How often do you use the movie mode?

[katha_chalotorn]

For me, the movie mode is the most useless feature on P&S digital

cameras. I wonder if many people use it. I'd rather that

manufacturers spend money on something else such as better lens and

larger, more sensitive sensors. Instead, they come up with stereo

capability on the movie mode (Canaon S2 IS). Does one really need

stereo sound when they record their family vacation? I guess next

year they'll have THX or Dolby surround in it too.

[lex_jenkins]

I use it quite a bit on my Olympus P&S digicam; never with my Nikon D2H (I don't even know whether my dSLR has a movie mode and I've never used the voice memo option either).

[errol young]

My son has a Nikon 5100 and uses movie mode but he is not that interested in photography. He just takes snaps. He has a good eye but never worked on it.

 

Errol

[jon_austin]

My wife has a Canon P&S (S400, I think), and she actually does use the movie mode from time to time. Personally, I agree it's a useless feature, but it's obviously an individual preference.

 

I think the B&W, filter and sepia modes on my 20D are a waste of R&D, too (I'd much rather have an ISO display in the viewfinder), but I'll bet there are some 20D owners out there using these modes.

[jon_noble]

its not that useless. I made a whole 25min skate vid 2yrs ago that was known by many in plymouth when i went to skate spots. I only made about 5 copies. It also got me an a grade for my ict a-level. My teachers thought i was going to a movie school but thats not my thing.

 

The camera in question is a minolta dimage e223

[digitmstr]

I haven't used it yet on either of my P&S...ever.

[Karim Ghantous]

I don't need it but hey, it's a little bit of fun and there's no harm in that is there?

 

Considering the size of the cameras that have movie mode it's not a bad thing to have for very basic work. Some people have video as well as stills for their weblogs or on-line journals/diaries so this feature is not entirely without application.

 

The two major problems are: on most cameras you can't use the optical zoom while recording; and they're usually either 15fps (fine for Web use) or 30fps (again, fine for Web or non-TV applications but useless for PAL).

 

The absolute minimum for a TV-quality video is MiniDV (as far as digital is concerned anyway). A dedicated video camera gives better quality and will have a more suitable lens, more recording time and so on.

[jsbc]

I have a Canon IXUS and Canon IS, which obviously have better movie modes (In fact, I BOUGHT them for their movie modes). I don't use them to shoot pictures, but I use them as a pocket video camera.

 

The 640X480 30FPS is actually quite good, much better than the ones MPEG4 capable cameras you find on SONY etc.

 

I have better cameras for stills.

[ron_goodenow]

The 640x sound and video mode on my 5060 is surprisingly good. And, can be a bit like eating popcorn. However, I use it only when outdoors and want to capture some of the fun with my grandson, or about once a year to photograph my landscaping -- tis quicker and easier than messing around with panoramas. As a photographer of railroads it is also a good thing to have available for odd comings and goings. I'd be happy if they added a microphone input for improved sound.

 

If I hold the camera still and pay attention to what I am doing the results are certainly equal in many ways to my old Super Eight camera. But on a computer monitor, of course. There are now stitching and other programs which make it easy to pull things together.

 

I disagree that the feature is useless, and doubt very much that the investment in the movie technology is such that companies can't invest in better sensors or lenses. IF we started to get into useless features or trade-offs lord only knows where we would end up. In any case, serious photographers can get a dslr in protest. :-)

[sergio_ynostrosa]

When I used my Canon powershot a60, I used it all the time. Now that I have a Nikon d70, I miss it alot. But I dont like to carry both cameras with me so I no longer have clips. I once bought a dv camcorder with camera capabilites, but soon realised that it really sucked. So I returned it and bought the canon pawershot a60 and was very happy. It is very hard to for an adult with ADHD to carry a video camera shooting the whole time. But with a camera it is nice to be able to capture a small clip of something that gets your attention.

If someone comes out with a DSLR with movie capabilities, I will definately buy it. Or is there one out there already? :)

[dg1]

The movie mode is useless if you don't use it, but having just discovered what a good movie mode my KM-A2 has, I intend to use the A2 movie mode for anything I would have used my camcorder for in the past. One of the appeals of digicams vs DSLRs is this kind of flexibility. My Ricoh GX has an audio record mode that I've used many times to record live music. The Canon S2 may be even better for that. It's great. Many digicams are like electronic swiss army knives this way. I don't understand how having these features is a problem. If you want better lens, larger more sensitive sensors, buy a DSLR, that's why they're offered, but in being pure still photography cameras DSLRs ignore much of the potential of digital, so the tradeoffs work both ways.

[douglas_greenberg]

Thank you, Katha. I had never used the movie mode on any of my digicams, but your mentioning this got me curious. I went out and shot a one-minute minimovie of my dog romping on a local beach, using my tiny Contax U4R. What a kick! I used the Microsoft movie maker software to edit a bit and add a title. A mini-masterpiece!!

 

I can't imagine using the movie mode for anything terribly serious, but as an occasional diversion it could be a lot of fun.

Doug

[marks]

Hi Katha,

 

Having never felt the urge to go and buy a camcorder, (for which i know i would never have the time to watch everthing over again) I have been thankful for the video mode on my Fuji 602Z.

 

To caputre special moments with my children is priceless.

 

No I would still never watch a full length feature video but having a small clip (normally under 2 mins)I find it great.

 

But as for anything serious with it ...... forget it, but fot the memories stored on my PC........Priceless

 

It's what you use of a feature that makes it worth it (but it's only you that choose to do so)

 

Mark

[katha_chalotorn]

I have to say that I was surprised by the responses. I had thought that this is a photo forum and so most people would find the movie mode unnecessary.

 

My current digital camera is an old Coolpix 4300. It has probably the most basic movie mode possible. I can (but haven't yet) record moving pictures, but there is no sound (i.e., no microphone). I have no problem with this because I don't use its movie mode anyway.

 

I understand the argument for cameras that can do several things. But my point is that at any given price point, a tradeoff will have to be made. If people prefer "bundled" cameras, then let them buy those. For people who don't, currently there's no choice as far as P&S goes unless I want to buy the cheapest, lowest-end one (I may be wrong here as there might be some obscure brand that concentrates just on still pictures.). In other words, I feel like paying for functions that are of no use to me. I'd prefer that manufacturers include one or two models in their product lines that cater to people like me (Are there too few of us to justify that?)

 

I know that I can move on to dSLR. But for several reasons, I'm not yet ready for it.

[douglas_greenberg]

Katha writes:

 

"I have to say that I was surprised by the responses. I had thought that this is a photo forum and so most people would find the movie mode unnecessary."

 

I, in turn, am surprised that Katha would assume that just because people are "photo" enthusiasts they would necessarily eschew the option of *also* being able to shoot the kinds of informal, on-the-fly video clips that these cameras make possible. Isn't video a kind of photography? Hey, there is even a "video" forum here in photo.net.

 

The other underlying assumption I would question is that adding the circuitry and software that enable the video functions adds significantly to the price of a digital camera. I somehow doubt this. My guess is that the engineers discovered that it would be very cheap and easy to enable these cameras to create video clips, and consequently it was something easily added to the feature package of these units.

 

On the other hand, making a *significant* improvement to a digicam zoom lens or improving the digital sensor involve, I would guess, very large r & d expenditures and/or price increases for the camera itself.