How many of you make good use of the video capabilities on your dslr?

Cagey75

Suspended / Banned
Messages
17,146
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Just wondering, with all the 4K video options starting to creep into more and more cameras. When I check the video section here, it's a bit dead, not even close to being as active as some other sections. yet, when a new camera pops up, one of the things that always gets fired at it is "What?? no 4K video!?" - does it really matter that much? if you're not really going to make use of it?

I could count on one hand the amount of times I've used the video on my D800E, and it delivers pretty good quality once you're set up right. I just don't 'need' it. I'm not a videographer, I don't have a youtube channel, and I don't make films!

4K would be wasted on me.

How about you lot?

When i do use it, I'm at 1080p/24fps ... because I read somewhere this is what most movies are shot at, to retain a film like look and feel. Why would I need more than this?
 
Last edited:
Always try it on new cameras to make sure it works,just in case i ever need it ;)
 
Same here, I will always use it, at least once :D But never 'need' it.
 
I use it quite a lot.

When I check the video section here, it's a bit dead, not even close to being as active as some other sections.

Probably because it's a photography forum. There are much better dedicated video forums for those who are more interested.
 
Last edited:
Never used it yet on my D800e although I hear its quite good...
Still can't quite see it replacing my Go-Pros yet though....
 
I see people mention video on here all the time. Only in here, the gear section, not the video sect. I get the impression sometimes that some won't buy a dslr if It doesn't feature the latest and greatest video capabilities. Hence the question in here.

The D800 video quality is very good, I found, once I used a tripod, shot wide and MF. Good enough for shooting the kids messing about the garden at least. I'm sure it would be good enough to shoot more serious projects.
 
Last edited:
When I got my D7000 I used the video on there once. Haven't bothered with it on the D600, so I guess the answer is once.
 
Just as great cameras can't make great photographers, great video cameras don't make great film makers either.

The D800 is utterly outclassed by the Canon 5D MkIII when it comes to video, especially in low light. However.... the fact most people like to ignore, is it's the skill of the creator that matters... not the gear.

This was shot using D800s and Nikkor lenses.

This randomly found bunch of arse was shot on a Canon 5D MkIII


I rest my case.

The fact is... if you thought being a great photographer was difficult... being a great film maker takes it to the next level.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CSB
I use it quite a lot.



Probably because it's a photography forum. There are much better dedicated video forums for those who are more interested.

Used to use simplyDV forums back in 2006, Video Cameras were pretty popular back then.
 
Yeah, I know video is hard - if you want to do anything beyond the typical, shakey, family clips. The audio can be even tougher to get right. When I bought the D800E, I bought a new set of headphones, a Rode video mic and planned to at least try to make use of it. But ... after a few attempts, and awful audio because I messed up settings somewhere, I sold on the mic, the headphones only get used for the ipad since and I just don't really bother with video. I'd love to use it more, I just don't have anything interesting enough to use it for, atm.

I have at least, used it a lot more than the intervalometer
 
Last edited:
Haven't got it on my SLRs but i found myself shooting short clips on my EOS M while on holiday, my plan was to make a video presentation with a mixture of stills and some video thrown in. Not that i've actually got round to doing it yet like :lol:
 
I've never felt the inclination to use it. My cameras are for stills.
 
I do use it but only for a few times a year for specific things like courtship behaviour of puffins for example
I have bought a camcorder now for video though as although the 7D can shoot great video it's a lot easier with a camcorder
 
To be honest I don't use it. When I want video equivalent of a snapshot I reach for my mobile :-)
 
I gave it a brief whirl when I first bought my 7D and 5D2, five years ago, and have never used it since. I also don't shoot video with my compact or phone either. Video is a separate discipline from photography and demands a whole new skill set and level of interest. I have neither.
 
Used it once by accident a while ago, nice shot of some feet and a litter bin at a model village
Never bothered since and doubt I ever will again
 
I don't know if it even works - not really bothered if it doesn't

I wish they would leave it out the camera and include something else more useful instead or drop the price.

Maybe have two versions of each camera one with one without and price accordingly
 
Never even switched it on...

Strikes me as it would be too difficult to get good results and I don't have the inclination/patience.
 
The main advantage for videographers would be lens choice I guess?

I Just don't get why they're trying to push 4K video now, into a market that mostly won't make use of it. It's just another gimmick then really
 
I don't know if it even works - not really bothered if it doesn't

I wish they would leave it out the camera and include something else more useful instead or drop the price.

Maybe have two versions of each camera one with one without and price accordingly

That would probably increase price due to complicating the manufacturing process and needing two separate production channels. It would make more sense to just have more models that don't, rather than have 2 versions of each.
 
The main advantage for videographers would be lens choice I guess?

I Just don't get why they're trying to push 4K video now, into a market that mostly won't make use of it. It's just another gimmick then really

Maybe some manufacturer would like us to but their 4K TV :rolleyes:
 
It would make more sense to just have more models that don't, rather than have 2 versions of each.
Kind of the same thing isn't it? Except the "two versions" should have more common parts than the "more models" route.
But, it would increase their costs for production (running two lines) and thus the price wouldn't drop notably... It would be better for them to sell it with video at a little lower cost to make everyone happy. But why would they do that if they don't need to?
I don't think cameras w/o video will be seen again... hell, it's the only area they're really making any significant capability improvements. *Maybe,* if one day there is a significant shift in still sensor technology and the new technology isn't suitable for video.

I use the video occasionally (reviews/product demos)... I won't say I use it well though. The only reason I use the DSLR for it is because I own it and it has the capability....
 
Did the price of stills cameras go up when video was added? I don't think so. No more than they would've put it up anyway with a new model. I don't think video really adds a great deal of cost to them anyway. I never use most of the stuff on my cameras, but I wouldn't expect them to offer a stripped back version at a lower price. (JPEG processing, noise reduction, 99% of auto focusing settings, picture styles, bracketing, etc. etc.) in fact I barely ever go outside of the half dozen options that fit on the quick menu.

As for video, I do use it a bit - shot a few mini docos, and a bit of corporate stuff. Often with corporate stuff now they will have their own DSLR and ask me to shoot on that, handily they're usually Canon (which is what I'm used to) so it's useful to be up to speed.

Starting to shoot more produced stuff as well, more serious short films. We contemplated using 5Ds, but have gone with Panasonic in the end for various reasons. Back to the point of the thread - if the 5D offered better video we would've gone with that.
 
Never used it on my D800E. Don't know how to use it. It is of no interest to me.
 
Why would I need more than this?
You don't... videographers do. As to why this forum hs so little video discussion - probably because this is a photography forum, not a videographers forum. I suspect in dedicated videography forums, there's probably 30 sub forums about each style of videography with one sparsely-populated sub-forum dedicated to photography....

Personally, I don't use it. I have enough problems being creative with still images, let alone being creative enough to string them together at 24, 50 or 60 a second and it still being interesting ;)
 
But .. but, they're making me feel like I need it! :D

I doubt I'll be buying a 4K tv anytime soon, only bought my current HDTV last year. I'm not much of an early adapter, more like a year later buyer.
 
4k is coming soon to an early adopter near you... It will take 5-8 years to become truly mainstream (everyone has to change hardware, including the broadcasters but I can guarantee your next main TV will be 4k) and I don't think it will die a death as 3D has done (thank goodness!).

It looks great on a 65" TV on the test sequences being broadcast at the moment though ;) Hope they don't kill it by squeezing the bitrate too much.
 
4k stuff looks awesome. Even the upscaled stuff from Bluray looks pretty damn good.

Shame the broadcasters over here in Oz are going backwards. There are only a couple of HD (720 and 1080i not even 1080p) channels now (on free TV). The channels that were 720 have gone back to standard def so the broadcasters can split their allotted bandwidth into more channels. Lame.
 
Would much prefer the manufacturers to just concentrate on a REAL camera and improve them!

But then I don't use the camera on my phone either.

But since they obviously sell well then I guess they'll just continue.
.
 
I'm looking to get a new DSLR and I'm very keen for it to have video on it. In the same way that a quick snap with a DSLR is notably better than a quick camera phone snap you get a real boost in quality using the video on a proper camera. Whether I'll end up using it very often I'm not sure!
And I definitely don't want 4k as the files will be huge and the processing power needed to do anything with them is probably more than my PC can happily handle.
 
I use video on both my 5D3 and 70D to add an additional dimension to the DVDs I make of our trips. Sometimes you need the sounds and movement from a location or an animal.

Stills of the Vulcan at Duxford this weekend were fine but they didn't have the sound of those four Olympus engines at full power! Flicking the 5D3 to video provided that vital extra without having to carry another camera.
 
I use the video on my mk3 very often. Stunning piece of kit. Done highlights for a few wedding clients and they loved it
 
All the blind subjective tests on 4k show you need a big screen and a short viewing distance to consistently see a difference from HD.

The EBU have even released a policy document stating their members (which include all the major European public broadcasters) want an enhanced service that includes 4k, higher dynamic range, wider colour gamut, higher framerates and better audio. https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreports/tr028.pdf
 
When i do use it, I'm at 1080p/24fps ... because I read somewhere this is what most movies are shot at, to retain a film like look and feel. Why would I need more than this?

If you want to portray motion correctly. If you want to cut a pan and scan from 4k because you can't easily access a pan control for your camera on location. If you're using a 4k camera to maximise your video resolution at HD. etc. etc.

You need to be careful of lighting for 24p in the EU.
 
I rarely use the D800's video features but had ago at using it the other weekend with the wildlife, not the best footage of Kingfishers ever but still getting use to the video stuff, vid below if your interested...

 
Back
Top