tdigi Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 I would assume most wedding and other various pros could probably care less but for travel and walk around shooting would anyone want the ability to shoot HD video from an SLR? I certainly would. The Nikon D90 looks like an impressive kit with the 18-200 lens for around $1300. Is there any downside to having this ability in a DSLR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_dark Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 The only downside is the number of people who complain that it's 'killing photography' etc etc etc. I don't think it's "necessary", however i'll probably use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 Right now there is. You can't change exposure during shooting, you can only focus manually and you're limited to 5 minutes (with mono sound). A small digital videocam has about 100x the capability of the D90. DSLR video is only interesting because it's a novelty and it can do it at all. It's a very poor substitute for real video, though you could say that any video is better than no video at all. You can get a very capable, very small, dedicated video camera for a few hundred dollars. As long as I don' t have to pay extra for it and as long as it doesn't hinder the development of more useful features (like in-body stabilization), I don't care if Canon add video to DSLRs or not. I'd expect to use it about as often as I use LiveView, which is pretty much never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdigi Posted September 15, 2008 Author Share Posted September 15, 2008 I did not know how limited it is, I guess having an little flip video or a small video cam would be better. its like anything that does it all, it never does it all well. Still seems like something most consumers would want but I am guessing you won't see it on a 5D or other pro bodies. I honestly never use live view I really don't see the benefit, I turned it on once to see if and how it works and said humm neat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabbiinc Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 I might use it occasionally if the camera had it, but I wouldnt pick that camera for video. As Bob points out Nikons vid capture is pretty limited. If you really want to get into video with your Canon lenses, there is a video camera that accepts EF lenses by Canon. http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=165&modelid=11544#ModelFeaturesAct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 If they are going to use AVCHD like they do on their other tapeless videocameras, then I for one am against it. AVCHD is still not ready for prime-time in my opinion. To many hassles importing and editing. As a concept, I'm not against it. Though there may be issues in that photographic lenses are not designed to look good "while" zooming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjoseph7 Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 I have HD Video on my point and shoot(PAS) . Its more like a gadget than anything, but why not. On the downside, Video eats up allot of your battery and your card can get filled up pretty quickly. Then what exactly are you going to do with all that video, download it to Yutube ? If I was to shoot allot of video I would probably get an 8G card at the minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_klimowicz Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 I certainly wouldn't mind it. It could be nice for simple multimedia vignettes, complimented with more impactful still imagery. Simple stuff like the amazing landscapes featured in Sigur Rós’ 'Heima' DVD come to mind...though, of course, there's a lot more beyond landscapes that can be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 If I wanted video, I would have bought a video recorder. That being said, my daughter got a lot of use of the video on her little Konica-Minolta Z6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 The major downside is that if it becomes a "required" feature on all DSLRs (like Live View now is), it may squeeze out more useful functions. There's only so much stuff you can cram in there. One advantage of digital videocameras with small sensors is that it's pretty easy to put a fast high ratio zoom on them. For example the Sony Handycam DCR-HC38 has a 40x optical zoom (f1.8 to f4.1)! Try getting that on your DSLR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregf Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 If I wanted i video camara, I would buy a video camera. It seems to me, that most of the people using 5D or 1D (like myself) have little use for this supposed "feature". Granted, I don't think live view belongs on an SLR (the view finder provides a much richer view)...but I just old fashoned, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin carron Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 I want a camera that shoots one format well rather than a devide that does two things badly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 I think it's inevitable that there will be an effort to make a combined DSLR/videocam that does both decently well, at least in the consumer segment of the market. Once you've put Live View in the camera and you can use an electronic shutter on the sensor it's just a matter of messing with the software. You might need hardware modifications to just readout a subset of the sensor data if you want to speed things up a bit though. It doesn't sound like it would be all that difficult to do properly if someone really wanted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 I think it's inevitable that there will be an effort to make a combined DSLR/videocam that does both decently well, at least in the consumer segment of the market. Once you've put Live View in the camera and you can use an electronic shutter on the sensor it's just a matter of messing with the software. You might need hardware modifications to just readout a subset of the sensor data if you want to speed things up a bit though. It doesn't sound like it would be all that difficult to do properly if someone really wanted to. If I was Canon, I'd certainly be working on it for the next version of the Digital Rebel though. It's a feature. Cameras sell on features, not really on how useful those features are. If others have the feature and you don't, you're at a marketing disadvantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_bergman1 Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 I have video capability with my compact P&S but I don't use it. I guess with real good performance it would be a useful feature. In reality I would really like a cup holder on my DSLR. I hate having to juggle a drink in one hand and my camera in the other. Canon are you listening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 I want an MP3 player. They have the memory card and the AV output jack. How hard could it be to put an MP3 player in there, especially if they're going to have stereo audio recording to go with the video. And let's not forget about GPS. You can get a GPS logger for well under $100 that's not much bigger than a CF card. Why not integrate it into the camera? That one will be here before the MP3 player I think. As for cup holders, would you believe that...."If you have strong feelings about your car's cup holders, you're not alone. In fact, 27% of car shoppers who participated in a recent Autobytel online survey(a) indicated that they would be willing to look for an altogether different make or model of vehicle to find the perfect cup holders". It's not always obvious what features will sell a product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_stanton2 Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 Absolutely. I don't care about the 5 minute clip limitation. I wouldn't use it to shoot sporting events or birthday parties and whatnot. I'd probably use it to record snippets of scenes during travel, or short clips of friends... all to be edited later into something a bit more ambitious. As long as the 'feature' is implemented in a way that doesn't cripple any other features, WHY NOT? We should be used to it by now, having lots of features we never use. I actually didn't even notice the Print button on the 5D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron_lam Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 I might be missing something but isn't it an advantage in the D90 to be able to shoot with SLR lenses? i.e. Macros, big aperture, ultra-wide lenses? From what I gather, most consumer grade video cameras (under $1000) can't interchange lenses and have pretty small apertures if you want to achieve that "cinematic" look. That seems like a real advantage even if it is mono sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 Aaron, you're absolutely correct. The D90 is just the beginning of a revolution. I find it amusing how some people diss the D90 because it has a 5 min clip length (how many 35mm film movie cameras have a longer clip length? how many 5-minute clips are interesting to watch?), no autofocus in movie mode (how many movies for the big screen do you think are actually shot with autofocus?), and limited exposure controls (this is actually a serious omission but it's a consumer camera so they had to cripple it somehow to sell the higher end models coming later). It can do things that no consumer camcorder can. And those things happen to be things that many amateur and low-budget film makers are dying to get in an affordable camera. And I bet that in 1 year it will be very difficult to sell a DSLR without a video mode to photojournalists - and those tiny sensor camcorders will be limited to people who are unable to focus the camera without help - i.e. people who would never buy a DSLR for stills because they'd never learn to use it to advantage. YMMV, as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerrySiegel Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 Ilkka, I was in the skyview car on the Amtrak Cascade train heading north over the passes and through the tunnels a few years back. Drink on the table and a comfy seat. As I passed through tunnels and sheer cliffs and expanses of mountain, I would have enjoyed the ability to shoot a few video clips. At the specific time I think I was carrying my Konica Hexar AF (remember that little number? ?). Shots were not so powerfully great in stills.... Typical cut in video is perhaps 6 seconds (arguably of course). And as storage memory jumps up and up,well, there you are.... I have used the video feature in my little simple Nikon Coolpix P5000. I don't think of it is as anything but a little goodie for now in any serious DSLR. Still,that may change Illka.. Real video work takes time, yet it is important to have a recording device at hand. Was recently watching a special on the 9/11 on scene edited from snips by amateurs with gizmos of simple motion recording as well as some gutsy journalists near the towers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrissyone Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 I for one welcome our new video overlords. Srsly... I used the (very conveniently buttoned) video mode on my S3 IS and I found it positively smashing. No, I didn't make any great cinematic masterpieces, but it was nice to be able to record a clip from time to time with one simple touch of a real hardware button. Sure, a little consumer video cam could maybe do a better job, but I will never ever spend the extra money on one and I'd never have the presence of mind to carry it around. Bob....I get your point, but should we, say, take all the cameras out of cell phones? Yes, they are crappy, but look - I can add a contact to my phone and use it to take a pic of them so it comes up when they call me. Does it make sense to pull out my SLR to do this? Just pop a Raw file into Lightroom and export a pristine file to my phone? Sometimes it's nice to have one device that does a few related things at once. And cup holders would be *ossem*. ;P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony_law Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 I am for it. It's nice to have it. I do like to take a few minutes movie clip from my travel to add to my slide show. Some people don't like it but to use the video feature or not is up to the individule. Besides it the trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 I didn't suggest we shouldn't have crappy video in a DSLR. I'd just hope it doesn't replace something more useful. Since they've managed to get a phone, GPS, camera and MP3 player into a cell phone, why not have the camera in there. Same with DLSRs. Sure, put in Live View and Video. I won't use them much, but if they don't add to the cost and don't displace more useful features, throw 'em in there. I'd rather have a true auto ISO mode, sensor-shift stabilization, maybe focus bracketing and micro adjustment and other potentially photographically useful features, but for the time being I guess we'll just have to put up with an enhanced featured "direct print" button and video. My phone also has a calculator and several built in games. I'm not entirely certain that I want to see either one as a feature of my next DSLR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_mankey Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 There is no doubt in my mind that we'll eventually see the worlds of video and photography merge in a lot of places. When it is ready I certainly wouldn't mind some video features on my DLSR. As it is I don't think of taking videos often but when using my digitcam I've found the video feature on it quite handy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishayden Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 What's wrong with you all? Of course you would use the video-on-DSLR feature of the D90. Why? Because it's there! As we all know, video is simply a faster series of fps. 5min limit - no problem. The ability to flip a switch and record some great event in video may capture the event of the decade. And, now we can do it without reaching into our camera bags. Good on the Nikon engineers for coming up with this feature - it is simply fantastic. I have longed for it for ages, despite making extensive use of mini DV on a camcorder. So, I rang my Nikon agent today and have my name on the waiting list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now