Why video on a stills camera....?

Dave in Wales

Dave in Wales

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,373
Edit My Images
Yes
Am I alone in asking this question?

I have NEVER EVER used video on any of my cameras....can't see the pont.

If I wanted to shoot video I buy a dedicated camera.

Would it not make for a cheaper, simpler camera if the video option were removed, back to basics, so-to-speak.

No doubt I'm in the minority, I usually am.

D in W
 
Dave in Wales said:
Am I alone in asking this question?

I have NEVER EVER used video on any of my cameras....can't see the pont.

If I wanted to shoot video I buy a dedicated camera.

Would it not make for a cheaper, simpler camera if the video option were removed, back to basics, so-to-speak.

No doubt I'm in the minority, I usually am.

D in W
Click to expand...

I've dont even see the point of Live view unless on a bridge camera.
 
You're right in some ways Dave, but it depends on your point of view.
If you're a typical compact/point & shoot user with children or Grandchildren then having a video function is great and may well sway you from buying a camera that doesn't have it available.

If, on the other hand you're a typical DSLR user you may well take the entirely opposite viewpoint. Quite legitimately of course.

Personally if I want video I'd prefer to use a separate camera designed specifically for the purpose. But I still wouldn't be any good at it. In fact to be honest I've recently done exactly that. I bought a Panasonic HD camcorder just for fun. The quality is really excellent but my videos are truly awful! I guess I just think in terms of still images :)

cheers
 
What do you think they could remove to make it cheaper if video was offered?

Bob
 
smile said:
I've dont even see the point of Live view unless on a bridge camera.
Click to expand...

Never been in a media scrum and needed to lift your camera high to get a shot? There's one use... where's the macro chaps when you need them? ;)
 
I'm primarily an image shooter, but I have played with the video a couple of times and been quite pleased with the results. I don't posses a video camera, but if that genre was my interest I suspect I would get a proper video camera. In this techno age there are bound to be overlaps in capability, I daresay you can get single frames with a video camera.
 
smile said:
I've dont even see the point of Live view unless on a bridge camera.
Click to expand...

Ive found live view very usefull when composing taking akward shots and looking through the view finder is difficult. It's also usefull sometimes for focusing on some scenery and poor light type shots.
 
artyman said:
... I daresay you can get single frames with a video camera.
Click to expand...

Yes you can. But if mine is anything to go by the quality is so so, despite the advertised magapixels :) . Surprisingly *macro (at least for product type shots) can be quite good. Not a lot of real control though.

I suppose it's exactly the same argument as video on a stills camera really. Horses for courses and all that

Edit: It's not really macro of course, but close up would prpbably describe it more truthfully.
 
Last edited:
Music videos, feature length movies, Sitcoms and others have been filmed in DSLR cameras such as the 5Dmk2. There must be a reason. And if you can't see the advantage of Live View then I'm assuming you're not using your camera enough.
 
purpleclouds said:
Never been in a media scrum and needed to lift your camera high to get a shot? There's one use... where's the macro chaps when you need them? ;)
Click to expand...

Macro using a tripod is a god send, especially when using the x10 zoom on it. Also used this for the moon etc.

Video I would never use but as in the past have been shouted down and come to realise it doesnt work out much cheaper for them to do.....I still stand by my thought and think its pointless, for me anyway.
 
It's technology that doesn't appeal to me at thus time but seeing what's been done with the likes of the 5D2 I can see how it's a useful technology to some; interchangeable lens system that will trump a handicap, great IQ, familiar handling to photographers....

Scepticism, that's all it is. We'll all be doing it in a few years...,
 
Because I can shoot short video clips and include them in animoto slide shows for wedding clients and they love them? :)

Might have to invest in a D300s at some point just to shoot the clips! D700 doesn't have it.
 
Sorry I overreacted just find it very annoying when people dismiss something as pointless, when what they mean is 'I don't use itl'.

Live view is very handy in several situations as mentioned above. And as for video on DSLRs - the main point is that in order to buy a video camera with a similar sized sensor (which allows shooting in low light and cinematic shallow DOF) - you would have to spend 10-20 grand or so. DSLRs have a few drawbacks as a video camera but in the right hands they can give amazing bang for buck.
 
Last edited:
grum said:
Sorry I overreacted just find it very annoying when people dismiss something as pointless, when what they mean is 'I don't use itl'.

Live view is very handy in several situations as mentioned above. And as for video on DSLRs - the main point is that in order to buy a video camera with a similar sized sensor (which allows shooting in low light and cinematic shallow DOF) - you would have to spend 10-20 or so. DSLRs have a few drawbacks as a video camera but in the right hands they can give amazing bang for buck.
Click to expand...

They are also a rather handy back up when your friend forgets to charge their camcorder battery! :D

You can add astro to the list of live view uses as well!
 
Dave in Wales said:
Would it not make for a cheaper, simpler camera if the video option were removed
Click to expand...

Nope. Not by more than around 50p.

If you've got live-view then you've already got all the hardware needed for video capture. All that's needed is the firmware - and that's already been written for the P&S market. There really is very little extra expense involved - having to stick a microphone in is probably the main cost.

You can always put a drop of superglue on the video switch if it bothers you that much.
 
Try using the viewfinder when taking shots with the ND110 attached.
 
I am sure someone with Point and shoot camera must be thinking why companies need to invest into DSLR and not investing time and efforts into making "even cheaper" compacts as "I don't use DSLRs" thing.

I guess video is useful for some people for taking clips if and when they need it and take images primarily. If we look at the new releases both from Canon and Nikon they all include video with HD, so they must have seen a demand of this function based on previous models' sales fugures.
 
bindi said:
I guess video is useful for some people for taking clips if and when they need it and take images primarily. If we look at the new releases both from Canon and Nikon they all include video with HD, so they must have seen a demand of this function based on previous models' sales fugures.
Click to expand...
I've mentioned this before, my wife works as a focus puller and only last week she was shooting a video for a shoe company using only 7D's.

(Okay they had been converted to PL mount - but they were still 7D's.)
 
Me and you seem to running around this topic Voyager :D

There's more to DSLR's than just the home user.
They are used for video because they are cheap compared to quality video cameras, have good quality, interchangeable lenses, and are small to fit into the right areas.

Iron man 2 used the 5D mk2 (and destroyed a few)
http://www.petapixel.com/2010/09/29/canon-5d-mark-ii-used-for-iron-man-2/#more-16570

I also know of quite a few car magazine tog's who produce video from the day's shoot to put on the magazines website. It provides them with an additional revenue stream.
 
Personally, I don't really take video seriously, so wouldn't invest in one, but its nice to have bolted into my 7D, just in case I do want to take some footage.
 
Dave in Wales said:
Would it not make for a cheaper, simpler camera if the video option were removed, back to basics, so-to-speak.
Click to expand...

Not in any significant way.

It's like saying "I want a desktop computer that can surf the internet and word process but I never want to use a spreadsheet. Would it be cheaper and simpler if the capability to do so was taken out?"

The hardware elements are all there. The image processor can be turned to video encoding, the sensor works, the card slot works.

Basically the only thing added to the 5D2 that exists solely for video is the microphone and mic input. The 7D's live view/video switch is arguably another part. Not exactly hugely serious additions. The rest is all software.
 
Video on my 1DmkIV is amazing quality. It's a pitty I just can't get the H264 codec to work well with Sony Vegas. I've not been able to successfully render a HD video to date. :bang:

The other issue is not having full-time AF. This is not always a problem but I am into shooting aviation and would love to make some videos of planes. Not having full-time AF makes this pretty much impossible.


The more I try my hand at video the more I love it. I might even say I like it as much as taking stills. I'm just not sure DSLR video is that usable for me right now. I could see myself purchasing a good quality video camera in the near future. :thumbs:
 
As above really! I don't really use video, and probably never will seriously, but it wouldn't make it any cheaper to make a 5DII without video. As soon as liveview was there, video was only a matter of time, in fact someone hacked a 450D I believe to shoot video which didn't cost anything at all if memory serves.

So no, it wouldn't make it cheaper or simpler :)

Chris
 
Byker28i said:
Me and you seem to running around this topic Voyager :D
Click to expand...
Aye. Wanna see the lens list she had for that shoot?

  • 12mm Zeiss Distagon T1.3
  • 14mm Zeiss Distagon T1.3
  • 18mm Zeiss Distagon T1.3
  • 20mm Zeiss Distagon T1.3
  • 25mm Zeiss Distagon T1.3
  • 35mm Zeiss Distagon T1.3
  • 50mm Zeiss Distagon T1.3
  • 65mm Zeiss Distagon T1.3
  • 85mm Zeiss Distagon T1.3
  • 135mm Zeiss Distagon T1.3
  • 15-40mm Optimo Angenieux (3:1) T2.6 - cf2ft
  • 28-76mm Optimo Angenieux (3:1) T2.6
  • 400mm PL Nikon
  • SIGMA 70-200mm
  • NIKON STANDARD PRIME LENS (18,24,28,35,50,85,105,135mm)KIT INC ADAPTOR
  • 12mm Nikon or Canon
  • 14mm Nikon or Canon
  • Canon EF 24mm F1.4
  • Canon EF 50mm F1.2
  • Canon EF 85mm F1.2

And she said that they used 'most of them'!

Byker28i said:
I also know of quite a few car magazine tog's who produce video from the day's shoot to put on the magazines website. It provides them with an additional revenue stream.
Click to expand...
I can't remember who it was or for which magazine but last year a photographer used a Red to 'shoot' the model for a fashion magazine - just had the camera running, model posing and took a still from it for the cover picture!
 
I was against video on DSLRs at first, but having seen some of the breathtaking videos that are now being shot with them I am converted.

Of course, if making videos doesn't interest you then I can see why you wouldn't be bothered. But the quality you can get in low light and effects you can get with various lenses will out perform any consumer camcorder so if video IS your thing, VDSLRs are a very good option!
 
It could even be argued that video features make the cameras cheaper, not more expensive.

Canon have sold a LOT of 5D2 for video use. Generally the more units of a camera sold then the lower the cost becomes - R&D cost is recouped, tooling costs are amortized over a larger number of units, etc... The more they sell the cheaper, and video has sold a lot of additional units.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top