Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Stills vs Video  (Read 1487 times)

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 334
Re: Stills vs Video
« Reply #20 on: October 09, 2017, 01:38:32 PM »

The freakin' videobutton that decides to block picturetaking with an irrelevant dialogue...

Yes...irrelevant rant for sure. Just carry on...think I'll go take some pics with my A7R2 which has video as well. Don't think the video will affect my abilities to take a nice still...
Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 969
Re: Stills vs Video
« Reply #21 on: October 09, 2017, 04:56:22 PM »

No, we don't. I don't believe the market for pure still photographers is large enough to make a dent of any consequence.

I suggest those wishing for the past use the past....film....no video problems there.  😀
Logged
John

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 334
Re: Stills vs Video
« Reply #22 on: October 09, 2017, 05:39:44 PM »

I suggest those wishing for the past use the past....film....no video problems there.  😀

Or just glue the video button and rip the pages from the manual that talks about video.

Seems to me a lot of angst about nothing.
Logged

HywelPhillips

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Re: Stills vs Video
« Reply #23 on: October 11, 2017, 06:42:00 PM »

Yeh, this is a total non-issue.

If you want a camera that can do proper what-you-see-is-what-you-get, one ends up implementing Live View. Useful for all manner of stills photography, not least critical focussing with proper punch-in.

Doing this at a decent refresh rate so you have acceptable latency to focus means a frame rate for live view at least 25 fps, and probably more. On a dSLR, that's useful; on a mirrorless, it's unavoidable.

Once you have a 25 fps imaging pipeline for live view, you have a video camera. All manufacturers did was add a record button, and figure out a half-way acceptable codec to write it to slow cards.

Video is an integral part of modern digital cameras.

So really it's just a question of how much you decide to support videographer-friendly operation of your camera rather than pure stills operation. Some manufacturers will go one way, some another, but with programmable custom buttons becoming the norm, there's really not much reason to moan and gripe.

I shoot a lot of video, and mostly I use a dedicated video camera (RED). I shoot a lot of stills, and I mostly use a dedicated stills camera (Hasselblad).

But there are plenty of use cases where my A7Rii or GH4 are a better tool for the job- on a handheld Zhiyun crane instead of a back-breaking Ronin gimbal, for example. I just did a week long location shooting trip, shooting stills and video, and it made MUCH more sense to take the A7Rii for transatlantic flight weight limits and not really compromise THAT much on capability when I got there. (Ergonomically more of a compromise, but that's more to do with Sony's crappy UI design than an inherent problem of the technology- the GH4 is much better interface-wise, just comes up a bit short on stills image quality).

Cheers, Hywel
« Last Edit: October 11, 2017, 06:46:20 PM by HywelPhillips »
Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 969
Re: Stills vs Video
« Reply #24 on: October 13, 2017, 11:34:29 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!?

Well, here ya go...digital and no video...digiFilm™ Camera by YASHICA

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1940283777/expect-the-unexpected-digifilmtm-camera-by-yashica

https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/11/yashica-digifilm-faux-film-camera/
Quote
”Yashica has unveiled a new camera on Kickstarter that seems to offer the worst parts of both film and digital cameras”
« Last Edit: October 13, 2017, 11:39:03 PM by jrsforums »
Logged
John

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1103
Re: Stills vs Video
« Reply #25 on: October 20, 2017, 02:49:12 AM »

Interesting to note that Leica removed video functionality for the M10 (present in the M9) - apparently at the request of customers
To finaly implement 4K in the SL the next day with all their cine lenses and even M series adapters...
Let's say the first Leica with real video capabilities.
So it tells me 2 things about Leica customers.
The wealthy orthodox right wing buys M series and the poch dandy wealthy communist buys SL.
More seriously, if Leica took video seriously enough, it's now a life style.

Now there are still-only cameras such as Sigma and Pentax k1. Yes there is video on the K1 but it's so marginal and poorly implemented that anybody remotely interested in video would look elsewhere. So they target the still-only user.

But let's just take a simple case in LULA. Fair to say that M Reichmann was on the very first to smell that video was going to rule the imagery industry. More exactly multimedia. He did review the Canon and that was an eye opening for many people, indy filmakers on a budget, students etc...
When I see a review or an article here, it is so much better in video than having to read text lines with a zoom and scroll on my phone.
Included the forum should give (and it hopefuly will) the capability to upload short video answers for multimedia interactions. Much faster, much lively and human than having to type a keyboard. IMO.

As to answer to the thread question, 2 separate devices each specialized for still/video tasks, the marketplace gives good amount of choices already. Blackmagic, Red, Atik, Kinefinity etc...
But it seems that all-in-one is the route in both production and post. See Resolve that started as a color app and became a all-in-one app. Of course, it's not maybe the best editor because in the end all-in-one is a compromise but it edits and gets the job done. Autodesk Smoke, Lightworks bundled with Fusion...the tendency goes there inevitably.
I agree with Coot. It's not that the industry cannot produce a single gear completly functional for both worlds. They have the tech and designs. They don't really do it for marketing position.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2017, 05:50:54 AM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

Dinarius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 955
    • Denis Mortell Photography
Re: Stills vs Video
« Reply #26 on: October 20, 2017, 04:14:58 PM »

Used with a good App (Filmic Pro is outstanding) your phone can produce broadcast quality video, albeit with one lens. Add a Rode mini mic, and the sound isn’t far behind.

D.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up