Dare We Hope (Not)

[tgphoto]

Maybe I'm in the minority here.  Heck, I may be alone in my thinking.  But does anyone else think the introduction of video capabilities on the new generation of dSLRs is a bit, well, unnecessary?

It's almost as if the marketing minds have seen the writing on the wall with regards to the "Megapixel Race", and instead of focusing attention on features photographers really want (like a dedicated MLU on a Canon body), they're taking a cue from the cell phone industry and giving us yet another bell and whistle that, while it does add functionality to the product, isn't necessarily something photographers need.

Awhile back, there were several good discussion on the LL Forum regarding the right tool for the job.  Well, if the job requires video...is a D90, or 5DMK2, or D3x really the "best" tool for the job?

Would love to hear what other folks have to say.

[Mort54]

Would love to hear what other folks have to say.

I'm not a big fan of the "everything and the kitchen sink" design philosophy. I'd rather have a stills camera that focusses on doing stills as well as stills can be done, in a package as small as practical. Anything that makes a camera more complicated than it needs to be to take quality stills is misguided in my book. I guess that makes me an old fuddy-duddy (the fact that I used the term fuddy-duddy in a sentence definitely makes me an old fuddy-duddy :-)

Of course, at one time photogs complained about adding autofocus to cameras, that it was unnecessary, etc. Maybe video recording is our generation's autofocus.

[barryfitzgerald]

Autofocus is not really the same as slapping a video mode in there. AF is just a tool, to use as and when. You are taking still shots regardless of AF or MF.

Video, well some are looking for ultra high res footage, to be able to take frames from that, to use instead of taking still shots. That is what some "dream of"

In which case, anyone who is doing any kind of photography as an income, is going to be out of a job ;-), unless they go along for the ride. Think wedding shooters..oops, what do they hire? Just one guy to do the video and stills at the same time??? I tend to think photographers make better still shooters than video ones, and the reverse for those involved in shooting footage

There is also a strong argument to suggest, for example a spray and pray sports shoot with video, is going to be a lot less of a challenge than with a still camera.

I don't much like the sound of integration of the two mediums.

There will come a point when makers cannot add anything else, bar a few extra mp, a few more AF points. They might even get down to working on real issues, such as DR, handling, etc. Digital has taken marketing to the extreme. It was a lot more fun when you didnt have all this stuff to think about ;-)

[Tklimek]

Well it would be interesting and I don't know if such figures are available, but I wonder how many Nikon D3 and D700's out of the total sold go to hobbyists vs. pros (I'm using Nikon for the example).  It could be that only 20% of the total volume of D3 and D700 (current *new* top of the line Nikon models) are sold to pros; I really have no idea.  But as mentioned for many non-pros the ability to take some snippets of video here and there could be quite valuable; and IF it is valuable to the majority of the people who actually buy the cameras, than it would be a smart move.  I'm not sure if these numbers are available yet.  I'm quite sure that there are a number of high end Nikons, Canons, etc. out there taking images of birthday parties, anniversaries, pet photo's, etc.

Cheers....

Todd in Chicago

[Mort54]

Autofocus is not really the same as slapping a video mode in there. AF is just a tool, to use as and when. You are taking still shots regardless of AF or MF.

I was, of course, being facetious. Is there no humor left in the world :-)

[Dansk]

I can think of one industry that is literally in LOVE with the 5D and future versions of such.

*bow chicky bow bow*


   

[dchew]

I can think of situations where video will be nice, and I'll experiment with it.  I think for me it will be a fun exploration.

However, at this point I wouldn't buy a camera based on it's video capability.

Dave Chew

[John Camp]

I think the same cameras could (will) be used to make low-end crappy video and high-end great still shots. Video cameras are large and highly specialized because they need to be to make high-end video. Cross-over cameras will be used to make film clips for the net that nobody will pay more for, and professional videographers will still use the specialized tools.

JC

[michael]

John,

Then why are all the professional cinematographers that I know drooling all over the 5D MKII?

The answer is simple. No one expects a DSLR to be a full features video camera. But, that doesn't change the fact that a full frame sensor like that in the 5D MKII combined with fast and long lenses will enable film makers to shoot things that they currently have to use exotic and expensive gear to realize.

A 5D MKII will become an invaluable B cam for many pro film makers, and will excite many creative types to try new ways of seeing and creating art.

The biggest mistake that we all make is to see the world though a lens distorted by our own particular needs. Think different.

Michael

[BernardLanguillier]

Maybe I'm in the minority here.  Heck, I may be alone in my thinking.  But does anyone else think the introduction of video capabilities on the new generation of dSLRs is a bit, well, unnecessary?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223959\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am sure that many people will find video useful, but for those like me who don't I cannot help thinking that the money and time spent developping the video features was not invested in enhancing photographic features and capabilities.

Cheers,
Bernard

[David Anderson]

I'm all for it.

How many times have we been told recently by some joker with a Red camera that we as stills photographers would soon be out of a job because of the quality of stills off video ?

Now we can all wave 5D's around under their noses and say "21 megapixels, 12000 ISO and cheap as chips"..

Ahhh, sweet revenge..

[barryfitzgerald]

It would be interesting to have a poll or something, and see just how many potential users would consider the video element a significant factor in their buying choice.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

It would be interesting to have a poll or something, and see just how many potential users would consider the video element a significant factor in their buying choice.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224274\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Count me as one of the Luddites. I'd probably be willing to pay (a little) more to have the video removed from a DSLR.

If God had wanted me to shoot more than one picture at a time, She would have put video capability into my first 8x10 view camera.  

[Peter McLennan]

Then why are all the professional cinematographers that I know drooling all over the 5D MKII?

Exactly.  I'm still wiping the drool off my desk.  If the manufacturers want to give me a free Panaflex along with my DSLR, I say THANK YOU.

Mistaken and at first underwhelmed by the D90's video, I called Nikon's effort in another thread "not true HD".  In fact, it does conform to one of the HDTV standards, albeit one of the lowest spec.  Mea Culpa.  D90 video, however, is just baby steps compared to Canon's offering.

The 5D's 1080P30 in one giant leap appears to offer what producers call "the holy grail" of digital video.  Anyone with a paltry few thousand dollars in their pocket now can own a tool that records motion imagery as good as most of what we see at the movies.  

The cost of operation of this new Hollywood-grade movie camera is zero.  ZERO!  By comparison, a thousand foot load of Kodak Vision3 500T will disappear through a movie camera in about eleven minutes, after which you'll be CDN $863 poorer.  Plus taxes, of course - say a thousand dollars for ten minutes screen time with shipping and waste.  Rounding off even more, you're looking at about a hundred dollars a minute, approaching two dollars a second, every second you roll the camera.  That's just to purchase the film.  You still need to pay to have it processed, printed and the print processed before you can actually see it.  You'll have to use a loupe to view the individual frames, of course.  To actually see your imagery move on a screen, you'll need to spend more.  A LOT more.

The Canon gives you all this free if you buy their state-of-the-art DSLR.  Sheez.

Wait until people see this stuff on the big screen TVs they bought last Christmas.

[John Camp]

John,

Then why are all the professional cinematographers that I know drooling all over the 5D MKII?
The answer is simple. No one expects a DSLR to be a full features video camera. But, that doesn't change the fact that a full frame sensor like that in the 5D MKII combined with fast and long lenses will enable film makers to shoot things that they currently have to use exotic and expensive gear to realize.
A 5D MKII will become an invaluable B cam for many pro film makers, and will excite many creative types to try new ways of seeing and creating art.
The biggest mistake that we all make is to see the world though a lens distorted by our own particular needs. Think different.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224257\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You may well be right -- when I said "I think" at the beginning of my post, I meant it. It's my opinion.

But to push this argument a little further, are you suggesting the professional cinematographers will use the 5D for ALL things? If not, are they going to have the heavy video equipment (the exotic and expensive gear), which provides not only excellent quality but excellent sound, sitting around doing nothing, while they shoot with the 5D? I guess my (sincere) question here is, if you're a pro and need professional high-end video equipment anyway, which you will need if you shoot professional high-end video, then why not use it? For professional video shooters, the 5D is an extra expense, not a saving.

I can see the 5D as a camera for people who make occasional video for the web, for reporters who shoot a snatch of video for their newspaper website, and so on, where expectations are fairly low. But without the ancillary equipment that goes with all pro video (steadicams, hot lights, high-end sound recorders, etc.) you're not (IMHO) going to get pro video. You're going to get semi-pro video -- you're going to get web broadcasts. I believe the 5D will be the camera for the non-serious amateur (very serious amateurs have serious video equipment, just as they buy still cameras like the 1DsIII or the D3), or possibly for pros for specific, very specialized uses.

Which is fine with me. I have no problem with a pro who tries to shoot a movie with a 5D -- but I suspect he won't be very successful. I also have no problem with pros taking landscape shots with hand-held P&S cameras. Though I probably wouldn't buy one of the prints.

JC

[Peter McLennan]

But to push this argument a little further, are you suggesting the professional cinematographers will use the 5D for ALL things?
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224305\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Of course not.  What it does mean, though is that nearly anybody can access what was previously available to only a very select few.  
I see a whole new world of fine art motion imagery used in ways yet unimagined.

[JeffKohn]

I am sure that many people will find video useful, but for those like me who don't I cannot help thinking that the money and time spent developping the video features was not invested in enhancing photographic features and capabilities.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224263\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

BUt once you've implemented LiveView, the leap to supporting video has got to be pretty small. All you're really adding is the ability to encode the LiveView output to a file and save it on the card. That can't cost very much (if it did, Nikon probably wouldn't have added it to the D90, and it wouldn't be a standard feature on consumer point-n-shoots).

[BernardLanguillier]

BUt once you've implemented LiveView, the leap to supporting video has got to be pretty small. All you're really adding is the ability to encode the LiveView output to a file and save it on the card. That can't cost very much (if it did, Nikon probably wouldn't have added it to the D90, and it wouldn't be a standard feature on consumer point-n-shoots).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224322\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Live view is typically in the 15 fps range... besides the image quality of live view isn't critical at all.

I am certain that there is a lot of work going into sensor developement to go from live view to actual video capture.

Besides, we are not just talking about sensor here, we are talking about microphone, interface modification, a different streaming pipeline that garantees bandwtith availability, possibly different TFT screens with less remanence, different validation tools, different skillsets in R&D teams,...

All that is a lot of work, and I would guess about 50% of the R&D work of the 5DII and D90.

Cheers,
Bernard

[dchew]

You may well be right -- when I said "I think" at the beginning of my post, I meant it. It's my opinion.

But to push this argument a little further, are you suggesting the professional cinematographers will use the 5D for ALL things? If not, are they going to have the heavy video equipment (the exotic and expensive gear), which provides not only excellent quality but excellent sound, sitting around doing nothing, while they shoot with the 5D? I guess my (sincere) question here is, if you're a pro and need professional high-end video equipment anyway, which you will need if you shoot professional high-end video, then why not use it? For professional video shooters, the 5D is an extra expense, not a saving.

...


JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224305\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I manage an in-house marketing dept and have an excellent videographer / producer on staff.  We were looking at waiting on a Scarlet before, but he now thinks we can accomplish almost everything with a more common 1080p camera plus the 5D II.  He would use the 5D for specific shots where he would benefit from the shallow DOF and/or high ISO capabilities.

I think in captive situations like I have (small-budget in-house production), the 5D will find a very usefull place.

Not to mention it will be a very capable camera for product shots.

Dave Chew