lot and it is 4/3s, too. There's no question that the market for video is there, YouTube and Vimeo and streaming are the rage.

I'm leaning towards getting video right, regards of how or where it's done, whether through a single camera or all cameras.

Nikon fired the first salvo with the D90. It seems to me they owe it to their customers to get it right. At least, I think so.

My best,

Mike

Good topic! DSLR video is here to stay, like it or not. Having shot subjects on film and then digital for many years I just realize there are some subjects that are lame on still photos. I think Studio460 and Johnnyapple's comments are worth very careful reading. I do think for MY USE that APS sensor for me will be the video sensor. I do look forward to a D700 upgrade that has video on it, but I STILL see FF for still and DX for stills and video. For stills I personally have not shot with a single camera anything better than the D700. Yet if it wildlife, I never pick up the FF D700. I do think Nikon would be smart to ramp up a DSLR with a primary focus of HD video. They do have the DSLR first in HD video. But that got eclipsed in minutes. I am not though referring to a Nikon camcorder. It should be a DSLR. Speaking of priorities I still would most like to see a D700 with HD video capability. That lack of function is why I would never walk out the door with a D700 only. With D300 or D90 (or soon the D7000) I would do it almost daily.

I agree, studio—I can't see why normal people would need a bigger sensor than APS for video. I definitely see the advantages for stills.

TaoTeJared said:
I did not mean a Nikon camcorder type camera- although that could be an idea.

Well, I did.

TaoTeJared said:
To me, it seems that there will be a point where there could be a great video sensor, a great photo sensor, or something in between. We are seeing the in between and video is suffering. What I would be suggesting, is that for some cameras, the focus will be photography where they have good but maybe not the perfect video. Then to have a sensor that is tweaked to optimal levels for video that takes accepts some short comings of photo taking.

It's not the sensor that's the issue--it's the development of other parts of the camera which would stretch Nikon's resources.

TaoTeJared said:
I just don't want to see a Swiss Army effect - do it all, but none of it well.

That's why it should be a separate product.

All I'm saying is that there is a huge gap in the current product offering for this market, and someone's going to address it eventually. Since I own a ton of Nikon glass (as many other filmmakers do) I'd prefer it to have a "Nikon" nameplate on it, and for it to have a native F-mount. I just think that, of all the players, Nikon has the perfect "brand image" to pull this off (I had a fairly detailed discussion on this topic with a Nikon rep. recently, and he made some very interesting comments).

Since Sony released its VG10 (along with the demise of their full-frame DSLR product), I don't think it's likely that Sony plans to develop a similar, full-frame cinema product (especially since they also sell their 12-megapixel, APS-C sensored F35 CineAlta for $200,000). Panasonic already showed their prototype micro-4/3rds, interchangeable-lens cine product last April--that format decision alone is enough to make me think Panasonic isn't likely to move to a larger sensor. Also, since Panasonic is still hugely invested in $50,000-$70,000 2/3" ENG cameras, I'm not too confident they're willing to make the move to a more capable, large-sensor cine product, just for low-budget filmmakers.

Canon, JVC, and the rest of the "traditional" prosumer camcorder players (in addition to any of the second-tier DSLR manufacturers) will likely announce some kind of large-sensor, motion-imaging product(s), I would guess, by next year's NAB in April (in either APS-C or some version of micro-4/3rds) to replace their near-obsolete 1/3" prosumer HDV camcorder product lines, since their current market is fast disappearing.

Ok so I think my topic somehow morphed into something unintended. We got off topic- what?

I did not mean a Nikon camcorder type camera- although that could be an idea.

To me, it seems that there will be a point where there could be a great video sensor, a great photo sensor, or something in between. We are seeing the in between and video is suffering. What I would be suggesting, is that for some cameras, the focus will be photography where they have good but maybe not the perfect video. Then to have a sensor that is tweaked to optimal levels for video that takes accepts some short comings of photo taking.

I just don't want to see a Swiss Army effect - do it all, but none of it well.

I'm a fan of HD video in DSLRs. The more creative options for me the better. Having said that, I'll still vote NO on a Nikon camcorder. Back in the day Nikon made an attempt and it just didn't workout. I don't see how it would be any different for them to try making another dedicated video only camera now. They are just too "small" of a company to divert resources into a video only camera.

Yes!

Nikon could potentially dominate the indie filmmaking market with such a product. If Nikon were to develop a V-DSLR, with a DX-sized sensor (which is roughly the same size as Super35), in the form factor of a traditional cine camera, I bet it would sell like hotcakes. Microbudget filmmakers have been Jonesing for years for a large-sensor, digital filmmaking tool that takes Nikkor lenses directly. A crinkle-finish, cine-style form factor (essentially, an elongated black box), with either an optical or EVF (or both, in a high-end model), and with a native F-mount, would be many a filmmaker's dream come true. Nikon could develop two products:

1. A $2,000-$3,000 DX-sensored D-cinema camera to compete with the Sony VG10, Panasonic AG-AF100, Scarlet, etc.
2. A $4,000-$7,000 FX-sensored D-cinema camera to fill the gap between much higher-end, Super35-sized sensor cameras, such as RED, Arri Alexa, and the Sony F35.

Soon after RED's launch into Hollywood, about 18 shows began shooting on RED. More recently, I'm seeing more and more Sony F35s lensing higher-end network dramas. The original base price of RED ONE was $17,500. Arri Alexa sells for about $50,000 (camera only--without recorder). Sony's F35 sells for about $200,000 (and, guess how many mega-pixels its Super35 sensor has?).

But short of these three very expensive digital filmmaking tools, what do I see more and more of in Hollywood these days? Yup. Canon 5Ds and 7Ds. I see them shooting everything from major-label musicvideos to a handful of cable-network episodics, and at least one broadcast network drama. But camera operators don't like shooting on DSLRs. They're kludgey, and have the wrong ergonomics for filmmaking. The industry is waiting for a better form factor for this technology. I just heard that one show that formally shot with 5Ds and 7Ds, was recently told by the studio to switch to "more conventional" cameras (I think they're now shooting with F35s).

There seems to be a huge gap in the DX/APS-C/Super35-sized product offerings for digital cinema production: on one end, you have the Canon 5D and 7D (and soon, the D7000), and on the other, you have the uber-expensive Sony F35. The time seems right for a compact, cine-style form factor, D-cinema body with a large sensor to enter the market. The technology is here. It just seems like it's a product category just waiting to happen.

And, I bet if Nikon doesn't do it soon, Canon will.

Nikon already has the base sensor and 1080p24 processing technology, and has already implemented the AVCHD CODEC in two of its products. The two most critical technical hurdles have already been scaled: both the sensor hardware and CODEC firmware is already developed, tested, and productized. Now, they just need to define a product concept.

adamz said:
NO - they should concentrate on still photography, not the motion one

Unfortunately the market is pushing them in that direction but I couldn't agree more with you. I do love seeing the videos the people are producing though and do see a growing market there as well. I am afraid that the more focus Nikon is putting on video will pull resources away from the photography side.

I think there is a new opportunity out there for them. It would be fun to see them grab it.

I would like to see them create a 3/4 crop sensor camcorder with an F-mount. I love being able to use my lenses for video, but it would be nice to have something that is built a bit more like a camcorder vs the DSLR.

+1 adamz. Nikon needs to focus on putting out cameras that makes the majority of photographers who shoot barely any video happy. Though thy should continue to add to the video feature in dslrs.

NO - they should concentrate on still photography, not the motion one

Hi all,

I somewhat agree with Jonnyapple, but want a bit more frame rates (and that to be variable), and of course, I want top notch quality.

A few folks in some of the video forums are giving the D7K aces for video.

And I've seen a couple of nice clips on Vimeo.

My best,

Mike

jonnyapple said:
Don't forget the D7000 does 720 video at 30p, kgs.

@TTJ, I like what they're doing now. I don't feel like stills performance has been suffering. And if it means extra buttons, they're buttons that you only have to use if you want to.

Oh I know, but like I said they need it at all resolutions. Also 25p at all resolutions should be there simply for PAL countries.

Don't forget the D7000 does 720 video at 30p, kgs.

@TTJ, I like what they're doing now. I don't feel like stills performance has been suffering. And if it means extra buttons, they're buttons that you only have to use if you want to.

Well Nikon can't really do video right because they really don't make video but I think their attempts with the D3100 & D7000 are pretty decent for your needs if you really don't use it that much.

Canon makes camcorders, they got the R&D pumping on it and the knowledge to make good video and can combine technology it already owns to make a VDSLR cheaply.

Nikon would need help from Sony to do video decently.

Really Nikon is a company focused on photographers. Video is secondary and should be. R&D should be thrown towards important things like increasing ISO range and the like.

Also Nikon's video offerings are not that bad.

They do need 25/30 FPS at all video resolutions but 60fps, meh, couldn't care less about that.

Also I know people are whining about the guesstimated 19.3Mbps that the D7000's video data rate is at but really this article explains why it's a non-issue: http://www.rgbfilter.com/?p=10018

The conventional wisdom seems to be that Canon does video better, while Nikon's thrown more eggs in the low-light basket. Not being nearly as familiar with Canon's offerings, how many of the apparent tradeoffs with their visuals come down to compromises over video, and how much come down to things like inconsistent QC and design issues?

Is there anyone else out there that would like to see Nikon create a DSLR that is focused on video? Call it a V-series where the main use would be video and camera second.
Example:
D?x: High res Imaging
D?s: Low light Performance
D?v: Optimized for video

My thought - I don't want full blown video but if it is there than so be it - I just don't use it but a couple of times a year. Others really do want video.

My question is, at what point do these two needs start to take away from a much better result of either?

What does anyone think?