Convergence of Still & Video photography

After the announcement of the Nikon D90 & 5D II with HD video, now I can see what Michael Reichmann what talking

about in his article "Convergence of Still & Video photography".

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/convergence.shtml

 

I didn't realize it was happening so quickly. Lot of people are complaining about Canon adding HD video mode on the

5D II, but it looks like this will probably be a standard feature in all DSLR's in a few years. Does anyone else see this

coming? Well I think most people better get use to it, because I think they are going to get it weather they want it or

not. I am just wondering what everyone else thinks about this change that is coming on? I personally embrace it,

after thinking back over this last year when I went to my Son's graduation and the four plays he was in on stage, I

wish now I had that 5D II then. I never shoot enough video to justify buying a quality video camera, so having that on

my DSLR would be ideal for times when I would like to shoot video. After seeing the quality of video it can produce

I'm really looking forward picking up the 5D II when it's available.

Yes I saw it coming. Do I win a prize?

I really enjoyed having video on my Pentax Optio. It made for great recording of family moments. Thats before I owned a DSLR. I think its a good move. Rather than having to buy an HD vidcam, now I can justify buying a 5d MkII :)

I like Reichmann and his site, but I think he's trying a little too hard and combatively to take credit for this "new" idea of convergence (from his column yesterday: "High quality video is coming to a DSLR near you a hell of a lot faster than you ever thought it would. Scoffers – you can now eat your hats. Bon appetit!")

 

For example, consider this piece by photojournalist Dirck Halstead, in 1997:

 

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/platypus.html

the RED camera (Scarlet) seems to take the opposite approach. this is looking like a video cam which can be optimized for stills. the catch here is the stills will rival or exceed the quality of those available from dslrs. the Scarlet is due next year. things across the board will probably change radically in 09.

Reichmann mentions pellicle mirrors as the solution for not using a "dreaded" electronic viewfinder. That works fine if the aperture is wide open but if you're shooting video at f8 and then lose another 2/3 stop from the pellicle mirror you're going to have a very dark optical viewfinder. An EVF can amplify the signal so you can still see what you're shooting.

 

My ideal camera system would be a return to removable finder/prism. At least on the Nikon side from the F through F5 you could remove it and replace it with a waist level finder, sports finder, etc.

 

I propose returning to the removable finder days and having a traditional SLR mirror optical prism finder for stills then swap it out for an EVF with the mirror locked up that you could use for video and stills.

Another vote for waist level finder / removable finders. Wouldn't that add substantial weight, though (not to mention cost)?

JW - Yes it would add weight and cost but Nikon did it on the pro side for 40 years and those cameras were still affordable by many.

 

I'm just trying to find ways to avoid using the rear LCD as the viewfinder. I want anything BUT that.

Well, if they ever do away with the viewfinder, we still have our current cameras in all their optical viewfinder glory :)

I don't quite know what to make of this. I am of the school that you buy one tool to do the job well.

Camcorders that take stills don't take very good stills and I'll be waiting with baited breath to see how these

DSLRs handle video.

 

My iniital fears are going to be about:

 

Compression (I suspect this will be higher than on video cameras because of the need to free up the buffer and

save space on the memory card) which is likely to affect motion rendering, particularly if the camera is panning

or tilting.

 

Lens control: ENG and higher format video cameras have stepless iris controls, similar to older manual SLRSs -

marked, but without notches. Even on Z1s and XL1s the control is fairly light so as not to induce camera shake.

On DSLRS the control wheels are notchy, this vibration may come across in the finished picture.

 

Zooming: Canon only have one powered zoom lens for the EOS system, an uninspiring and long since discontinued

35-80 zoom. Part of the difference of video is that you can use lens movements such as zooming and pull-focusing

for dramatic & creative effect. Prime EF or manual zoom lenses are going to make both difficult, especially if

the live view is as sloppy as on the 40D.

 

Sound: Built in speaker. Very poor quality. Okay the EOS 5D Mk2 has a minijack socket, but this is a consumer

grade connection, pros use the bulkier insulated XLR type. There is the potential to fit a high quality mic

such as a sennheiser MKE300D on the EOS5s hot shoe, but it's a long mic that will creep into wider shots.

 

Practical technique: Videographers almost always use tripods to avoid shakey cam, far fewer photographers use

tripods so often. If ou want to shoot watchable video then you'll need a monopod or tripod.

 

Artistically: Compostion is far more important to stills shots as ever frame has to tell the story. Video can

fall back on montage editing in a sequence to tell a story. Despite the optical and technical similarities the

narrative technique of both are vastly different and I suspect somebody trying to do both at the same time will

fail in both.

 

There are a couple of potential benefits:

 

Depth of field: The far bigger sensor (relative to the z1s and Xl1s 1/3rds type, still bigger than the 2/3rds

types found in most broadcast cameras) will permit better bokeh and reduced depth of field (via the larger format)

 

Very wide angle lenses: Lenses like the 17-40 L are very very wide compared to most video lenses, and vastly

cheaper than wide video lenses.

 

I'll keep an open mind and look forward to future developments, but these are the things I'll be watching for.