Would you purchase a DSLR without Video Mode

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

Would you purchase a DSLR without Video Mode

(38 posts) (18 voices)

Tags:

Video mode or not

12 Next »

bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

I don't presently have Video Mode on my D300 and actually except for my Fuji F200EXR don't have anything that records video. Years ago had a Canon Camcorder, but did not use hardly ever, just preferred to take pictures.

Now with the introduction of Video into the DSLR world, would I actual use it if my next one had it. There are lots of complaints about the lack of this or that in Nikon's latest video feature, but would you really use it anyway. What about Sony, None of their DSLR's have video yet. Why is that Sony has not jumped in yet, are they ashamed that their current sensor design can simply not do video at the same quality compared to Canon.

My next Nikon DSLR will have video, but I am honestly not sure that it would ever produce an actual high quality video, I have enough problems getting pictures edited, don,t need another thing to stress me out

What do you think

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
Floyd

member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 36
offline

Yes. I'm with you on this one. I have owned a D90 for 12 months now and have not used the video feature, except for simply stuffing around with it (pictures of desk, hand, etc). I am also at leat 6 mths behind with keywording and editing all the still images I have taken. I've gotr enough to do, with all that comes with shooting still images. Maybe when i retire I will have the time and energy to muck around with moving pictures. Video is not what i purchased the camera for. However, i can understand why/how someone might want/use the video function more often. In a way, I envy them. That is, i don't have the 'bandwidth' to be focussing (excuse the pun) on 2 different meduims. I am happy to simply to be trying to get the most out of the still shots.

I am sure there are others like us !! Maybe we will, in the future, see a split in DSLRs: Ones with video and ones without. Heck, maybe one day there will even be cameras that only have video and that do not shoot stills. :-> Cheers. Paul.

Posted 3 years ago #
PBrigido

preferred member
Joined: Oct '09
Posts: 253
offline

I was on the fence with this. I upgraded from my D200 to a D700 a few weeks back and one of the things I considered before the purchase was to wait it out and get a new Nikon that has video (D700s, D800...you know...all the rumored ones). In the end, I just thought that it really didn't make a big enough difference to me wait and see if one would include video down the road.

I figured that I would use the camera 99% of the time for pictures...the 1% other for video. My video interests are best served by devices that are used for HD video...and in this case, my video camera is a HD Canon! Needless to say, I keep my Nikon and Canon seperated on two difference shelves.

Posted 3 years ago #
warprints

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 769
offline

I bought a higher end video camera years ago, and rarely used it. I have video on my f717, and rarely used it. I have video on my cell phone, and have never used it. I don't need video on my next camera.

Posted 3 years ago #
Newfie

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 186
offline

I can sort of understand why someone would want HD Video on an entry level or even advanced amateur dSLR but on a D700 or D3? It like going to KFC for a hamburger. Pro photographers need a dedicated, high performance camera just like pro videographers need a dedicated, high performance video camera.

I own a D700 and would never consider upgrading to a D700s for the video option. At this point in time I would avoid a dSLR with video……just seems to cheapen the camera in my opinion.

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

I too have had a D90 for about a year and never used its video feature. I'm a photographer, not a cinematographer, if I want to do video, I'd buy a video camera. I would prefer my DSLRs smaller, cheaper and perfect for photography, with video omitted.

Posted 3 years ago #
takefive

junior member
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 8
offline

I too, have the D700 and really have no use for video. I just don't see any need for video and it's inclusion would not be a deciding factor in buying a new DSLR. I'm sure there will be a small percentage of traditional photographers (photojournalists, wedding photogs, etc.) that will use it out of necessity, but I have to wonder if this is just a new innovation to boost sales and after the hype has faded will end up being a useless feature that no one thinks about.

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

Making artistic video is a whole seperate process. If you don't have actors and a script, then all you've got is moving video of a scene. I'd rather look at stills myself.

I've owned a D90 for about a year now, and still haven't gotten around to using the video mode for anything other than filming my very camera shy dog for about 30 seconds.

If I had kids, I'd be all over video mode. A parent can film their kid eating and find that interesting enough to send to their friends (note to parents: Your friends without kids don't care). I'd love to be able to use my SLR with a nice zoom to film my kids basketball game or something like that.

For the professional photographer, or photography enthusiast, video doesn't really offer you much. The people who I know that are using it are using it to document their lighting setups and maybe get a few instructions on camera vs. writing them down. As an artistic medium, its just not your run of the mill photographer's thing.

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

I think a lot of people will be somewhat disappointed when they find out that the quality of their videos will be nowhere near the clips we see advertising about that feature, like the one done on a 7D lately

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

I don't know pete... I know the quality of my stills are nowhere near the stuff Nikon puts out in their advertising for their new DSLR's... but that's a whole different story.

The question is will it be better than what they currently get from their cam-corder. When I moved from my 8mp Casio Exilim to my 6mp D40... I was blown away by the results. The IQ was that much better. For the camera people, its a little more muddled. If they don't have a video camera, then yes... they are looking at an improvement. If they have a low end video camera, your still looking at a step up by switching to a Nikon\Cannon SLR.

If you already have a HD Video camera, then you are going to have to work to get better results out of your SLR. SLR's will do better for times when you want to use depth of field to create seperation between your subject and the background. I was watching a college football game (go horns!) this weekend when it struck me how difficult it would be to look at the close-up shots of players (taken at field level) if the crowd behind them was in perfect focus. Having them blurred out makes it a much better scene (especially if they are Sooner fans).

Similarly, if you are shooting ambient light only (and most non-pros are), the higher ISO settings of your SLR will probably get you much better results in low light. I was floored by the qulaity of that Cannon 1d mkIV video sample shot downtown with nothing but street light. The Nikon bear movie was similarly impressive.

Posted 3 years ago #
jbl

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 266
offline

I own a D300 and I love this body, it's a really good body. Awesome auto focus, awesome build quality, the button interface is among the best. This camera is great.

However, it's going to be my only and last DSLR that won't shoot video as well.

I'm a multidisciplinary artist, I make still images, video, sound and recently started working on installations. I want a single camera for all my needs: video, stop motion, still images. I want that camera to be some kind of versatile tool and at the price at the good gear sales for, I couldn't afford like a good DSLR with good lens and a red one.. I'd want full frame on both so that boosts the cost.

Posted 3 years ago #
pabnj

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 231
offline

Over a year ago I was looking to upgrade my D80 for a camera that could do better in low light, and was waiting out the release of the D90. Finally when the camera was released, I was greatly disappointed to find out that it had video. Honestly, if I wanted a video camera, I’d buy a video camera. Then I started wondering what features may have been omitted for the video. This lead me to seriously look at the D300, and after remembering all the hot pixels I had with the D80 which Live View, and video would probably make worse if I was tempted to used it, I ended up buying the D300.

I am very glad I purchased it, double the speed, better ISO performance of my D80, and not having to dig through the menus to set many of the camera settings which you had to do with the D80 made me very happy. Then I realized something else after shooting a 1st grade girls soccer game, you are freezing a fraction of a second in time to be enjoyed forever. I was amazed at the determination these girls had playing the game which you could not capture on video, and go unnoticed. The comical expressions the girls make when collide with one another are priceless. You can’t truly see the “moment” in a video for it is distracting and moves to quickly, which makes still photography an incredible much more appreciable art form IMHO.

So yes, I would prefer to buy a DSLR WITHOUT video.

Posted 3 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

I certainly wouldn't mind getting a DSLR if it came with video built in. Whether I use it or not is a different issue altogether.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

These discussions always make me chuckle...hell who am I kidding, I'm laughing right now. It amazes me to see poeple get so worked up over something they really have no control over. Video in DSLR's is here to stay, whether we like it or not. It's like complaining about the sun even though we all know it will rise the next day regardless how much we bitch about it.

Having said that; video isn't a feature of a camera I need to have. I've only fooled around with the feature in my D90 myself as others have said. While I have no real use for the feature, it's inclusion on an SLR isn't something that's going to turn me off. On that note, I don't see the splitting up of video and non video SLR's anytime soon either. In fact, I see it going the opposite way. The only real upgrade to the D300, beside the dual card slots was it's video feature, an improved one as it can now do contrast AF. This sort of R&D and then implementation suggest that there's more of a future for video in these cameras than many would be comfortable admitting.

This statement:

["I'm a multidisciplinary artist, I make still images, video, sound and recently started working on installations. I want a single camera for all my needs: video, stop motion, still images."]

Is exactly what Nikon/Canon are aware of. They're not going to make separate ones when it's more cost effective to incorporate it into the SLR's and seeing as this has become a good selling point for them, this progression will continue.

I'm waiting for the D700's replacement to have video. In fact I'm hoping it does because then perhaps the D700 will come down in price and I might get one.

Posted 3 years ago #
soap

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 606
offline

I've seen no well-reasoned and credible argument to date that video functionality in DSLRs has come at the price of any feature or any aspect of still performance.

The only "cost" is the actual firmware code to implement it, once you have live-view - and that is negligible. The use of MJPEG is strong evidence they don't even beef-up the image-processing pipeline to do it.

The fact Nikon still has rolling-shutter issues is strong evidence Nikon is picking sensors based on still performance, and not on video performance.

I don't have a personal need for it - but I wouldn't kick it out of bed for eating crackers either.

EDIT: and if the s versions of Dx00 cameras have dual-card slots!?! WOO HOO!

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

Soap

Well said! :)

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

Soap... The one difference that you might consider would be a bias of CMOS style chip vs. CCD chip. I don't understand the difference all that well, but essentially the CMOS chip has more on-chip functionality. This comes at the expense of RAW image capture capeability, but makes it much easier to implement things like noise reduction and video.

Until the D300, conventional wisdom was that CCD offered better image quality. So if the inclusion of video adds a bias toward CMOS, then we might be missing out on further development of CCD technology.

I just thoroughly butchered that explanation so check it out here for a better understanding.

http://www.dalsa.com/corp/markets/CCD_vs_CMOS.aspx

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

["Until the D300, conventional wisdom was that CCD offered better image quality"]

Yeah if you have like 3 of them. The problem is, today's digital cameras tend to come with one sensor.

Posted 3 years ago #
soap

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 606
offline

Willis - CCD was a much more mature technology at the onset - and I think the proof is in the pudding that CMOS has catched up. IF the D3 had been CCD pre adding video I think there would be some evidence that Nikon was only switching to CMOS for the read speeds / video.

Since the D3 was CMOS before it incorporated video the theory they switched to CMOS in preparation for video is presuming they would compromise their flagship camera for a yet-unincorporated feature. A theory I have a hard time swallowing. Thus I find it easier to believe Nikon switched because they felt CMOS technology was giving them the best (or at least equal) still photo results and video was a bonus to come.

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

I think the motivating factor was High ISO Noise performance, and the ability to mess with the saturation (picture controls) which for field shooting is probably worth any trade offs (they are pretty close at base ISO). After the decision was made, I think they tacked on Live view and video as an afterthought (Which is still how Nikon views video IMO).

That said, I'm not aware of any studio cameras (PhaseOne, Hasselbad, etc.) that use CMOS... I love the CMOS chips, but I'd hate to see development of CCD stall just because its easier to implement some features on a CMOS chip.

Edit: For the record, I don't believe this is happening, but if I were going to make an argument against video, this is probably where I would start.

Posted 3 years ago #
soap

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 606
offline

I THINK the larger sensors are mostly CCD because CCD is cheaper to scale up. Because the sensor itself is simpler than a CMOS one you have a higher yield rate, which becomes increasingly important the larger your sensor is.

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

Video is just a software/firmware feature that should not raise the price of a camera at all, couple of programmers day spent on it is one time investment after that you should more or less only recompile it for a new camera.
Would I buy one without it, sure if the price and still photo features suits me and I think now is a good time to buy D3 for 1000$ less then D3s if you need professional body.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

simply - sure I would, I'm a photographer not videomaker :)

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

I made the post to kind of get an idea if video was important, sure I would try to use if and when I get it. But also to inquire to what your thoughts were on the fact that Sony most be thinking that most people do not want video with their next DSLR

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
Johndbr

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 102
offline

Video is not something I would use to any great extent. It would be fun to playing with it while sitting in the blind waiting for the intended subject to wonder in.

Posted 3 years ago #