You thoughts on the big video-function craze?

<p>I've read a couple articles now "informing" photographers that they need to embrace shooting videos along with their still work. And now, most all of the camera manufacturers are clamoring to include movie capability on their offerings.<br>

I personally have always seen myself as a still photographer, with no desire to explore movie making on any type of serious basis. Maybe I got it all out of my system when I purchased a Sanyo Exacti some years back. Besides taking great stills, you could, at any time, press the movie button and take some fairly quality movies.<br>

After playing with it for awhile, I discovered that I was using the camera much more as a handy pocket camera for stills, rather than for movies. The whole movie thing lost its pizazz about as quick as it had come. To this day, I hardly use the video function. I don't find myself going back and watching time-consuming movies at all, but I still love to go back and review stills.<br>

And the last wedding I attended, still employed a still photographer and a videographer... two separate people with two separate jobs. I couldn't imagine the still photographer trying to integrate videos with his array of stills for presentation to his clients later. I sure wouldn't want to!<br>

And, I notice that the big guns, the top-of-line cameras, for the most part, still do not offer video as part of their specifications. Could it be this whole thing is nothing more than hype on the manufacturers' part to convince consumers that they really "need" a video function on their SLR type of camera?<br>

Well, I for one, am really glad I got it all out of my system with a less-expensive camera a long time ago. I just purchased a new G1, and I'm so glad I wasn't even so much as tempted to pay the signifcant extra amount for a GH1. I personally wished all the manufacturers would offer their models this way - with and without.<br>

Your thoughts and experiences?</p>

<p>Got it (5D Mk II), haven't used it, don't intend to.</p>

<p>I don't have it on my 40D, but the more and more my wife asks me about getting a video camera for our nieces birthday parties and our international travel the more I'm curious about it. I do agree that trying to be a still and video photographer at a wedding seems beyond daunting to the point of inane... but whatever the client wants is the motto of some.. Cheers!</p>

<p>For my work I could never get decent video and stills. The moments that I need stills from would be the same moments that I'd need video from. And with video I couldn't move around and take stills from different angles without missing something. AND to get decent video with a DSLR I'd need a better computer to edit the HD footage, I'd need some way to record the sound and I'd need to use a tripod or shoulder mount to stabilize the camera.<br>

I'm sorry but it's a gimmick.</p>

<p>No video for me. I bought a Video camera 15 years ago, used it a couple of times and realized that I really, really suck at it. Haven't touched it since and I sure won't use it in any DSLR camera.</p>

<p>I never thought I would use the video function on my Nikon D90, but I used it once and fell in love with it. I am selling my camcorder. Being able to shoot video using high quality lens with shallow DOF (or extreme wide angle) with very little noise in low light is just wonderful. With the video I was able to capture so much expression of people and interesting moments that would have been lost had I just snap one picture. The video enriches your ability to capture your visual experience. By combining video and still into one camera, you have the freedom to use one or the other, depending on the circumstances. This is particularly true for those who do not usually carry a camcorder. I will not buy another camera that cannot shoot HD video. </p>

<p>Chang is right. If it is implemented well, it could be fun to have in a quality lens camera combo. You are on a trip, let's say. Joe Tourist trip. I think of the Amtrak Cascade run from Oakland to Portland. Sitting in the dome car, watching canyons and whisking at speed through tunnels blasted out of rock, sweeping by steep embankments that seem to make the train hang in space above the railroad bed. No still can capture that experience. Can it, are you sure?</p>

<p>I shot a batch of stills with my Konica Hexar on slide film and got a few keepers. Fleeting seconds of scenery flashing by. Even a 5 second clip can powerfully relive that experience if <strong>in motion</strong> . Does this diminish the 'perfect moment' represented by a still? I don't. Does video take a different mindset.... Probably. That will be my main effort then, the distillation of experience and versatility to choose. Bottom line=what's to lose? I like the <strong>convenience </strong> represened by a well designed convergence.For those certain visuals like the one I described. Am open to persuasion is all. -- PS. It might even be fun:-)</p>

<p>Interesting points, all!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And, I notice that the big guns, the top-of-line cameras, for the most part, still do not offer video as part of their specifications.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You "notice" wrong, or at least draw incorrect conclusions. The dividing line is not "where" the cameras fall in a manufacturer's line, but "when" they were released. The Canon 1Ds III, for example, launched in August of 2007, about a year before the November 2008 apearance of the video DSLRs. Nikon D3 was another August 2007 launch, positively stale by "V day". D3X was the only thing close, just on the edge...</p>

<p>In fact, video is refefining top-of-the-line product planning. Canon normally launches their flagships on a 3 year cycle.</p>

<ul>

<li>1D III - Feb 2007</li>

<li>1D II - Jan 2004</li>

</ul>

<p>They pulled the 1D IV ahead a quarter (three months) to October 2009, and launched with video. 1Ds is also on a 3 year cycle: 1Ds IV would normally launch in August or September 2010, but the word on the street is either a 2 or 3 quarter pullahead and a launch with video (and a pixel count higher than Leica S2).</p>

<p>Canon 5D was a well documented example of a failed product launch. It sold well below expectations: Canon set the record for the entire industry for both frequency and size of price reductions and incentive packages, and still had difficulty moving that camera. 5D II took off: Canon sold more of them in the first 6 months than they sold of the original 5D in the first two years.</p>

<p>Nikon D4 isn't due till late 2010, so Nikon grabbed some headlines with a D3s, with video (and better low light capability) at $5200.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And the last wedding I attended, still employed a still photographer and a videographer... two separate people with two separate jobs. I couldn't imagine the still photographer trying to integrate videos with his array of stills for presentation to his clients later. I sure wouldn't want to!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you imagine a small company that employs 2-4 shooters training them all for both video and still, so they can book events as photographer/videographer pairs, or just photographers, or just videographes, depending on what the customer whats?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've read a couple articles now "informing" photographers that they need to embrace shooting videos along with their still work. And now, most all of the camera manufacturers are clamoring to include movie capability on their offerings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you always write with such "sensationalism"? I don't recall articles "informing" photographers of what they "need", just what "could" help them expand their businesses. And the manufacturers aren't "clamoring", they're simply "doing".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon D4 isn't due till late 2010, so Nikon grabbed some headlines with a D3s, with video (and better low light capability) at $5200.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed. If I remember correctly, Nikon D90 was the first dSLR to offer video. D300 is the next line up, but because it came before D90, it does not have video. When it was time for the D300 to be refreshed, Nikon introduced D300<strong>s</strong> which has video. This allows Nikon to catch up with Canon who chose to first offer video to their up of the line pro cameras. D3 was the latest that was refreshed and the D3<strong>s</strong> now too has video. The D700 will be updated soon and video will sure to be added. </p>

<p>There were a few PJs posted in the Nikon forum to tell people that increasingly the News organizations that hire them are now requesting them to also shoot videos. This is particularly relevant to those newspapers that have an on line versions, and videos shot by dSLRs are more than enough to be satisfactory in terms of image quality. This saves them big money in hiring a separate videographer.</p>

<p>I'd rather Olympus create a photographers camera, like they did with the OM1.<br>

I am teetering on the edge of buying an E-P2.<br>

But something makes me wish they would have created a great stills camera where all the technology in the camera is for making the best still photography possible. Maybe I'm wrong, but does all the extra technology packed inside necessarily mean that the money building the camera could have been spent elsewhere? (better materials for example? better viewfinder? better screen etc etc)</p>

<p>I think that the movie mode will replace continuous shooting mode sooner or later, or much sooner than we would imagine.</p>

<p>10 fps seems to be technical limit of SLR mechanism and you would need movie mode to realize faster frame rates. You can select fast shutter speeds in the movie mode to stop the motion in each frame, so it is virtually a continuous shooting mode with faster frame rates already. Nikon released a new software called PIXCLIPPER that extracts still images from the movie file taken with DSLR, which makes RED system for the pepple!</p>

<p>Currently, contiunous shooting mode is Achilles heel of m4/3 system, but the movie mode may change the situation before the manufacturers solve the problem of the "c" mode.</p>

<p>I'm not sure if my camera even has this feature or not. But it doesn't matter, I have never been interested in video anyway and if I have the capability, I won't use it.<br>

I am a still photogerapher and should I ever find an interest in videography, I will get a video camera for that purpose. Like my father used to say, A device that "does it all" is a device that does a lot of things poorly! If video is what you like, buy a camera for that purpose.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Like my father used to say, A device that "does it all" is a device that does a lot of things poorly! If video is what you like, buy a camera for that purpose.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>True, but that does not stop Swiss Army knife from being a very popular product. Many people will trade some compromises for convenience. With D90 or GH1, I do NOT need to carry two devices. Can you see what a wonderful thing this is? Furthermore, where are the compromises in the ability to take stills in these dSLRs and m3/4 cameras that are due to the implementation of video? Just look at the new Canon 7D and Nikon D3s. They are better in every way as a camera, better ISO performance, high frame rate, etc, and they will be sold at the same price as the model they replace, plus they have outstanding HD video. Speaking of HD video, the video qualities from these cameras are sooooo much better than the regular camcorders and having one of these dSLRs will save you from having to spend a bundle to get a HD larger sensor video camera. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>It seems that DSLRs with a video feature will be used a lot more for videos than single frames will be used from dedicated video cameras.</p>

<p>Never have used video in-spite of having digicams with the option along-side my Olympus DSLR's.</p>

<p>If I buy any cameras in the future that have a video option, I'm most likely to get about as much use out of it as I have to date.</p>

<p>A response to <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=587835">Joseph Wisniewski</a>: <br>

Joseph, when I said "And, I notice that the big guns, the top-of-line cameras, for the most part, still do not offer video as part of their specifications," I was talking about the "current" offerings, not model production schedules. CURRENTLY, the D3x, the D700, the EOS 1 Ds Mark III, the E-3, and of course, the M9 do not offer video, which suits me just fine.<br>

Your statement: "Can you imagine a small company that employs 2-4 shooters training them all for both video and still, so they can book events as photographer/videographer pairs, or just photographers, or just videographes, depending on what the customer whats?"<br>

I believe you meant to say "wants," not "whats." At any rate, I don't get your point of what you are trying say here. I'm talking about the average wedding photographer (singular) trying to pull off a wedding promising both stills and videos from his DSLR. I've done hundreds of weddings, and I sure wouldn't even want to try such a thing! As <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5610909">Max Edin</a> put it: "For my work I could never get decent video and stills. The moments that I need stills from would be the same moments that I'd need video from. And with video I couldn't move around and take stills from different angles without missing something. AND to get decent video with a DSLR I'd need a better computer to edit the HD footage, I'd need some way to record the sound and I'd need to use a tripod or shoulder mount to stabilize the camera.<br />I'm sorry but it's a gimmick."<br>

But more power to you if you'd like to try.<br>

Your statement: "Do you always write with such "sensationalism"? I don't recall articles "informing" photographers of what they "need", just what "could" help them expand their businesses. And the manufacturers aren't "clamoring", they're simply "doing".<br>

I refer you to "Digital Photo Pro," July/August 2009, Pg. 78. The title of the article "Will Video Kill The Still Photography Star?" stongly intimates that pros (including wedding photogs) will have to integrate video into their still work. I get the feeling here that the manufacturers are telling us what we need, not just "helping" us to expand.<br>

No, I still have to say the manufactures are clamoring. You suggest yourself that all forthcomig top-of-the-line cameras will include video. Personally, I remain in the camp that would prefer their camera be the way <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=4083723">William White</a> defines it: "But something makes me wish they would have created a great stills camera where all the technology in the camera is for making the best still photography possible. Maybe I'm wrong, but does all the extra technology packed inside necessarily mean that the money building the camera could have been spent elsewhere? (better materials for example? better viewfinder? better screen etc etc)."<br>

But, all would be solved if the manufacturers did it the way Panasonic currently does it with the G1 and the GH1. This gives the photographer a choice of what technologies he wants to put his money into, would it not?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>CURRENTLY, the D3x, the D700, ...do not offer video, which suits me just fine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't want to be argumentative, but this is quite unfair as I noted earlier that D700 is now an "old" model in Nikon's line up so it is due for replacement. D3x has very high pixel count and is intended as a studio camera for fine arts and other type of photography that requires very high resolution. It is a niche camera. The top of the line of Nikon FF camera is the D3, which has been replaced by D3s that has video.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>trying to pull off a wedding promising both stills and videos from his DSLR. I've done hundreds of weddings, and I sure wouldn't even want to try such a thing!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I recently bought a pro Nikon lens from a pro wedding photographer. When I went to their web site, I found that they have added a D90 to their line up to offer short videos as a bonus or extra features. Soon more and more pro may do the same to compete with those that can only offer pictures.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe I'm wrong, but does all the extra technology packed inside necessarily mean that the money building the camera could have been spent elsewhere? (better materials for example? better viewfinder? better screen etc etc)."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The D3s, D90, D300s from Nikon and Canon 7D all have the best screens, VF, and built quality in their class. Where are the compromises? Video = live view, which has long been integrated into these cameras so there is very little cost in making video a feature.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>CC, I highly imagine you are right about the minimal cost for video circuitry. <br>

Again, the operative word regarding the wedding photographer you mentioned is "their." Of course, if there's more than one of you, you can certainly pull off some videos. It would be most difficult for a single photog to pull off both at a wedding, and do it well.<br>

It is interesting to see how everyone feels about this new "feature" though, don't you think?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is interesting to see how everyone feels about this new "feature" though, don't you think?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes it is. I think this happens when a new technology is emerging and not yet mature — some see it as a new potential while others see it as a distraction. Not long ago we were debating whether P-mode was a good idea and whether AF was really necessary.</p>

<p>It's the new megapixel race. And honestly, it doesn't make much sense. You still need a second camera to take higher quality stills... and wouldn't a dedicated video camera that has dedicated video controls be a better way to video? Birthday party mom and dad would be far far better off with a cheaper still camera and a dedicated video camera any day.</p>

<p>IMO the video function in many cameras is still at an early stage. For the average photog (pro or semi pro included) the video is a waste of space, but once they get the kinks worked out of the video mode it will make life that much easier on the guy covering a wedding. I have used it exactly 5 times since the D90 was released (i bought mine 1 month after release). if and when they can perfect it, I can make video of the hiking trips along with my landscape images from one source instead of hauling around a camcorder to. IDK I do not use it much, but i can see the idea behind having it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But something makes me wish they would have created a great stills camera where all the technology in the camera is for making the best still photography possible. Maybe I'm wrong, but does all the extra technology packed inside necessarily mean that the money building the camera could have been spent elsewhere?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For a camera like EP-2, not at all. It's an EVIL camera: it runs liveview full time, for composition, metering, and automatic focus. The things they do to it to make all that work well make video work well as a "side effect".</p>

<p>And when you go back and look at Nikon D90 (tied with Canon 5D II as the first) that's a totally minimalist effort. Nikon added as little as they could. They even used the same JPEG codec that they use to pipe liveview over teh USB port for tethered shooting as the "motion JPEG" codec for their video mode. The processor already had the audio input circuitry (it's a part they used acriss their P&S line, too) and they have the experience from making 10's of millions of P&S cameras to put a microphone in the D90 for, literally, pennies.</p>

<p>And then you look at Canon 5D II. You talk about money that "could have been spent elsewhere". R&D money is booked as a percentage of expected sales. The original 5D was a marketing failure (as I pointed out elsewhere), selling so far below expectations that Canon set the industry record for pice reductions and incentives trying to move them. When Canon did the market research on 5D II, they come up with numbers: how many people will buy a camera because of feature A, hoe many because of feature B, and that tells them what they can afford to spend developing each of those features. The video development mone couldn't have been "spend elsewhere", because that "elsewhere" would have had to get through market research and product planning. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Like my father used to say, A device that "does it all" is a device that does a lot of things poorly! If video is what you like, buy a camera for that purpose.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mr. Dunbar, no insult to your father, but the video DSLRs (cinematographers are now referring to them as HDSLRs) don't do things "poorly". They do some things "crudely" (but they've only been in existance for 13 months, look at what video cameras were like for their first few years) but they do a lot of things <strong>much better than any video camera</strong> , and about equal to digital cinema cameras costing 10-40x more.</p>

<ul>

<li>There isn't anything that a photojournalist would consider to be a "video camera" than can match the low light ability of a Canon 5D II. Not professional 3 sensor, dockable video cameras costing 4x as much as a 5D II. And the amount you have to spend on an interchangeable lens video camera and lenses that can match Canon L glass is, again, 4x more. Some say it beats a $40,000 Red One (I don't have one around right now to compare). </li>

<li>Even cameras like that Red One or the Panavision Genesis (about $100k, but you can only lease it) don't have sensors as large as the 5D II (believe it or not, the "Super 35" cinema format that most movies are shot on is only the size of a 1.6x crop APS DSLR sensor). So, the 24x36mm sensor Canon 5D II and Nikon D3s stand, right now, as the <strong>best cameras in the entire world</strong> for control of "cinematic" depth of field. The most DOF range (from deep to shallow) and the biggest lens range (from an 8mm full circular fisheye to an 800mm f4 Canon on a 2x teleconverter). </li>

<li>And again, the movie mode DSLRs are the only things, outside of a $40,000 Red, that can make reasonable use of the $25,000 or so in Nikon lenses that I own.</li>

</ul>

<p>Seriously, I shot some intepritive dance films on the 5D II with mostly my Nikon 85mm f1.4, and partially with a 35mm f2.8 shift lens, shifted, and the results were both beautiful, and quite literally impossible to achieve with any "video camera".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You still need a second camera to take higher quality stills... and wouldn't a dedicated video camera that has dedicated video controls be a better way to video?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's two ways to answer that.</p>

<p>The first is, yes, for the time being, for a videographer. Provided that videographer doesn't need the low light ability or shallow DOF or color accuracy of a movie mode DSLR. A videographer will put up with more limited controls to get those things. But you consider that the average DSLR owner is creating bits of art. Most likely it's "personal art", but art non the less. And when that person starts to play with the video feature, he's doing "cinematography", not "videography". Not documenting moments but making "moving picture art". And that's a whole different game. Ever watched a cinematographer? It's all manual control, and very few controls.</p>

<p>The second way to answer the question "wouldn't a dedicated video camera that has dedicated video controls be a better way to video?" is "apparently not", because the most popular, hottest selling video camera in the US is the Pure "Flip", and that has virtually none of the conventional video camera controls. It looks more like a point and shoot still camera than a video camera. And it's selling in the millions. Other camcorder companies, caught with their pants down, are launching "Flip style" recorders this year.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Birthday party mom and dad would be far far better off with a cheaper still camera and a dedicated video camera any day.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Guess what the largest number of such "birthday party" videos are shot on today...</p>

<p>yup, cell phones.</p>

<p>When "mom and dad" have two cameras, one stays in the box. (Sometimes both stay in the box, hence the popularity of cell phones). P&S cameras are outselling camcorders some 10:1. Guess which one mom and dad are able to find on short notice, and which one has its battery charged. ;) The "swiss army knife" approach wins in that market. That's why, even with the introduction of HD (high definition) and HDD (hard disk drive) camcorders, and the popular "pocket recorder" segment spearheaded by Flip, the total unit camcorder market is flattening, while the P&S and DSLR markets continue to rise.</p>