Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Stills vs Video  (Read 492 times)

opgr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1576
Stills vs Video
« on: September 11, 2017, 01:55:18 PM »

At some point they will probably decide that the amount of effort required to support video in still image camera's simply merits a device of its own, then somebody will wake up and tell the world we need two devices, one that's ergonomically better suited for video, and one that is better suited for still image capture.

At which point we finally get better and simpler, but probably not cheaper devices to work with.

It's too bad they probably won't fall for that argument: if you slash video from a photocamera, you slash half the functionality, so it should be half the price!?
Logged
Regards,
Oscar

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 939
Re: Stills vs Video
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2017, 05:24:21 PM »

For a digital camera with live view and/or mirrorless, it is relatively little additional hardware expense to add video.
Logged
John

opgr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1576
Re: Stills vs Video
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2017, 06:04:14 PM »

For a digital camera with live view and/or mirrorless, it is relatively little additional hardware expense to add video.

Yes, likely true especially considering that most videocapability is already baked into the chip.  And at one point it probably did make sense to distinguish oneself with videocapabilities. However, it seems lately the competition in the videocapabilities is becoming detrimental to development in both directions.

High quality video in a midrange camera seems overkill. I see two types of usecases:
1. The tourist shooter who likes to make the occasional videoclip
2. The professional shooter who really requires high-end results for commissioned projects etc.

How are either of these served by say a Panasonic LX100 or a Fuji X-T20 doing superior 4k video?
Logged
Regards,
Oscar

Joe Towner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 723
Re: Stills vs Video
« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2017, 05:47:27 PM »

It's called the Nikon Df, remember it?  It didn't do video, and I don't think anyone will release a follow up or competitor.

Logged
t: @PNWMF

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16587
Re: Stills vs Video
« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2017, 05:51:31 AM »

It's called the Nikon Df, remember it?  It didn't do video, and I don't think anyone will release a follow up or competitor.


Yes, I do remember it, and for a brief period thought that it would be a "good idea".

However, they blew the opportunity of a nice screen with grid and split-image focussing, the main thing that I miss with today's Nikons. Yes, I can have an electronic grid, but the main item is unavailable. Consequently, my cash remained in the bank, and the card company continues sending me information about how convenient card purchasing can be... I use it for too many things already; what's the matter with these companies?

OTOH, Leica has produce back-to-basics models of the M at high premiums...

Video holds no attraction for me at all. It's difficult enough getting good single images; who needs to fight for extended ones that move!

;-)

Rob

P.S.

Oscar, we could be considered trolls for writing this stuff in this thread!
« Last Edit: September 20, 2017, 05:56:24 AM by Rob C »
Logged

opgr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1576
Re: Stills vs Video
« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2017, 07:59:09 AM »

Oscar, we could be considered trolls for writing this stuff in this thread!

I think we're safe on this forum, but it probably is considered sacrilege elsewhere.

Video is just a failure to produce a comprehensive still. And unfortunately, most videos are merely 24 of those failures per second...
Logged
Regards,
Oscar

Pete Berry

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 399
Re: Stills vs Video
« Reply #6 on: September 20, 2017, 02:34:56 PM »

Yes, likely true especially considering that most videocapability is already baked into the chip.  And at one point it probably did make sense to distinguish oneself with videocapabilities. However, it seems lately the competition in the videocapabilities is becoming detrimental to development in both directions.

High quality video in a midrange camera seems overkill. I see two types of usecases:
1. The tourist shooter who likes to make the occasional videoclip
2. The professional shooter who really requires high-end results for commissioned projects etc.

How are either of these served by say a Panasonic LX100 or a Fuji X-T20 doing superior 4k video?

In a word, what a bunch of bosh!

I'll wager that the majority of readers of this forum fit neither of the above groups. Omitted are the passionate amateurs who have the abilities and hardware to produce professional quality results. The advent of affordable 4K video with the Panny GH4 three years ago was an eye-opener to me, and has transformed my enjoyment of the video medium I have dabbled in for years, but disappointed by the limitations of even quite good 1080HD. Very decent stills may be cut from the 8.3MP 4K frames, that stand up remarkable well to PP. Below a small central 100% crop from a hummingbird video with the GH4 and adapted Canon 100-400 vII - handheld on a breezy day with EFL of 800mm and it's excellent 4EV IS.

The video, in 4K. Select 1080p otherwise, as 720p is Vimeo's default:





 
« Last Edit: September 20, 2017, 02:38:18 PM by Pete Berry »
Logged

opgr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1576
Re: Stills vs Video
« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2017, 03:42:07 PM »

In a word, what a bunch of bosh!

I'll wager that the majority of readers of this forum fit neither of the above groups. Omitted are the passionate amateurs who have the abilities and hardware to produce professional quality results. ...

What's your point?

I didn't say there is not a need for video with ILS, especially supporting existing photo lens options, but I fail to see the need to keep it integrated in a single device which for historical reasons happens to be the photocamera. A photo camera is simply not ergonomically friendly for video, and a video device with palmrest is much better suited for the task.

I believe most consumers and professionals would be much better served with two separate devices so they can choose to purchase the option required instead of having to shell out extra $$$ on a device that is then hampered with extra buttons and functionality that gets in the way of what you want it to do in the first place.

The obvious exceptions of course are travelzoom category and weddingjockeys, both of which may need impromptu video, but otherwise a separate device will likely be more appropriate for most usecases (and probably make the manufacturer more money).
Logged
Regards,
Oscar

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2340
    • sammorganmoore.com
Re: Stills vs Video
« Reply #8 on: September 21, 2017, 04:05:18 AM »

Stills and video. Exposing a sensor to light and recording the data.

What does a sport photographer want 25FPS raw. What does a videographer want 25FPS raw.. or more.

To me it seems the same thing. I think Jim Jannard had a D3 (like I did/do) and thought.. yep those are the motion frames I want but not 8FPS but 25.30.60.120 or 500 of those frames per second.

Ive always expected at D6, or 1dx7 to simply be a fast raw shooting (pellicle mirror?) with maybe an add on box with large data store for video and some video IO ports.

simples.

Logged

Pete Berry

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 399
Re: Stills vs Video
« Reply #9 on: September 21, 2017, 02:34:15 PM »

What's your point?

I didn't say there is not a need for video with ILS, especially supporting existing photo lens options, but I fail to see the need to keep it integrated in a single device which for historical reasons happens to be the photocamera. A photo camera is simply not ergonomically friendly for video, and a video device with palmrest is much better suited for the task.

I believe most consumers and professionals would be much better served with two separate devices so they can choose to purchase the option required instead of having to shell out extra $$$ on a device that is then hampered with extra buttons and functionality that gets in the way of what you want it to do in the first place.

The obvious exceptions of course are travelzoom category and weddingjockeys, both of which may need impromptu video, but otherwise a separate device will likely be more appropriate for most usecases (and probably make the manufacturer more money).

I thought my point was fairly obvious in the examples posted above: That an affordable camera body - the GH4 at about $1500, can produce pretty striking results at high speed - in this case 30p - with 8.3MP frames captured that show a remarkable absence of artifacts at 100%. The GH5 has considerably upped the game with "6K Photo" delivering 19MP video/stills in 3:2 or 4:3 for the capacity of the battery or SD card, as well a 4K 60p. The Olympus E-M1-II can deliver full sized 20MP JPG's+RAW @ 60fps for 1 sec. bursts.

As to the small dedicated videocams you're referring to, there's nothing out there I'm aware that's remotely "palmable" with the video capabilities of the above - particularly in the low light pro bono performance events I shoot regularly with fast native or adapted zooms and primes.

The hybrid wave broke several years ago, and I can't see that trying to get manufacturers to strip video away is anything but howling at the moon!
Pete



 

 
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up