To video or nor? « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon V-DSLR

To video or nor?

(33 posts) (22 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

12 Next »

bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

This morning, I wrote in another thread:

"Spent the last 10 days or so considering the (many) threads on here in the wake of the latest Nikon camera release (D5100). It seems to have poked a bunch of people for whom video is a big deal, who are not primarily still photographers."

I wonder just how many of us shoot Video, but don't see an option to do a poll on here.

So if our dear terminator is willing, I'd like to ask that question on a scale of 1 to 5, like this:

1. Not at all, not interested, wish Nikon would not bother with it.
2. Not now, but would be interested if the need occurs.
3. Meah...
4. Yeah... have been asked for it/do shoot it occasionally.
5. All the time!

Not sure if my descriptions are right, but 1 = never and 5 = hell yeah!

To start the ball rolling, I am a 2.

Posted 2 years ago #
warprints

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 769
offline

If you read the past threads on video, you'll find I'm a staunch 1.
(Except I realize that Nikon needs to keep current with in camera video to be competitive in order to sell more cameras to the mass market, thereby generating more income to improve the features that a pure still photographer wants.

Posted 2 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

I'm at #4. I've been asked by a client if I can shoot some video clips, thankfully I have a D3100 along side my D700 so that I can get some 1080p video if needed.

Posted 2 years ago #
casperwb

preferred member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 558
offline

#1 with a twist

I am not interested in using a DSLR for video.

when I do have to shoot video I prefer the little hand held video camera with the flip out screens.

So, on my D7000, it is not used.

Posted 2 years ago #
Mike Gunter

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 946
offline

Hi Bj,

I do video a great deal and would very much like to do it with Nikon (and if you look at the specifications on some of the cameras they sell), they say they their cameras make video - the company has already jumped in.

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.

The D7000 can be used to make some very good video clips. There are a boatload of limitations to what you can shoot well. (There shouldn't be, and I would like to see a firmware release to correct many problems and enhance frame rates and correct some obvious problems that left the factory - maybe even an optional a trip to the factory for some tinkering of the body if possible for those of us who would want to go so far).

As a still camera, it's terrific.

But if Canon can make a DSLR that shoot great cinematic video (and they do), it just beats me why Nikon, the company I've been sticking with for 45 years can't (and they don't).

With that said, I want Nikon to do what they said they'd do. Make a camera that does video as least as well as their competitor - provide what they say is on the D7000's specifications.

I'm a 5.

My very best to you all.

Mike

Posted 2 years ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

2. Not now, but would be interested if the need occurs.

I used have Bolex H16, but was never very good a making films
Thankfully non of my clients want video
but if they do
well the customer is allways right

I am am very happy with my D700 and don't want the expense of a D3 ( assuming I could get one)

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

Meah ? Did some in the past with a JVC camcorder. Just family trips and events .. but have not had the budget to get a Digital version that is 'good enough' well not until the D7000.. had a play with the D7K video .. last week end.. my son's graduation. Tied it together with some stills and creative commons music and it was pleasantly fun to do it with windows live movie maker. and pleasantly fun to watch the thing too. so "Meah" for me I think.

I also think I will be getting the nikon microphone soon although the sound from the D7000 is not horrid.

Posted 2 years ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

-1 here.

Just my 2c.

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

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

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

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.....

Posted 2 years ago #
aetas

preferred member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 273
offline

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

Posted 2 years ago #
rbid

preferred member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 344
offline

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)

Posted 2 years ago #
bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
ProImages

member
Joined: Apr '11
Posts: 39
offline

#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.

Posted 2 years ago #
JorPet

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 261
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
phosphoro

member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 24
offline

5. With Canon, unfortunately.

Posted 2 years ago #
bhoveyga

senior member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 83
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
Major Floppis

member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 10
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

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?

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

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?

Posted 2 years ago #
SkintBrit

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 1,149
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
Mike Gunter

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 946
offline

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

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #