Interview with the D700's Desingers

<p>Why the video evolution is not embraced by still photographers (when packaged in still cameras) is perhaps not puzzling; it's a completely different domain with certain artistic similarities as still photography, but the technical aspect is a complex new ball of wax that many still photographers might find difficult to transition. Some might even feel diminished by video's intrusion into the 'purity' of the art of photography. It <em>is</em> the future, though, as multimedia increasingly dominate through the Internet.</p>

<p>Had the evolution occurred the other way around - with professional video cameras capable of capturing dSLR-quality Megapixel images, I'm convinced it would be embraced by every videographer/film maker - the camera will probably never be used in a still-only mode but this capability will certainly expand creative possibilities. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Why the video evolution is not embraced by still photographers (when packaged in still cameras) is perhaps not puzzling; it's a completely different domain with certain artistic similarities as still photography, but the technical aspect is a complex new ball of wax that many still photographers might find difficult to transition. Some might even feel diminished by video's intrusion into the 'purity' of the art of photography. It <em>is</em> the future, though, as multimedia increasingly dominate through the Internet.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, Michael, you've pretty much said it all here. It is the purity effect. At some point, still photographers forgot that a moving series of frames are still photographs. I have always found the term videographer subtly disparaging, rather like a term still photographers would have liked to invent to differentiate themselves from the guys with the camcorders.</p>

<p>A very short time ago, there were these things called newspapers, organizations that Warren Buffet now says his company will never invest in, due to their seemingly inevitable trend to lose money. (<em>By the way, I wonder if Buffet would invest in a company that made a DSLR sans video?</em> ) Think of what all this could mean to photojournalism: Why should the NY Times confine their online paper to still images? Will they tell the story better than a video? How many people will think that's true 5 years from now, or 10?</p>

<p>Do you think that staff photographers at the NY Times will continue to confine their work to still images or do you think that they'll turn to video more and more as their outlets demand it?</p>

<p>I also find it amusing that many of the same folks who do see video as an intrusion into the purity of their art are the same folks who think that heavy handed HDR is art.</p>

<p>Sorry, just had to add that.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Before we get too carried with video, a still image, by freezing a moment in time, can tell a story in way that hours of video footage never could. I don't think that anyone can just assume that video is superior because of having so many still images linked together, or by having sound, or even appearing more life-like. The power of the still image is unique, and all the video footage in the world will not and cannot impart the same message, whether for better or for worse. I don't believe that video ever could, or should, render the still image obsolete. The still image is uniquely powerful and evocative, but this isn't exactly a revelation, or it shouldn't be to anyone who calls himself a photographer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>feel diminished by video's intrusion into the 'purity' of the art of photography.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Other examples of the perceived intrusion into the purity of photography may include: black & white vs color, MF vs AF, M mode vs P mode, and films vs digital ...</p>

 

<p>I don't really understand this "intrusion into the 'purity' of the art of photography" thinking. And who would feel "diminished" by video? That's like saying that a poet feels diminished by a novelist. Video and still photography are different, not better or worse, just different, and the stories they tell, and how they tell the stories is different. And I don't think that if someone is a good photographer he will naturally be a good videographer, and vice versa, just like a good poet is not necesarily a good novelist.</p>

<p>Somebody said AF is reliable. Hardly. Sometimes it doesn't work at all and sometimes it is just wrong. On the other hand, it is useful and has a purpose. I have only a minor complaint with it. I have never gotten over the fact that they changed the fucusing screens when it came out. </p>

<p>Another vote here against video. If it is for pros as Lex suggests, limit it to expensive cameras like the D3. People seem pretty divided on this issue. It would not be the first time that consumers have turned up their nose at superfluous innovations.</p>

<p>It seems like these designers get pretty excited over new things, whether anyone needs them or not. There are rumors that video makes dslr's less reliable. </p>

<p>Paul C - your post was insightful, thanks! Who knows how important video will be in the next few years? This isn't the world of Life Magazine and The New York Times, anymore. This is the world of YouTube and Twitter and podcasts, and that's only today. I couldn't have imagined YouTube or Twitter five years ago. Who knows what we'll be dealing with five years hence?</p>

<p>My cameras have lots of feautres that I never use - Intervalometers, bracketing, Auto ISO, and a whole host of complicated autofocus features - but I'm not upset that these features exist. I take the time to understand them, and one day I might find myself in a position where I can benefit from them. Give me more tools - not to mention more resolution - and let ME figure out what I need.</p>

<p>Hey Jeffrey, don't want video capability in your camera.....go buy a Canon 5D markII instead....wait a second, it has video too...hmmm.<br>

Maybe you could just NOT USE the video feature...hey there's an idea.</p>

<p>Seriously people, get over the whole, " I don't want video in my camera' thing. Like it or not this is the way the camera manufacturers are going. No one said you had to use Every feature found on a camera. I have NEVER used any of the dummy modes on my 5D, but I don't begrudge those who do.</p>

<p>No thanks Clint, I'm all set, I have a D700.</p>

<p>And silly me, I thought that Nikon might be interested in what photographers thought.</p>

<p>Sorry for the digression, but does anyone know where I can buy an electric guitar with a built-in 61-key synthesizer?</p>

<p>Camera are going the way of computer software. Early software -- like a word processor--was used for writing. Then they started adding layer upon layer of new features, most of which no one will ever use. But you still have to wade through the menus just to ajust basic functions.<br>

People say what's wrong with having more features (like video) on DSLR since you don't have to use them? That may be so but you still have to pay for those features and they make the camera and its menus, more complicated.<br>

Back in the 1960s the Soviets had a camera called the Zorki 4. They also had a model called the Mir based on the same body and viewfinder. The main difference between the Mir and the Z4 was the Mir shutter speeds went to 1/500 sec. rather than 1/1000 and it didn't have the low speed gear train or self timer. So if ydidn't need those additional features you didn't have to pay for them. Plus the Mir was less complicated so it was more reliable.</p>

<p>I don't see anything wrong with having a multifunction camera. I just don't want one. It seems a lot of people want vidio in their camera and I say more power to you. Get creative and have fun with it. I have a D200 and it's a fine hobby camera. I plan on just shooting that one. If anyone ever makes a camera I like and can afford then I might buy one in a couple years, if not then there is always golf. I do love golf.</p>

<p>I've come back to read this thread as I have a schitzophrenic view towards it - on the one hand it is philosophically interesting, and on the other is is frustratingly irrelevent.</p>

<p>The bottom line to me is an economic one. Whether I use particular features or not, I'll always be happy with their inclusion if the end effect is to sell more cameras, thus hopefully making the one I want more affordable due to economies of scale, and in the process also ensuring my favourite yellow-branded manufacturer stays in business.</p>

<p>Until such time as one of these added features detrimentally interfere with the outcome I get when I set my camera to M, choose an aperture, shutter speed and ISO, and press the shutter, then I say bring them on.</p>

<p><em>And silly me, I thought that Nikon might be interested in what photographers thought.</em></p>

<p>I suspect that Nikon does care what photographers think. They've seen that video is a very-popular feature with working photojournalists, and they want those guys to buy the next D700 rather than the 5DMk2 (or Mk3). Face it, the "guys on the internet who insist that <strong>real</strong> cameras don't do video" market is relatively small.</p>

<p>Imagine the camera, which only has a mode called Vi-Pi, shoots SuperDuperHD and you can use every single frame as FX picture, because it has, say 24+ mpix. Impossible? Refresh your memory - in 1996 there were Very Expensive Modems with unbelievable 48kb-96kb speed. What we do have now? Having one of the first D1 (its Nikon for Canonians) I bought goldpriced IBM micro harddrives wich had (and have until now) 340MB for abot 700DM.</p>

<p>Great interview. I really want a D700, Im graduating next month, ut dont have a job...If i get a full time position, first purchase will be a d700 :)<br>

I have a D90, and it has video. Ive never used it, except for when my nephew started walking and i had my camera handy. For that reason alone it was worth it. I didnt care about the video when I bought it, and I still dont but imagine how useful it could be?<br>

All those people who say they dont video, get over it. It is here to stay, and will help Nikon sell more cameras, thus lowering the cost to you. If you dont want the feature dont use it. I honestly dont see what th fuss is over.</p>

<p>First and foremost, Nikon has to sell cameras. I get that.</p>

<p>FF digital has pretty much satisfied most photographers. In fact I even hear some saying that they plan on holding onto their D700s for a long time. That has to be the last thing Nikon wants to hear. Ironic, isn't it? But wait, just add subpar video that we can slowly improve over the next ten years. That will keep 'em unhappy with their cameras, and most importantly, keep 'em buying cameras. Brilliant!</p>

<p>Michael Chang wrote<br>

"There are creative ways to sync separately captured audio in post production."<br>

Obviously I have been out of video production for a long time but some things remain (I imagine) the same. Post-syncing audio, to me, implies a common timecode reference for pix and sound. This is all unquestionably much easier than it once was, but please give me a clue (or provide a reference) how this is done when using a DSLR? I imagine there's discrete frame reference data embedded in the digital video signal (my own experience is limited to linear timecode recorded as audio on analogue systems) but how do you supply this to the audio recording? Am I missing something?<br>

I find it interesting, with all the detailed discussion of video functionality, yours is the only comment in response to my observation. Which seems to confirm my experience that non-professional video always treats audio as the poor relation and that nothing has changed in this respect.<br>

Roy</p>

<p>Hi Roy, I currently work in video production and photography here. For some projects, I need to run externally captured audio. Because I'm sorta forced to "work with what I have"... here's what I do: I run whatever audio source (be it microphones or outputs from something) into a firewire audio interface connected to my laptop. In post (Final Cut Pro) I can fairly easy line up the audio track with the video track just by eyeballing it. If the track is slightly off, I slip it back or foward a frame until it visually looks "right" to me. The whole process takes a couple of minutes, maximum. Sure, with timecode generated on everything, it would be faster, but I don't have the equipment.</p>

<p>This is how I see (in the beginning anyways) quality audio being implemented with DSLR video. With today's audio interfaces, you can record 24/196k audio without any issue, and just sync it after the fact with the video captured from the camera. Any non-linear editor these days will allow audio and video to be slipped back and forth on the timeline with frame accuracy, so accurate sync isn't all that difficult to achieve.</p>

<p>I agree with your point though, that audio tends to be overlooked, which is unfortunate, because it's one of the most important parts of the equation.</p>

<p>Cheers!<br>

Blair</p>

<p>Just because a car has a convertible roof, does it mean you<br>

have to use the convertible roof?</p>

<p>Video is an option either you use it or you don't.<br>

Purchased a D90 because itwas available at a<br>

good price; I doubt<br>

if I'll ever use the video option.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are creative ways to sync separately captured audio in post production.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah - like timecode which the dSLR doesn't generate...believe me without timecode - nobody doing professional work has the time to use "creative ways" to sync the sound. Unless you put a clapboard at the beginning of a scene shoot - manually syncing the sound is a PITA waste of time.</p>

<p><br />As someone who owned a suite of EFP cameras and rented them regularly to major sporting event productions and video production companies, everything Roy has said about sound and video is 100% correct.</p>

<p>I haven't done this but taking two audio signals using different clocks, it should not be too difficult to syncronize them based on the cross-correlation of the two signals. I would be surprised if this can't be done using a click of a button.</p>

<p>I've never owned a camera that also records video clips, but it strikew me that it could be a great tool for making notations about the location and the lighting conditions. It might also be valuable for catching humorous moments that you can't fully capture with still images. "Here's Jim attempting to get a closer shot of the snapping turtle. Oooh, Jim, too close, buddy! He just took a big chunk out of your macro lens!"</p>

<p>I used to ride motorcycles, both on the street and in the dirt. Lots of my friends had "dual purpose" bikes, able to do both. I had a pure motocrosser for dirt, and a pure street bike for the street. I found that a "dual purpose" bike was not really very good in either environment....too many compromises. I feel the same way about cameras....if I want to shoot video I'll buy a camcorder, and if I want to shoot still pictures I'll buy a DSLR - without video. I realize that DSLRs with video are the "coming thing", but when I'm ready for a new camera I won't pay extra for a feature I won't use.</p>

<p>I think the lack of audio sync is one of these "version 1.0" features that camera makers will need to work on to make video into a mature feature. Panasonic already made a lens for video with a special aperture mechanism -- if video catches on then I expect to see more of those kinds of features. And what about doing handheld video with a DSLR? The position is awkward to say the least; current DSLR design are really made for having the eye at the viewfinder.<br>

Essentially I think there's a "glass half empty, glass half full" -way of looking at video. On one hand, adding it as it is now means little extra hardware and many people can play around with the feature as an added bonus, some will actually find it to be the killer feature in a DSLR. On the other hand, those people who don't need video end up paying for the R&D and the R&D focus is essentially on features useless for them. For example, I would much more prefer if they would figure out ways of changing IR-filters in front of the sensor without disassembling the camera or if they came out with a bayer-patternless BW camera. Another thing is that only few people will have the skill and patience producing videos that people actually care to watch; video is a big undertaking and doesn't work in the same way as stills as an expressive medium.<br>

As for the article, I think the designers did a great job on the D700, but there is of course room for future projects to improve :-)</p>

 

<p>The convertable car analogy may be an accurate example. When you chop off the top, you hurt the handling of the car. Most often extra supports and varius strengthening has to be done, which makes the car heavier and less ridgid. If they start baising the sensor to work better with video and it harms the still picture ability, then it won't be a popular "addition" to the camera.</p>

<p> </p>