There'a a poll on another photographic site asking this question, what do you think ?
Do DSLRs really need HD video functions?
a: Yes, HD video is where photography is heading
b: No, HD video is just a distraction
c: I'm not sure
I voted b.
Do DSLRs really need HD video functions?
(22 posts) (14 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
We've had this topic before and things got ugly real fast. So let this be a warning. KEEP THE DISCUSSION CIVILIZED or this thread will get locked.
Posted 2 years ago # -
For me, to be able to get my expensive glass at work in video is definitely a plus, especially if I do not need to carry a second body. If the D800 (or perhaps even the D4) has it, at least I will have the choice. There are things that simply cannot be expressed with photos and vice-versa.
It seams that all cameras have some sort of video except my D700 and that’s kind of a bummer.
If the D700 replacement doesn't come fast enough, I could go D3s or as a minimum D7000-second-body if Nikon solves the dead pixels thing.
For the time being, I am still happily busy with just photos.
Still, each time I see a "this commercial was entirely filmed with this DSLR" in TV, I bite my tongue.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I am an underwater photographer. I consider myself a still photographer because that is where my heart is, and where my 30 yrs experience is as well (13 underwater). I have dabbled in underwater video (standard def) and always thought it would just be a lark for me. It turns out, I really like video, particularly in the editing phase. With the possibility of only needing to take one camera and housing down and be able to get both if I wanted is a godsend. Not to mention the lens choices still cameras have completely annihilate the choices you have with a stand alone vid rig. I am a definite "A" . Flowers and bunnies to everyone. How's THAT for civilized?
Posted 2 years ago # -
This dead horse has been beaten to dust already.
If you dont want to use it, dont use it.
there are lots of people out there that want it, so they will continue to add it and refine it. Many tv shows have been and still are recorded exclusivly with DSLR Video, the fact is that it is here to stay and there is nothing anybody can do about it.
Amature film makers are flocking to DSLR Video because you can get professional qualify video for a fraction of the price of the pro-camcorder market.
if you are a professional, i highly reccommend you embrace it because your competition IS embracing it and adding it to thier photography packages. Adapt or die, it is your decision. Soon clients will soon expect video for thier web pages, facebooks, etc, etc.
As for weather or not the inclusion is compromising the ability for the camera to take stills, well, take a good long look at the newest DSLR's and the boundaries they continue to push with still photography.
The D7000, Sony A55, Pentax K-5, all pushing the boundaries, as for the Canon 60D... well it makes a fine video camera. hha. snap at canon. j/k
Thom Hogan seems to take the stance that it is damaging and is preventing innovation, honestly, i think vDSLR IS innovation, and im not sure how many times you can re-invent the wheel. This is the convergance of two sides of the film world, stills and video.
its here, it is staying, and so far all i have seen are benefits.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Jack the Ripper said:
If you dont want to use it, dont use it.
there are lots of people out there that want it, so they will continue to add it and refine it. Many tv shows have been and still are recorded exclusivly with DSLR Video, the fact is that it is here to stay and there is nothing anybody can do about it.
Amature film makers are flocking to DSLR Video because you can get professional qualify video for a fraction of the price of the pro-camcorder market.
I came here to defend the video function of DSLR's (something I can't even describe how much has changed how I look at filmmaking) but you said everything so perfectly I can only add in my enthusiastic agreement.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Video is the main reason i'm waiting for a D7000 instead of getting a D90.
Im an amateur shooter and part-time photojournalist on a budget, having the ability to get more use out of my equipment is a huge deal. all the videoable moments i've not been able to capture with my D60 have really stuck with me.
I do not want to be in the position to miss a important moment because i don't have the right camera.
To clarify, these moments i speak of are often demonstrations, including scenes of police brutality that are much more important to capture via video than still. And home/family stuff is obviously important as well. I do not currently have a HD camcorder and i hope never to need one.
Posted 2 years ago # -
"We've had this topic before and things got ugly real fast. So let this be a warning. KEEP THE DISCUSSION CIVILIZED or this thread will get locked."
I'm not trying to start a fight or anything I'm curious what some people use video for."If you dont want to use it, dont use it.", you're right up to point akaiwa, let me explain what I mean...I'm a photographer, I've no interest in video, I'm happy for Nikon/Canon to offer a video function...my concern is that the photographic part of the dslr is being compromised by adding the video function.
Is the sensor being tweaked to give better video at the cost of still, is the shutter being put under extra pressure because of video?
I wonder if this merger will continue or there'll be a split so you can buy a body with or without video ?...a D4 for stills and a D4x for stills and video ?
Don't fight or NikoDoby will blame me lol !Posted 2 years ago # -
If the D4 (non video) is way cheaper than the D4X, then I would consider it.
I have the D90 and have used the video maybe 5 times?
Posted 2 years ago # -
broxibear said:
Is the sensor being tweaked to give better video at the cost of still, is the shutter being put under extra pressure because of video?
I understand your fears, but the answer is "No"
it is not being compromised, and there has not been a single scrap of evidence whatsoever that it has been compromised or any reason to believe so in any way shape or form. We are still seeing better sensors, better IQ, better low light performance, better dynamic range. Not to mention in the D7k a brand new AF system, a brand new metering system with twice the pixels, new improved sensors...
how could any of that possible if we are compromising anything for the video?
Live view was already there, after that video was simply adding in a software package that allowed the live view feed to be saved into a movie file. No new hardware save for the video button.
If anyone could show any credible proof that video has in any way compromised the stills aspect, i would sure love to hear it.
On a side note, for those who are upset because they feel they are paying extra for the video, (which they are not)how come nobody complained about the retarded Picmotion feature? or the never used in-camera editing tools? nobody complained about the stopmotion ability on the D60?... why bash the video which is something a lot of people are interested in?
Posted 2 years ago # -
I vote B. If I say any more, it'll get ugly, and Niko will get mad.
Posted 2 years ago # -
broxibear said:
Don't fight or NikoDoby will blame me lol !Not blaming you although you didn't search the forum before starting this thread did you? ;^<
This topic is like politics, everyone has a strong opinion but there's never a "solution". Bunnies always start crying and flowers always get stomped on when this topic comes up.
I personally love the versatility of video in a stills camera. I understand the limitations of using a DSLR as a video camera and I'm fine with that. I buy my cameras for great stills image quality. I don't expect to make the sequel to Avatar in my backyard with a D7000 and 35mm f1.8 lens. But it seems like that's exactly what many of you plan to do with your DSLRs.
Video in DSLRs is definitely here to stay. Even the next generation of medium format sensors and cameras are going to offer HD playback. There's no sense in getting all "angrified" over it ;^)
warprints said:
I vote B. If I say any more, it'll get ugly, and Niko will get mad.Don't make me call your mother Warprints! You know how I get when you stomp on flowers and make bunnies cry.
Posted 2 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
This topic is like politics, everyone has a strong opinion but there's never a "solution".
I never understood why there are such strong opinions. If somebody can show me where it compromises still photography, then ill be against it. If not, im all for it.
i never understood the whole "I refuse to upgrade to any camera with video" attitude, its like this strange belief that if you accidentallyu use the video function that your photographers cred gets stripped from you or something
if somebody doesent want to use something, then dont use it...
i mean seriously, who complained about picmotion? yeah that was the stupid little in camera slide show where you get to choose from 4 different songs playing. lol
i mean... wtf was that?
that was in the D90.... and people complained about the video??????
loL!!!!!!!!!!
Posted 2 years ago # -
I sell real estate so it's nice to have. However, I think that it would be a nice touch to add at weddings for example - short clips that capture things a single image can't with very high quality footage.
It can be used to extend the camera. I have a couple of friends who are pro photographers and it excites both of them from a creative standpoint. One of the two was leery at first - somewhat resistant to change so to speak, but has since seen it as new opportunities.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I don't fully understand the strong opinions as well. I'm not into video at all but if it is there for the same price what the hell.
My main concern with the sudden focus on video, is that companies are redirecting their focus and resources that pull away from increased image advancements for still photography. Although there are similar goals that are shared, it goes without saying that a sensor optimized for one or the other would be better then having a do-it all sensor. At a minimum, the moving of a companies resources from one direction of sensor design to another avenue, creates compromises.
For a company like Nikon and a few others, this is a new avenue whereas Sony, Canon and Panasonic have been doing video for years. It is no surprised that many find Panasonic and Canon to be better at video since their camcorders have been ranked in the top for years.
To whatever end, companies will do what it takes to keep market share so the debate is more philosophical than anything.
With that said, I do see a new class of camera/camcorders that are optimized for video that will be able to share the lens systems for their camera counterparts. I do beleive that video will be in DSLRs but there will be a break in the future where Video and Still focused systems will go their own ways.
Just my 2-cents.
Posted 2 years ago # -
TaoTeJared, I disagree. I see many new technologies merging. For example, many T.V.s have built in DVD players, Blu-Ray players can also play DVDs, iPhones can make a call, look at pictures, take pictures, watch movies, make video etc etc. I see cameras and camcorders merging just the same.
Posted 2 years ago # -
The merging has already happed and for the average to sim-pro level cameras I expect to see them stay that way. Take for instance the RED system for video, I see more camcorder like systems to move this direction. Just look at all the options and system accessories that have been released to turn DSLRs into video systems.
The merger of technologies have been going on ever since someone put a cup holder on a saddle. The crux of digital technologies merging is that the swiss army knife effect happens - "Do it all but excel at none." Iphones are a prime example. They do many things well and better than other phones but they don't compare to DSLRs, computers, tvs, etc.
I'm a all in one guy for many things but for things that I want to excel at, I find specific tool made for the task perform much better.
Posted 2 years ago # -
"Not blaming you although you didn't search the forum before starting this thread did you? ;^<"
I did make a point of searching but nothing came up...maybe I'm doing it wrong?...anyway I'm only joking about being blamed lol.
I hear what you're saying about evidence Jack the Ripper, but that's partly why I'm asking, has there been any tests on this ?
I don't think you can compare it with tvs with inbuilt dvd players LessThanThreeLeo, the best dvd or blueray players are the basic striped down versions...in the same way as high end hi-fi equipment is?
It's an interesting debate, I come from a background of using 501CM and FM2 and I'd love to see Nikon bring out a D4 body that was a pure still camera...as I said, it's an interesting debate.Posted 2 years ago # -
DSLRs is NOT giving it into a swiss army knife effect. The technologies used to improve video will also help picture quality, better sensors etc. As soon as DSLRs start being able to make phone calls and you can browse the internet in them, that's when they become like a swiss army knife.
For example. A Television that has a built in DVD player doesn't have reduced quality because of the extra purpose. The way I see it, if it's just an extension of the purpose of the device it's good.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Now that this video frenzy has taken off and become quite unstoppable, I really doubt that we will see many new models (APS-C and full frame) in the near future without the video option. Like someone above noted, no-one has compromised the functionality of the stills side of the camera to incorporate new functions, by the looks of it the D7000 takes a nice step forward in terms of stills and also video.
What I am pretty sure of, is that if any of the C, N and P trio came out with a new prosumer+ camera without video, there would be massive outrage. I do think that it is a better scenario to have the option and not use it than to lack the option and need it.
I'm not into video (yet) as I lack a camera that can do it. I honestly don't know if I'm going to become a heavy video user or not but it is still at least a "nice-to-have" function UNLESS it somehow starts reducing the stills side of the camera.
Also, I would have no problem if all the manufacturers started shelling out video and videoless models side-by-side to satisfy the desires of both parties making the stills only camera a bit cheaper, of course. Maybe it will happen in the future when the markets settle a bit or maybe not.
I do agree that this is a subject with no right or wrong side. Everyone is fully entitled to their opinion in this matter however there is no point in bashing the other side because of it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Mr Thom is talking about this on his blog today... "imaging pros need more than consumers. We're about to see a reminder of that in videography: Sony and Panasonic are driving many new large sensor video camera projects and systems forward to the light of day, and the "I'll use a DSLR because that's all there is that does the Hollywood look" user will likely migrate back to a dedicated video camera." ©bythom.com
Posted 2 years ago # -
I am one of the "video (and its low-light capabilities) is a big part of why I am getting the D7000."
The convenience of having the one device supporting both at a high level is very beneficial to me.
You have to consider scenarios
In planned shoots... Your doing portrait photography,well of course a still camera is all you need. Going to make the next big indy film, then sure.. grab the video cameras.
But I do (will be doing) a lot of live event photography. Will be great to take still shots of a local band, for example.. then switch over immediately to video and record the crowds reactions... band performance. At the end of the night I have the stills I need for band sites (or facebook!) and then can edit a nice compilation video together.
I can see me doing this a million times for a million events. I expect it to be my standard mode of operation.
Cant wait till I get this damn thing!
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
