DaveyJ said:
Make my number a 5. Nikon has got a really important feature going with video on DSLR and a number of D800 orders have been placed JUST to do video. We have about every Nikon DSLR DX made. I keep stalling on the D800 purchase. With approx. 18 video cameras in our fleet for three photographers who do many other jobs too.....we are very sure some subjects cannot be depicted as well in just stills. I knew Ansel Adams. He took great pride in his sequence photos with view cameras and I was also doing the same thing in 8x10 view cameras. Fast forward to today. I sold my D700 as it was not getting used as much as a D90 and a D300 (size is not a plus in some field work) and it was not capable of doing video and we were pretty happy with the D7000 to do stills and video. But for just stills I am not sure I would rate the D7000 ahead of even a D90. They are both good for stills. But since the D7000 does BOTH very well, But not perfect.

Looking back through the comments here Mike Gunter's comments from a year ago sure look accurate today. I do think Nikon DSLR video is getting better quickly......well.....maybe just getting better and too slow in coming for some of us. I wager AGAIN that you will NOT see DSLR's from Nikon and Canon WITHOUT video. They need it for sales today. Whether it is for you depends on how you see things. Many I know are used to seeing good movie images and indeed many in the regular public (not photographers) are surprised to see stills for some subjects. Bottom line I think we need both.

Maybe crizman in this last post will see a subject some day and find it was better in video than still. I do think though that it is still up to the eye and goals of the person taking the picture. Since I use them both in slide sound shows it is easy to pick between the two to depict topics. Usually a mix of both are best. Good luck to you all.

wait: d90 better than D7000? why would you say that?

TaoTeJared said:
Something tells me down the road DSLRs will always have video but something will emerge (2-5 years+) that is predominantly focused on video but can use DSLR lenses for the same price. I think all the "rigs" people are selling to make DSLRs a usable dedicated video camera indicate the direction or the opportunity for companies.

I said that a year ago, looks like I was off by 1-4years ;)

Canon, Sony, Red, Black Magic, and I saw some rumors Panasonic is planning a primary use video camera to use their m4/3rds lenses as well - maybe they already have. There will be more - and soon with their smaller MP sensors, someone will create one that can have clean video way beyond any DSLR can do now. With all the accessories, it seems pro videographers are trying to turn DSLRs into video cameras. From what I keep hearing, many just want the lenses and the limited DOF. Few care less about the body style.

Video is limited by much more than photography just by the TVs available to video formats the broadcast system and handle that will determine their course. 4k TV video is just coming on-line (4096 × 3072) and that is only a 12.6mp sensor image. By last count, every DSLR released in the last 6 months has not been below 16mp. Where everything gets interesting is that MP count is still rising which would seem to limit clarity of high iso video where Dedicated Video systems can continue to refine 3/6/10/12mp sensors and produce cleaner images.

DSLRs will always have video and there will be a use for it, but I'm sure more affordable primary video systems will become available that can use DSLR lenses, have similar or better IQ and better audio controls and people will flock to those. Then we will see the separation again, but never exclusivity of just one or the other in a system.

Maybe I'm way off, but that seems the direction everything is moving from what I have seen.

Great points, Mike. Im only familiar with the video world because of my landlord who manufactures cable camera tells me about all the latest gear news. He seemed pretty excited about a unit of that quality appearing for such a low price, but I think you might be right that, in most cases at least, that its going to get resized to HD anyway.

Hi all,

@Daveyj "I knew Ansel Adams." So did I. He'd be all about this technology. We used the D7000 for 3 videos in the last 4 weeks. Two national commercial shots (Yahoo and Groupon), and inserts for a PBS series. We have used it for CNN coverage, too.

@SquamishPhoto BlackMagic's camera looks terrific, but since it's sensor is a 4/3d-size, it also comes with some built-in DOF and bokeh concerns. You'd really _want_ to use the Zeiss optics they are showing on the camera that cost almost as much as half of the camera. A D800 with HDMI out has impressive HD 4:4:4 video, too. Ultimately, where and how the video will be used is what's important. A minuscule number of users will actually benefit from the terrific resolution of 2.5K (although marketing to a large number is something else entirely - it reminds me that only one wins a lotto jackpot, but millions will buy a ticket). Lots of content will be shot in 2.5K only to be resized to HD, where in many cases, it could have started its life just as well. I won't, nor do I want to suggest, that not marketing that "2.5K advantage" is trivial; even a nose above water prevents drowning.

My best,

Mike

DSLR video is suffering a pretty crushing blow with products like the Black Magic Cinema Camera coming out at under $3000 and giving you 2.5K video. I don't see DSLR's catching up to this, sadly. And by the time they ever did I'd wager that there'd likely be a 4K camera available for roughly the same price.

Make my number a 5. Nikon has got a really important feature going with video on DSLR and a number of D800 orders have been placed JUST to do video. We have about every Nikon DSLR DX made. I keep stalling on the D800 purchase. With approx. 18 video cameras in our fleet for three photographers who do many other jobs too.....we are very sure some subjects cannot be depicted as well in just stills. I knew Ansel Adams. He took great pride in his sequence photos with view cameras and I was also doing the same thing in 8x10 view cameras. Fast forward to today. I sold my D700 as it was not getting used as much as a D90 and a D300 (size is not a plus in some field work) and it was not capable of doing video and we were pretty happy with the D7000 to do stills and video. But for just stills I am not sure I would rate the D7000 ahead of even a D90. They are both good for stills. But since the D7000 does BOTH very well, But not perfect.

Looking back through the comments here Mike Gunter's comments from a year ago sure look accurate today. I do think Nikon DSLR video is getting better quickly......well.....maybe just getting better and too slow in coming for some of us. I wager AGAIN that you will NOT see DSLR's from Nikon and Canon WITHOUT video. They need it for sales today. Whether it is for you depends on how you see things. Many I know are used to seeing good movie images and indeed many in the regular public (not photographers) are surprised to see stills for some subjects. Bottom line I think we need both.

Maybe crizman in this last post will see a subject some day and find it was better in video than still. I do think though that it is still up to the eye and goals of the person taking the picture. Since I use them both in slide sound shows it is easy to pick between the two to depict topics. Usually a mix of both are best. Good luck to you all.

#1 I have no interest in video in my DSLR.I wish they would leave it out!

TaoTeJared said:
Nope didn't say or mean that at all. Not interested in Politics - there are other sites for that.

Neither am I in this respect. Its about how we have the ideas and just cannot turn them into products... (not the hot air emitters in capital cities).

bjrichus said:
Perhaps the problem in what you say is the bit about "from Japan" and maybe we should be doing more of that stuff at home?

Nope didn't say or mean that at all. Not interested in Politics - there are other sites for that.

Hi SB,

Nikon was the first DSLR with the D90.

But they were in 8mm and 16mm a _long_ time ago, and 35mm films have been made with Nikkor lenses forever. There are F-mounts for the 35 film cameras and the current crop of digital large (think FX-ish size sensor) digital cameras from Red and Arriflex.

Not to belabor a point, but just to be clear, it is Nikon as a manufacturer who claims to make a video camera.

I think that it should be a good one.

My best,

Mike

Mike Gunter said:

Nikon was the first of the DSLRs to make a video making camera in the D90. Canon followed and happen to do it better. Their set of cameras does a much better job of video technology than Nikon. I don't know anyone who disagrees with that. If I'm wrong. Someone let me know here and now.

Mike

I don't find it hard to understand why Canon produces better video equipped DSLR's, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think I've ever seen a Nikon solus movie camera? Canon produce dozens of models, from the most basic to the very professional. I remember my father having a Canon video camera when I was a kid, this thing was the size of a house perched on your shoulder, with a lead coming out of the back that went into a full size VHS VCR in a bag hanging on your other! The point I'm trying to make is that they' ve been developing the technology for decades, they should be good at it by now. The only thing that surprises me is that Nikon integrated the technology first into a DSLR. Well done Nikon! I wonder if it took Canon by surprise, or if they had plans afoot themselves?

I'm firmly sitting on the fence at 2.5, pleased I've got it, but don't use it often.

TaoTeJared said:
The backlog of those damn flying cars from Japan is killing me.

LOOK OUT!!!!!

LOL...

Perhaps the problem in what you say is the bit about "from Japan" and maybe we should be doing more of that stuff at home?

You know that someone said the same thing 50 years ago about cars. The backlog of those damn flying cars from Japan is killing me.

I do believe all technology evolves but there is a point when it is just refinement. Cameras that are designed to fit hands, will still be the same size. Carbon fiber will not reach the durability of steal but other plastic polymers have. Sensors will start to slow in increases as the abilities far exceed what users need.

Just look at the Ipad. There are computers with 16 cores being developed and look at what everyone is talking about and is hot - low powered device that can't even come close to the high end devices. It meets the needs of many. There is still a market for the High end as well, but I don't hear people oogling over a 12 core processor like everyone did for the Pentium II when it came out. Hell my first computer (Panasonic 8086) had a massive 20mb drive. And you know what, my desktop is the same size as that thing was then.

It is natural to add video but it still doesn't even approach a RED system or many dedicated high end systems which 99% of people do not need anyway. To add decent video for the masses is not a big deal to me and I think it is a good thing. Now if they added Angry Birds to it, I would start to question many things.

Major Floppis said:
1. for sure. Though as said above, definitely keep it in the current line of consumer/prosumer cameras as the market IS shifting towards fewer devices doing more. Even though i'll never use it doesn't mean that a fair amount of people won't use the feature in the lower end models.

Good points indeed. Fewer devices doing more is what I am seeing as well, but it won't take more than a few product releases to change that... yet it'll also take just one big name to exit a market to reinforce that trend!

Another trend I see, is that as time goes on, the devices out there get better and begin to challenge the higher end ones. Just five years ago, would we have thought that something like the D5100 would be available with the feature set it has at the price it is?

Another five years on and who knows where we'll be? In another ten, we might be looking down on those massive FX camera bodies as hopelessly large, heavy, poor IQ (yeah, really) and under specified? After all, we have come a LONG way since 2001... Perhaps one more cycle of product evolution and a Nikon DSLR with video will be truly useful for video, even if I don't plan on using it?

1. for sure. Though as said above, definitely keep it in the current line of consumer/prosumer cameras as the market IS shifting towards fewer devices doing more. Even though i'll never use it doesn't mean that a fair amount of people won't use the feature in the lower end models.

5. All the Time

Well, maybe not 'all the time,' but quite a bit.

While I will probably never own all the support equipment needed to do a 'professional quality' video (audio, lighting, follow focus, stabilizer, etc), I remain very grateful to have some video capability that even with casual use produces beautiful footage (better in fact than most of the cameras at the TV station where I work). The idea of carrying around another camera for the small amount of (personal) video I shoot is not appealing. Plus being able to use the lenses I'm used to... what's not to like? Sure, many video cameras have some excellent features that my D7000 doesn't have (like zebra, a real viewfinder, better audio, more video modes), but what I end up asking myself is this: If I'm going to carry one piece of gear, would I rather have a great video camera that shoots passable stills, or a great still camera that will let me shoot nice video in a pinch? I'd pick the latter every time.

The way I look at it, there's little reason not to be happy with a feature like this... in the end video doesn't add all that much to the price of the body, and if you don't need it, it's very easy to ignore. But like a cel phone camera or a spare tire, when you DO need it, you end up being very grateful indeed that it's there.

5. With Canon, unfortunately.

3.5

Nice that I don't have to carry a video recorder on top of two cameras, etc. but video, for me, is a 3-4 times a year thing.

#5 I bought the D3s thinking it was the answer to HD video. I ended up buying a Sony HD AVCHD camcorder. Someday I'm sure Nikon will produce a perfect video/still camersa but it's not there yet.

rbid said:
I do not use video on my D7K.. but I'm happy that it has these capabilities that I could use when required.

I got the camera for stills. I have the camera for two months with ~3K photos and only 5 videos (4 checking the video capabilities and one real video capture)

WOW!

Almost exactly my experience too.

I have spoken with a couple of people on the business side of things for me (gallery owners), and while they are OK with me doing video as a part (a small part) of an exhibition, the reception from them is less than enthusiastic. I was told that the average buyer is much less likely to buy a DVD than a 16x20 print. Was at an opening reception last night where six artist/photographers were on display; no video.

Thinking again about the target market (curators, collectors, interior designers, yuppies with a new 'loft' to decorate, etc), while I *could* sell a $1600 print, charging that for a DVD with a 3 minute clip on... well... Hmmmm.... so as ever, in *THIS* context it's all about the market.

I do not use video on my D7K.. but I'm happy that it has these capabilities that I could use when required.

I got the camera for stills. I have the camera for two months with ~3K photos and only 5 videos (4 checking the video capabilities and one real video capture)

Meh. If I had it I might make a few clips. I think video should be left to the video guys and stills should be left to us photographers. I dont like when someone wants me to be a jack of trades. I would rather be good at one thing then ok at two.

But I would use it for videos of my daughter and snippets during shoots.
~Cheers

NikoDoby said:
We've had this discussion before and things got very heated. No one is going to "win" this "debate" so keep it friendly.

Just speaking for me, I am not after a debate (use video or not, its fine with me and I respect your reasons for that) we also have several new members here since the last 'heated debate', who I'd like to encourage to rate themselves on my entirely arbitrary scale :)

Just trying to see if the world of imaging is moving on or staying where it was a year or so ago regarding video... I'm NOT really talking technical stuff here, but all the OTHER issues about it's use i.e. are we getting better at it, do our customers demand it now, and is it really more expensive to provide or are HD-DSLR's more expensive or not.....

1. Not at all, not interested - But I would not go as far to say for Nikon to drop it.

I'm not a video person but the option to have it if something catches my eye or for something else, why not? As long as the video aspect doesn't slow down their continual improvements on photo IQ, I really could care less.

Something tells me down the road DSLRs will always have video but something will emerge (2-5 years+) that is predominantly focused on video but can use DSLR lenses for the same price. I think all the "rigs" people are selling to make DSLRs a usable dedicated video camera indicate the direction or the opportunity for companies.

We've had this discussion before and things got very heated. No one is going to "win" this "debate" so keep it friendly.