Adobe

bri wig

bri wig

Suspended / Banned
Messages
566
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
No
Just loaded Adobe Premiere Elements 11 up , it's was in the package with a Canon 5D,mk 3, and Lightroom 5, and was surprised that's it 's for video editing,how sickened off am I, or as it been put in by mistake and should be for camera editing , ???:shrug::shrug:
 
As the Canon 5DIII has videoing capability, it is logical for Adobe to include video editing software as well as stills editing software (Lightroom). They have given you some software for the two types of photography - what's the problem?

Anthony.
 
Anthony.Ralph said:
As the Canon 5DIII has videoing capability, it is logical for Adobe to include video editing software as well as stills editing software (Lightroom). They have given you some software for the two types of photography - what's the problem?

Anthony.
Click to expand...

Hi, No offense intended here Anthony but it is a bit of a pet hate for me that video capabilities are put into DSLR cameras in the first place. A DSLR camera is for taking photographs, a video camera is for taking video. I would as a photographer rather of had the option for a full frame camera without video capabilities at a lower price. Now I no some love the video idea and I have no problem with that, but feel that photography is as I said above for photos not video that's why I assume this site is named talk photography.
I can understand bri wigs frustration if he is of the same mind as myself.
Russ
 
Bang on Russ, loaded the Lightroom, then the Elements, and was surprised to find this software is for video, like the camera and Lightroom but putting software in for video , no.
 
I'd have thought they'd have included Photoshop Elements instead or aswell.
Can see why they included Premiere Elements though :)
 
russellsnr said:
I would as a photographer rather of had the option for a full frame camera without video capabilities at a lower price.
Click to expand...

Except that it would cost more!

Adding video to a camera that already has LiveView costs just a few cents. All the hardware is already there - except a cheap microphone. All the firmware has already been writ for the P&S cameras. All the licenses have already been paid for.

As the addition of video is seen as 'a good thing' by the vast majority of users, the non-video version will not benefit from the economies of scale, so will cost more.

If you don't like video then you don't have to use it! Just be grateful to those thousands of users who do like it and so make your camera cheaper!
 
Last edited:
russellsnr said:
Hi, No offense intended here Anthony but it is a bit of a pet hate for me that video capabilities are put into DSLR cameras in the first place. A DSLR camera is for taking photographs, a video camera is for taking video. I would as a photographer rather of had the option for a full frame camera without video capabilities at a lower price. Now I no some love the video idea and I have no problem with that, but feel that photography is as I said above for photos not video that's why I assume this site is named talk photography.
I can understand bri wigs frustration if he is of the same mind as myself.
Russ
Click to expand...

No offence taken! I was replying to the op about what I thought Adobe were up to with their included software. Like you, I don't really like the inclusion of Video into a stills camera, but as is mentioned further down this thread, the economic argument makes great sense.

I still use a 5DI so I am not troubled with video features, but if someone wanted to swop my 5dI for a 5DIII I would bite their hand off, for all the improvements in the later versions of what is already a very nice camera.:)

Anthony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top