DSLR Video, is it a con?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rob.Richards
  • Start date Start date
:Personally, I think it is designed to sell cameras and isn't what you would have to take video. To my mind, you buy a still camera to take stills, and a video camera to take video. It is a bit like the megapixel sales pitch. It doesn't matter if your compact has 6 or 12 megapixels, it makes no difference, yet the uneducated still buy the 12 megapix on the basis that it must be better.
You wouldn't buy a phone for it's camera capabilities and likewise you shouldn't buy a camera for its video capabilities.
 
tonythomas said:
You wouldn't buy a phone for it's camera capabilities and likewise you shouldn't buy a camera for its video capabilities.
Click to expand...

Actually, a hell of a lot of people now do look at the quality of the inbuilt cameras when buying a phone. My other half has one of the 8mp camera phones and its pretty damn good. People no longer buy a phone as a phone, they want to know what OS it runs, video support, MP3 support. Products adapt and people expect them too.

No, you shouldn't buy a camera PURELY for its video capabilities because if video was the most important thing you'd be better off buying a videocamera (even one that can take stills), it doesn't mean that video in a camera is a bad thing.

For those of you who have the issues with video, did you also have similar complaints about the industry introducing digital bodies in to their product range?
 
If you look closely at the footage in the link I posted earlier you can see that it is a mixture of stills and video put together. BUT and here's the but, creatively it's genius because it takes the same moment in time and with a still at the beginning of the clip followed by the video clip it almost animates the photo.

That would be incrediby difficult to do with two camera, plus you would have to invest in a decent video system that uses the same kind of quality of lenses AND you would have to lug it all about all day at a wedding. The fact that one camera, the size of a 5DII (Or D90) can do both is a huge bonus.
 
Adding HD video won't add a lot to the cost of the camera. You've already got Live View, so the hardware to stream the images off the sensor in realtime is there. The only thing that needs adding is a hardware video encoder chip which probably costs about 10p, and some software work to handle the continuous writes and buffering a little differently. Job done.

My E-P1 takes fantastic quality HD video for a compact little camera, I've not used it in anger yet but it's nice to know that when I do next take a video it's going to be pin-sharp HD and not the garbage you get on a P&S!
 
Harvey_nikon said:
No, you shouldn't buy a camera PURELY for its video capabilities because if video was the most important thing you'd be better off buying a videocamera
Click to expand...

People are buying the 5DII as a video camera because it is so much cheaper than an equivalent dedicated video camera. Full frame and excellent high ISO performance with interchangeable lenses for only £2,000? Its a bargain compared to video cameras that offer those features which start at maybe £6,000 or more.
 
neil_g said:
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
Click to expand...

The thing is though Canon obviously didn't want to add the AF to the 5DII. It had nothing to do with the ability, it was an (almost) purely marketing reason for doing it.

You buy a 5DII for the quality of photo at full frame, and if you want the AF as well then you need to buy the 1DsIII.

However I see what you are getting at, and as long as the camera manufacturers still put as much effort into giving a better still photo product then the "extras" in my mind don't are just a bonus. If however IQ goes down the drain for those extra bonuses, or MP's then they are going about it the wrong way.:)
 
You should see the amount and quality of work that's appearing on Vimeo lately that people have been producing the dSLR cameras with HD video capabilities, especially with the 5dmk2. Pretty breathtaking stuff. To be able to go out and shoot some pictures and then see something that would be more suited to video and being able to shoot video without changing equipment is great.
 
Links please. Show me one that doesn't suffer from drifting in and out of focus.
 
photon said:
Links please. Show me one that doesn't suffer from drifting in and out of focus.
Click to expand...

Drifting in and out of focus and a shallow DoF is part of the attraction with the 5DII. Anyway, here is a video that doesn't use as many DoF effects

Click
 
CSB said:
Drifting in and out of focus and a shallow DoF is part of the attraction with the 5DII. Anyway, here is a video that doesn't use as many DoF effects

Click
Click to expand...

After watching that,I'd like to meet someone who can get as good a quality video as that and as good a quality photos as a 5D MKII for the same price as the 5D MKII,It's impossible I'd imagine..

I've already seen adverts made with the 5D MKII,I think it's just another advance in technology,And I think it's great,I can't wait to get my hands on a Video DSLR and use it for both
 
I love Yervant, his photography is on a different planet and that's his first attempt at HD video that took him 10 minutes. I'm going to love seeing what he produces in six months time!

If you look at Yervant, David Beckstead and Jerry Ghionis (should just be called Jerry Genius) they all say that this kind of av experience is going to be more widely adopted. It will be very interesting to see where we are with the technology a year from now.
 
I have long thought that the future of social photography is going to be linked to video with stills being taken from the video taken during the event.

The link that AliB posted and the links from others (artona, CSG) has convinced me that video linked with stills can be realistically achieved now and I am really starting to consider the D300s as worth the investment.

The only problem (other than the costs of new hardware and software) is that this is a whole new learning curve. (FUN :D)
 
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...

I'm not sure there's 700 quid worth of video functionality in the 5D Mk 2. If there's 200 quid's worth, I'd be surprised.
 
StewartR said:
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.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you're talking about a Nikon D300? Or a Nikon D700?
 
Well it would seem i have raised a contentious issue. All being said, it is not to do with being single minded or un imaginative. I love photography for what it is taking pictures - not making films.

As I said originally there are people who will find a use for in built video, but it will not be me, purely because I love the still image and the impact it has. You get to imagine the before and after the moment, video just does not do it for me. I would not have wanted my wedding videoed at all, but some might, wildlife capturing amazing sights with short clips of video i can see the benefit. This is the beauty of being human and having the ability to debate and voice your own opinion, do I have to have a reason why I dont think cameras should have video - no, but this is my final point and you can all debate till we have videoed the cows coming home!

Overall, it would be great to have 2 versions of the camera one with video and one without. Some people will do some amazing work with cameras like the 5D and that is where there art is taking them. Maybe they are ahead of me or at a different direction, i dont know, but as long as advances in video dont start to impact on advances in photography & in camera development i will be a happy man!
 
But why make one without? The cost impact of making those two different models would be greater than the cost of making one camera that also handles video, surely?

You don't want to use the video capability, that's your choice, but wanting one that doesn't handle video these days smacks of saying "I want a car that caan only drive on motorways."
 
Rob.Richards said:
Overall, it would be great to have 2 versions of the camera one with video and one without. Some people will do some amazing work with cameras like the 5D and that is where there art is taking them.
Click to expand...

If you don't want to use the video functionality, just ignore it! Pretend it doesn't exist! There's plenty of features on my D700 that I don't use and probably won't ever use but I'm not calling for Nikon to make a camera without those features. I don't see the point of creating a second 5D without video functionality is. Don't use it. Simples.
 
Is it a con? No.
Consider the price of the 450d, no video, currently £425 on camera price buster.
The 500d, which is the next version up, is £575, that is £150 for the next newest model of the same quality.
That isn't the cost of video, it is really just the cost of a new toy VS an older toy.

For me, we have rarely used our camcorder. A 50d+video, would be what I would like as an upgrade to my 400d.
I have a digital camcorder already, but, it is 3 years old, and relatively cheap (but expensive for the amount we have used it). If I had a system, which could take video as well, but didn't compromise the camera (my understanding is, and haven't seen anything to the contrary yet, that using this feature does not damage the device), then it would be a plus.
 
Keep it simple guys. If you want to shoot a video buy a camcorder and if you want to take photographs buy a DSLR simple as that. Similarly who needs a phone with a thousand gimmicks when all you want to do is phone and text. Things are becoming ridiculous. I just want a good DSLR with great resolution, build, high iso performance and high dynamic range. You can keep your video **** Nikon!!!
 
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...

Another market that could make use of it is the airshow photographers.

There are times that stills does not do justice to a display.
 
TommyGun said:
Keep it simple guys. If you want to shoot a video buy a camcorder and if you want to take photographs buy a DSLR simple as that. Similarly who needs a phone with a thousand gimmicks when all you want to do is phone and text. Things are becoming ridiculous. I just want a good DSLR with great resolution, build, high iso performance and high dynamic range. You can keep your video **** Nikon!!!
Click to expand...


Then don't buy the camera! You sound like you are stuck in the stone age!

For instance, have you ever used a phone with a thousand gimmicks? I have a G1 (google phone) and its god damn amazing!!!

Today for instance, my wife and I went for a drive, felt a little hungry so I opened my phones web browser and went to yell.com. I found a lovely little cafe nearby. Or perhaps when I use an app and the GPS on my phone to track my runs and cycle routes for me, calculating distance, speeds and then uploading them to google docs for me.

And damn you guys for posting those videos..makes me want a d300s even more now!!! :D
 
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...

That is truly stunning. The behind the scenes video is fantastic as well.
 
TommyGun said:
Keep it simple guys. If you want to shoot a video buy a camcorder and if you want to take photographs buy a DSLR simple as that. Similarly who needs a phone with a thousand gimmicks when all you want to do is phone and text. Things are becoming ridiculous.
Click to expand...

People clearly want/need phones that do more than just phone and text. Otherwise there wouldn't be phones that do far more than that on the market. Supply and demand. Who wants to carry 5 different devices in their pocket when one single device can do it all?? :shrug:

TommyGun said:
I just want a good DSLR with great resolution, build, high iso performance and high dynamic range.
Click to expand...

So that will be the D90, the D300s, the D700 etc. and any number of Canon/Sony/Pentax/Olympus DSLRs? You're spoilt for choice with cameras that offer great resolution, high iso performance and a high dynamic range these days.
 
Right, sorry to dig this up...but might as well post it here.

A short 3 seconds clip of some HD vid I took yesterday at a wedding, when the girls were getting ready.

http://vimeo.com/6128329

No need to change camera, press a button (or 2) and viola! How much would that cost to get a HD camera to do the same thing? And if you think how much that HD camera would be, then that means the 5Dii comes free? lol
 
I know that the US military has started to roll out 5Dmk2's to it's photographers. It's the perfect tool for the job. I love it. I've set my camera up so if I'm shooting stills and see something that would be better suited to video I push one button and it's recording in less than 2 seconds. Press it again and it's shooting stills. Also the ability to shoot stills while recording video is excellent. Not sure how anyone could complain with that really.
 
I really want to get my hands on a D300s :(

Can you guess tell me that if I am recording and take a shot, is the shot at film standard or at normal photo standard?
 
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 best medium for camcorders is tape if you are going to do any editing
so because of that
i'm out:naughty:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top