DSLR Video, is it a con?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rob.Richards
  • Start date Start date
R

Rob.Richards

Guest
Is it just me or is the introduction of video unneccessary on a camera. It seems every manufacturer is bringing out video on their cameras. SO while the cost of technology is coming down, the manufacturers are loading new kit with actually unneccasary features that means they still keep their costs up!

Now, I am not entirely crazy I do see that having video can benefit some people, but really, if i want to buy a camera, that is what i want and I want my £ spent on improving my pictures through better ISO performance, larger sensor etc not having hd video.

I did not come from the film era and understand the evolution of the camera in the digital age, but sometimes i wonder if photographers are actually at the fore front of R&D or if they simply just want to sell kit?

Anyone got any inside info or comments?
 
yeh see what you're saying, i would like the 5dm2 without video personally as i've already got a hd camcorder so no need for the extra gumf

reckon it would reduce it to around £1400 / £1300 instead of £2k
 
It's what's known in marketing as "adding value" and marketing is basically supplying a need that the consumer doesn't yet know he has - I mean how may people looked at their Motorola 8000x ("the brick") and thought "I wish this took photographs and stored music" ?

20090522175136558.jpg
 
It's about trying to make cameras all things to all people so as to increase the customer base.
I hope I'll always be able to find a camera without video.
 
I would rather have a cheaper camera with no video. It seems as though the manufacturers have decided to compete on video (no matter what we think) and I would rather they put their resources into improving the features we use in still photography and their lenses. I have video and live view on my D90 but am perfectly happy without them - I bought the camera because of the dust reduction, built in autofocus motor and good performance at higher iso settings. If anything the video made me delay my purchase as I thought there was a price premium for the D90 being the first to offer it. I do shoot video but prefer a dedicated video camera and if setting off to do a video I would leave my D90 at home. I am thinking of a D300s but need to know what improvements have been made first - if it is just a D300 with video then I would rather have the cheaper D300.
 
I think it's a psycological thing as well, even if someone hasn't really thought about video before, if they go into a shop and the Nikon has video and the Canon doesn't for example, it looks like Canon are behind, so the manufacturers have to keep up with each other!
 
I dont see the point either, its just filling the camera up with something that wont be used by many.

If i wanted to record video i would go out and buy a decent recorded not use the one on my Camera. They are small enough now to fit in the bag with you camera.
 
I think people will adopt it and use it to its full potential but it will take time, as did digital, autofocus, colour, 35mm, etc.

It's not really a con. Most people seem to like the option of Liveview and not moan about it. Once you have Liveview, its basically quite simple to then capture a stream of images off the sensor and encode them.

You ca do things with an SLR based video camera and lenses that you can't with a camcorder due to the difference in sensor size (selective DoF being one of the main ones) and lenses (more readily available macro and things like tilt and shift). Remember, the average camcorder is more like a compact camera than an SLR.

It's the next stage in photography and the next stage in the evolution of the communication of visual images.

Also, I think film makers will use these cameras as much as photographers. We already have stop motion films made using stills cameras (Tim Burton's The Corpse Bride was made using EOS 1D Mark IIs) and so it is a small step for some of these cameras to be used for sequences where the larger image size and lens choices make sense.
 
buckas said:
yeh see what you're saying, i would like the 5dm2 without video personally as i've already got a hd camcorder so no need for the extra gumf

reckon it would reduce it to around £1400 / £1300 instead of £2k
Click to expand...

The 5D2 was £1600 at one point last year :p

The Video does not add 30% cost to the camera, it is purely a software and an extension to the LiveView feature.
 
mark.abersoch said:
I dont see the point either, its just filling the camera up with something that wont be used by many.

If i wanted to record video i would go out and buy a decent recorded not use the one on my Camera. They are small enough now to fit in the bag with you camera.
Click to expand...

But that is not what it's for. The small camera you can get to fit in your bag will basically be the point and shoot of the camcorder world.

What the video on a DSLR gives you, is well....DSLR images that move. The depth of field. The colour depth. The lens ranges. It is aimed at the indie film makers, not necessarily you as a photographer.

I know a fair few indie film makers and they all love the 5D MKII. One bit of kit lets them film, and do all related production stills etc. A video system of the equivalent quality would otherwise set them back another £3k, if not more!

edit - Dammit, should have read Paul's post first :D
 
grumpybadger said:
I think people will adopt it and use it to its full potential but it will take time, as did digital, autofocus, colour, 35mm, etc.

It's not really a con. Most people seem to like the option of Liveview and not moan about it. Once you have Liveview, its basically quite simple to then capture a stream of images off the sensor and encode them.

You ca do things with an SLR based video camera and lenses that you can't with a camcorder due to the difference in sensor size (selective DoF being one of the main ones) and lenses (more readily available macro and things like tilt and shift). Remember, the average camcorder is more like a compact camera than an SLR.

It's the next stage in photography and the next stage in the evolution of the communication of visual images.

Also, I think film makers will use these cameras as much as photographers. We already have stop motion films made using stills cameras (Tim Burton's The Corpse Bride was made using EOS 1D Mark IIs) and so it is a small step for some of these cameras to be used for sequences where the larger image size and lens choices make sense.
Click to expand...


Yep, that's it. Liveview is something most people want, so why not have the option to record the stream as well. I see this as just maxing out what the camera is capable of.
 
It almost read like there is some kind of SLR snobbery going on here, like a feature from a cheap compact has polluted their beloved DSLR and they want it gone, and using costs as an excuse. Come on, it's and extension of the Live View, nothing more. And as for "if i want an HD camera, I'd get one, save that money and make my camera cheaper bah bah bah"....it'll cost you more to get a DSLR + an HD camcorder separately than an DSLR with HD video with interchangable lenses that you already have ! So the cost saving argument falls flat in the first hurdle.
 
Raymond Lin said:
The 5D2 was £1600 at one point last year :p

The Video does not add 30% cost to the camera, it is purely a software and an extension to the LiveView feature.
Click to expand...

yeh i remember, had it my basket on play in january (before the hike) for £1650, didn't buy it :bonk:
 
grumpybadger said:
You ca do things with an SLR based video camera and lenses that you can't with a camcorder due to the difference in sensor size (selective DoF being one of the main ones) and lenses (more readily available macro and things like tilt and shift)...
Click to expand...

purpleclouds said:
But that is not what it's for. The small camera you can get to fit in your bag will basically be the point and shoot of the camcorder world.

What the video on a DSLR gives you, is well....DSLR images that move. The depth of field. The colour depth. The lens ranges. It is aimed at the indie film makers, not necessarily you as a photographer.

I know a fair few indie film makers and they all love the 5D MKII. One bit of kit lets them film, and do all related production stills etc. A video system of the equivalent quality would otherwise set them back another £3k, if not more!

edit - Dammit, should have read Paul's post first :D
Click to expand...

Both of you are correct. There are forums on the internet dedicated to those using an SLR for making films/video. The options that video on a DSLR gives are a god send to low budget film makers and enthusiasts. People are buying a 5DII solely because of the video feature. Just because you dont want it doesn't mean others wont.

Canon know they are onto a winner here with the 5DII, thats why they released the full manual exposure control firmware upgrade. With one product they are selling to photographers and videographers too. RED scrapped their Scarlet video camera design and started from scratch when the 5DII was released. (RED make HD video cameras that are years ahead of anything else on the professional market)

Raymond Lin said:
It almost read like there is some kind of SLR snobbery going on here, like a feature from a cheap compact has polluted their beloved DSLR and they want it gone.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, people are kicking up a fuss because they have an extra feature :thinking: I bet those same people are still using phones that dont play MP3 or browse the internet.

Anyway, to conclude, HD video on SLR cameras is here to stay, get over it and move with the times.
 
I must say that I hope sometime to own an SLR with video so I can learn new techniques and develop my photography/visual communication skills...
 
it ruins the camera's cosmetics, i mean look at the camera it has all these ugly microphones and sockets. it just defeats the object of having a camcorder and i think its stupid.
 
mastertrinity said:
it ruins the camera's cosmetics, i mean look at the camera it has all these ugly microphones and sockets. it just defeats the object of having a camcorder and i think its stupid.
Click to expand...

Please dont take offence when I say this, I dont think you know much about video, which is fine, you are not expected to, this is a photography forum afterall. But that statement is just like someone saying I dont need an SLR, its too big, doesn't looks nice and has a silly lens that sticks out. I prefer my Sony Ericsson camera phone.

If it makes it easier to understand, film makers want the same great images that you want as a photographer, only they want their images to move and have sound.
 
I have used video on my camera, its quite good. If I forget to take my camcorder then I can use it. However I would rather pay less money and not have the feature.
 
No, it's not a con. Think about the market that the 5DII is aimed at. Wedding togs in their thousands bought the 5D classic. It's a perfect tool for the job. So when Canon launched the 5DII, guess who they had in mind?

Now, watch this and tell me it's still a con.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCfUWIyTSKw&feature=channel

Video blended with stills and set to music. That's the kind of Av presentation the 5D is capable of.

Just because you don't want to make use of the facilities it offers, well, that's OK. It's just a bit like buying a fast car and driving everywhere slowly. It's up to you.
 
whilst i dont currently have a requirement for it in my DSLR usage (or indeed the need for liveview) and wouldnt sway me to buy a particular camera because of the features, i dont see a problem with it, and its hardly a con, it probably doesnt add much to the cost of the camera.
 
A lot of people seem to over look the fact that to get a video camera of similar capability's with the large sensor you are talking quite a few thousand pounds. To get a video camera with a 35mm sensor is big money. Why not combine them so you get to use your expensive lenses for both. Mega saving for anybody who wants to use both and if you dont want to use both well all it took to realistically get video was to write some encoders into the camera software that takes the liveview stream and encodes it.
 
AliB said:
No, it's not a con. Think about the market that the 5DII is aimed at. Wedding togs in their thousands bought the 5D classic. It's a perfect tool for the job. So when Canon launched the 5DII, guess who they had in mind?

Now, watch this and tell me it's still a con.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCfUWIyTSKw&feature=channel

Video blended with stills and set to music. That's the kind of Av presentation the 5D is capable of.

Just because you don't want to make use of the facilities it offers, well, that's OK. It's just a bit like buying a fast car and driving everywhere slowly. It's up to you.
Click to expand...

Now that is bloody fantastic.

If my wedding day is captured in ANYTHING that amazing I will be, well, absolutely ecstatic.

Good shout.
 
I wouldn't say I'm snobbish but I do feel it's a cynical move by camera manufacturers to keep the price of kit artificially high. The existing technology has obviously came down in price so they offer this 'HD Video!' and we all know that the video chip to drive this wont be that expensive at all but it gives them a reason to inflate the selling price. The average user is thinking 'Wow - a camera that takes still shots now actually does HD video, must be expensive!'.

I'll be disappointed in Canon / et al if they start adding such features to the 1D/1DS range as these are designed for professionals, these same professionals wont be interested in such a feature considering these are work tools not consumer / hobbyist gadgets.
 
I'm assuming Razor that you did not see the link Ali posted.

I agree with you that it is irritating that the prices are so high especially as the kit doesn't cost anywhere near that amount to make. Unfortunately it's a case of anything relating to photography comes with a premium.
 
razor777 said:
I'll be disappointed in Canon / et al if they start adding such features to the 1D/1DS range as these are designed for professionals, these same professionals wont be interested in such a feature considering these are work tools not consumer / hobbyist gadgets.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree razor. I'm a wedding photographer and if you listen to the jungle drums then a lot of industry leaders are saying that the future of wedding photography includes exactly this, video. It's heading more into the realms of an audio visual experience rather than either photo or video. It's not seen as a hobbyist gimmick at all and I'm planning an upgrade next year not only for that reason (High ISO is my priority) but yes I will make use of the HD video too. I can see a market for providing my clients a DVD with pics and video set to their music. I can charge for that! You can also roll that out to portraits and childrens photography. That's exactly what a lot of pros shoot!

Do have a look at that link if you have a moment. It's what I already do except I can only do the stills at the moment.
 
Actually I have looked at the link and then went to the creators of the video web site - its fairly impressive stuff but I still cant help feeling that irrespective of the feature provided it is still artificially ramping up the price of the kit.

The way I see it you use the best kit for the job in the pro world though I can certainly see why a 'one man operation' would really appreciate this feature in such a scernaio as you mentioned.

Impressive behind the scenes stuff though !
 
I think you will find though that most pros are just that, one man (or woman) operations.

I do understand that if you could have the 5DII without the video for £1200 it would be an attractive proposition and I have to be completely honest in saying that the increased ISO is more important to me than the video so in a sense I agree that a feature not highly valued by landscape or portrait togs is costing them more than is absolutely necessary. :)
 
MScotts said:
+1
Click to expand...

But which has the best quality? Unless it's a few thousand £ worth of kit IQ is probaby going to be worse than the 5D II. Yes a £500 HD camcorder will be easier to use for the family holiday, but it's not going to compare to a 5D, properly set up and used (as someone else mentioned, it's like the compact and DSLR).:)

razor777 said:
I wouldn't say I'm snobbish but I do feel it's a cynical move by camera manufacturers to keep the price of kit artificially high. The existing technology has obviously came down in price so they offer this 'HD Video!' and we all know that the video chip to drive this wont be that expensive at all but it gives them a reason to inflate the selling price. The average user is thinking 'Wow - a camera that takes still shots now actually does HD video, must be expensive!'.

I'll be disappointed in Canon / et al if they start adding such features to the 1D/1DS range as these are designed for professionals, these same professionals wont be interested in such a feature considering these are work tools not consumer / hobbyist gadgets.
Click to expand...

Research and Development are the main reason the camera costs so much more than the original 5D. Cost of materials is probably very similar, however once the cost of the manufacturing equipment and the development of the product is factored into the unit price it shoots up. Once that cost is covered prices fall dramatically (why electronics normally halve in price reasonably quickly). HD video as already mentioned is just an offshoot of Liveview, and as such costs almost nothing (probably a few £ let alone tens) in manufacturing costs, and probably only a few £10's of thousands in research, which when factored into the cost of the entire research for the camera is damn small. So they could remove the video for you, however if they then deducted the price it cost to implement then a £2000 camera would probably go down to £1980.:lol:
 
I first was interested in the D90 before knowing about the video, then as i read further into it it made it a lot hard for me to decided between cameras, 'is the D90 only this price because of the video' etc? In the end i went with it after much debate, i thought i may as well have a go with the video and iv enjoyed it so far, but i can appreciate the points being made about it.
 
razor777 said:
I wouldn't say I'm snobbish but I do feel it's a cynical move by camera manufacturers to keep the price of kit artificially high. The existing technology has obviously came down in price so they offer this 'HD Video!' and we all know that the video chip to drive this wont be that expensive at all but it gives them a reason to inflate the selling price. The average user is thinking 'Wow - a camera that takes still shots now actually does HD video, must be expensive!'.

I'll be disappointed in Canon / et al if they start adding such features to the 1D/1DS range as these are designed for professionals, these same professionals wont be interested in such a feature considering these are work tools not consumer / hobbyist gadgets.
Click to expand...

We should do a poll, but lets get a few things straight.

1 - HD video is not the reason the 5D2 cost £2k, blame the recession, it was as low as £1.6k. P.s. the 5D was also £2k when it first came out !

2 - You don't need to use it just because its there.....

So we could do a poll with this question.

"Would they like HD video capability that allow them to use all their existing lenses, with the aperture of their lenses, for 2% extra on costs" (if that)

And see how many would leave wanna save little bit, and how many wouldnt't mind paying £40 for HD video.
 
Look ye here: http://www.vimeo.com/4838645

Can you imagine the amount of work to create that and keep on top of the sound content?

Is it a satisfying experience? Or a mash-up of short clips to try and disguise the drifting in and out of focus?

Think of a loved one, separated from you by time or distance. Which would be of more value to you: a still photo; an artwork; a video?
 
Without sounding nasty about this but I am quite shocked by the responses that HD video capabilities are bringing up. There are a couple of the threads in the Equipment area that have comments that basically said "only average joe's and none professionals will buy a DLSR with video".

I was quite shocked that someone would say something so close minded. As photographers we are people that look at things differently, that are always trying to come up with new exciting ways of displaying what we see in our mind. Surely the jump to putting video in DSLRs is another way that we can express ourselves?

Are people so stuck in their ways, producing the same types of images that they wouldn't like a new way of putting their ideas across?

I am looking at getting the D300s (I actually wanted one for sat for a wedding I am attending as a guest but they don't seem to be available yet). Why? My own wedding photos are very nice, but the standard ones were done by a guy who always shoots at that location so he is kind of stuck in a rut, nothing pushed the boundaries. Our wedding DVD was amazing, it captured the day, I have some amazing footage of my brothers milling around.

Now, with them adding video to DSLRs I can not only take photos but also capture moments that sometimes a photo just doesn't do justice. I am excited because it opens a whole new field for me to explore, a new dimension to my photography.

yes the extra £400-500 of the D300s over the D300 is rather a lot, but compared with buying a D300 and a dedicated HD video recorder and having to change between the two i think it's worth it.

Although, I feel that maybe manufacturers would be better of producing 2 version of the same camera, with and without the liveview/HD recording capability as this would cater to both fields.

EDIT:
A film quote just came to mind. "Its like a condom, its better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it" :D
 
You have all these Canon lenses, which you know can give you completely different kinds of image - with added video capability you have the ability to apply the wonder of these lenses to moving pictures.

Wish I could afford a 5DMkII - it would beat the crap out of my video camera.
 
just to clarify my last post.. i would of preferred canon to of used the R&D time and money and the space inside the camera to say bring the AF speeds up to that of at least a 50D.

imagine that a camera with stunning IQ for protrait and easier to use sports. that would see them fly off the shelves.

hope that makes sense baring in mind ive been awake for all of 10 mins lol
 
Whilst not owning a DSLR that's capable of video, and having no desire to do so, I'm totally sympathetic to the arguments put forward so eloquently by grumpybadger and AliB, amongst others. And if it really does cost virtually nothing to include, as Amp34 suggests, then why not?

And yet ... and yet ... I can't help feeling that there's something hapening here which is analogous to the megapixel wars. Camera makers have to keep adding all these new features in, and once they're in they can't be removed because it then looks like the opposition have a technological lead.

I for one would be very happy with a camera that offered me say 8 or 10 MP (plenty enough for printing A3), with state-of-the-art AF and ISO performance. I don't need or want video, sound, in-camera editing, fold-out screens, and many of the other things we've seen introduced recently. I don't want a manual the size of a brick and 200 options on the camera's menus, and I'm sure I can't be the only one. But of course I'm never going to be offered that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top