Who else would like HD video on a Canon DSLR

[PuppyDigs]

"What's wrong with you all? Of course you would use the video-on-DSLR feature of the D90. Why? Because it's there!"

 

Ah dunno, I have it in mah point 'n shoot and have yet to use it even once after 2 years. I don't mind if it's there as long as

I don't have to pay extra and I don't lose more useful stuff like DEP and ECF. I just won't ever turn it on...

[andy_witkowski]

I'd wait till you can extract a 10mp image out of a 24fps clip. That is where the true intersection of video/still would be.

 

Given that, there is already supposedly a hack for the 40D that will capture video (no sound of course)

http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/40D

[kris-bochenek]

When I bought my D80 friend asked me if it takes video I told him no then he told me why would you want to pay $800 for something that doesn't take videos?

I said that I don't really care about video mode on DLSR nor it's ability or inability to bake cookies, do the dishes or fly an aricraft.

It seems these days like everyone wants all that stuff packed into small devices maybe soon they will come out with cameras that will tell us what to eat and when to sleep :-)

Technology progresses so fast that soon the DSLR will be the size of a computer mouse and will project 3D photos.

back to the point I don't think DSLR should come with either live view or video mode.

JMHO

[Not Here]

Some people think a cell phone is a camera too. I would expect that level of user would love to have an all in one vid/cam, but they would still wonder "why doesn't my picture look like yours".

[georg_langs]

I disagree with those, that see this as a bells&wistles thing (like Bob):

 

The movie mode on the D90 is spectacular. The reason however is not, that you have a DSLR and a video camera in one body, and take short movies during vacation. The groundbreaking novelty is that it gives you video recording capabilities, that where on the 20k+ side before the D90. (a digi-video cam doesn't come close to this)

- a n almost full frame sensor (which is huge in the video world),

- access to excellent lenses,

- a look like movie, with shallow depth of field.

- noone cares about the sound, because its recorded seperately anyway

- noone cares about the 5 minute restriction

 

I think the impact of this feature will not be in the classic DSLR market. The impact will be in the indy-film market. For 2k you can now buy the package, instead of renting it for at least the same price for a few days.

 

So no, the D90 will not kill photography, it will hurt Arri, Panavision, probably RED, and for sure small movie equipment rental companies, who will have to come up with something new quickly.

[ed_v.]

I'm all for Canon putting video in a dSLR as long as they also include a flip-out screen so I can use it to frame still

shots in live view...

[evphotography]

I think that having video on a DSLR is probably not a big deal to most people, but then some people might really like it or use it. Have to remember these companies want to sell more cameras and if adding little things like that will sell more, then why not. Now if they stop putting in features that still photographers want, then leave it out. But I don't think you will see other useful features omitted because of the video mode.

 

I also hear lot of people mentioning that live view is like that, they don't use it and so leave it out, gimmick. Well please remember there are lot different buyers out there with different needs. Myself after owning the 40D now for about year, as a landscape photographer I find the live view one best new features they could have added and wouldn't probably consider having a camera without it. If you shoot landscapes and use a tripod like I do about 99% of time, then try live view it is awesome. Focusing now with my TS-E lenses has never been easier or more of a joy with live view. Especially with the new models coming out with high resolution screens. I also like to check my composition my with live view, viewing the image on a 3" LCD I think is way easier to get my composition just perfect and seeing the way the camera will capture it WB, exposure, etc. is a awesome. Another example, while I was in Death Valley at Zabriski point shooting the wind was blowing pretty good. I had my 70-200mm lens on and was using my Gitzo series 3 tripod. Well it looked like my lens wasn't moving at all and I was ok, but when I put it in live view and magnified it 10x, I couldn't believe how much the lens was shaking from the wind. So I stabilized the tripod until the lens stopped shaking and got the shot. Without knowing the affects of the wind I would have gotten blurry image, so it saved me on that one.

 

So until you explore all the uses of live view you might want to be little less critical of those new features most people think are useless. Outdoor photographer magazine not to long ago had an article on the new live view in the DSLR's and pointed out all things I have mentioned here, try using it like a mini view camera, you might be surprised how useful it can be. Sure it eats up battery power, but batteries are fairly cheap and having about 2-3 backups will take care of that problem.

 

So the point is that even though up front might it might look like these new features are pretty much useless, remember there are lots and lots of other photographer out there that might find these new features kind of nice and useful.

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>I don't think DSLR should come with either live view or video mode</i>

<p>

I've found that live view is excellent for tripod-based precision work. With no other method can you get

this kind of focus accuracy and consistency. Focus on actual pixels of the image recorded by the primary sensor

instead of just looking at a low-magnification viewfinder image (which may be off relative to the sensor).

<p>

Among other things, live view helps with setting the tilt and focus on tilt/shift lenses accurately as you can

zoom all the way in to see the pixel level detail.

<p>

I know several professionals who take advantage of this feature routinely. Since it doesn't handicap the

camera in any way, I would let the users decide what features they need on their DSLRs.

<p>

 

I don't use live view for hand-held shooting nor all my tripod work, but when the focus needs to be just right

then it's the tool for the job, and nothing else comes close.

<p>

BTW. the Sony implementation reportedly uses a secondary sensor for live view and doesn't allow these benefits.

[tdigi]

I guess this is the nature of every electronic gizmo SLR's included ( Ipods, cell phones, PSP's, Point and shoots etc ) all

do more then the 1 thing they are truly designed as. I agree as long as it does not take the place or limit the cameras ability

to shoot stills I am all for it.

 

Its also funny that people want 5, 6, 7 etc frames per second but don't want video. I must admit I thought wow thats so

cool at first but there is something kinda cheesy about it. like its a gimmick but I am sure I would use it from time to time,

especially for vacation.

[evphotography]

I just want to second what Ilkka said, when it comes to precise focusing there is nothing out there that comes close to the advantages of live view. If you shoot landscapes and use a tripod, just try using the live view you might be surprised how useful it can be.

[anders_carlsson]

When I used my old video (DV) camera the other day I was struck by how well it handled high-contrast situations. It

rarely blows highlights under normal, everyday conditions. That makes me think that photographic camera sensors

will have to develop a bit further along those lines -- I am talking about dynamic range (again) -- to be really useful for

video capture. And that, incidentally, is something I would welcome a lot more than a video feature as such.

[matroskin]

as many people said, this is just the beginning, the first test, sort of speak. it will be advanced very rapidly and will have all those functions everybody's talking about. it's definitely useful for travel people, especially amateurs like me who like to get into weird places and situations. <br>KN

[dalayo]

I think this may work like TV & VHS integrated... usefull? maybe the first month!

[mark u]

This is the CANON forum. If you wish to discuss the capability of the NIKON D90, there is a different forum for that.

[vikneshn]

It is marketing... as this would pull the attention of the P&S users who already have this feature... it is something

akin to the face recognition feature that some DSLR have nowadays.

Nothing about the capabilities of the DSLR.

 

Nikon is playing it well I guess.

 

Big big chances are that the rest will follow suit.

[tdigi]

So will CANON put video into future DSLR's?

[mark u]

You know the answer to that is yes. There will be two major strands: in Rebel class bodies to compete with P&S models, and in a pro body for photojournalists (and maybe even wedding photo/videographers). Mind you, there is already the ability to use EF mount lenses on professional C-mount video cameras complete with programmable focus and aperture operation, although you still have to pull zoom):

 

http://www.birger.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=ef232_home

 

Of course, release timing of such cameras is far from certain.

[hashim a]

it feels *gimmicky*...

[alfred_mathis1]

Just my 2 cents, but it seems that more and more the DSLR market is driven by what the P&S people are clamoring

for. Live View would be nice in situations where you have to hold the camera above, below, or outside of your

line of sight, say in a crowd situation, but that's about the only use I really see for it. I see so many people

using the viewing screen on their p&s cameras getting shaky/blurry images and then complaining about them. Give

me a viewfinder and a camera pulled into your body for stability any day. I get asked on occasion how much my 5D

cost followed by, "Does it do video?" Then I get the puzzled look and the next question is, "WOW! You paid that

much money and it doesn't even do video?" Makes me want to scream. LOL! Maybe I should start telling them it

doesn't do email or text or make calls either. I bought it to take pictures. The advent of the digital camera

has made photography almost TOO mainstream. People on the lower end want a camera that does everything no matter

how poorly. They just want convenience. I have always been of the opinion that devices that do everything

generally don't do any of it very well.

Video on a still camera is just another ridiculous feature that will see little or no use. It's just not practical.

[tdigi]

Alfred I understand and agree with most of your points but who says the video quality will be bad? I have a Digital Elph

point and click that shoots video that rivals my first digital video camera that I paid $1000 for years ago. I would expect

HD from an SLR to be a least a step up from any point and click so why not put the feature in the Rebels or even the

40/50D series. I do not see this in the more pro grade cameras for the same reason you don't see a pop up flash.

 

Also, I would not ever expect to have an SLR play MP3's or take calls but video and photo are closely related.

I think the fact that it would be HD video makes it more appealing.

[matthias_meixner2]

Live view alongside a magnification function of the image is very nice to have if you have to precisely focus manually, e.g. for astrophotography. Considering astrophotography you do not have much other options: Focusing dim objects on the focusing screen is difficult and autofocus does not work with telescopes. Without live view all you can do is to shoot a series of test shots to analyze focus.

[craig_shearman1]

Regardless of picture quality and features, the problem with combining video and stills in the same camera is that video and stills are two different art forms with very different ways of working. It ranges from the way you hold the camera to what you shoot and so many other factors. Still photography is largely about the decisive moment, and one image frozen in time can be a finished product unto itself (once it finds its way onto the printed page or a photographic print on the wall, etc.) One good shot in video is just one of many dozens, hundreds or thousands of shots that make up a finished product. And video is a multidisciplinary collaborative art of scriptwriting, photography, lighting, sound, on-screen talent, editing, etc. The bottom line is that your head is just in a totally diffeent place when you go out as a videographer than where it is as a photographer. At least if you're talking about doing either on a professional level. If you just want to take still and video snapshots I guess that's another story.

[j_smith6]

Some people want both: video AND pictures on their wedding taken by ONE person. And there are photographers

who do it. I don't know about results of doing both at once but it makes me wonder... if there was such function you

could take pictures and make video at once and overall effect would be a lot better. You could stop the video for few

seconds take some pictures and continue on filming. I know that such combination doesn't make a lot of sense but if

there are people who want to hire such person on their wedding and if photographers could earn more money

because of that... then I say: why not? It would be nice if there was such function - for some people camera is just a

tool to earn money. Video function (provided that video is good quality) would let them earn more so it's not a useless

function.

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>The bottom line is that your head is just in a totally diffeent place when you go out as a videographer than where it is

as a photographer. </i>

<p>

I completely agree - well coined. But people can be trained to do both, and professional level competence in both will be

expected of journalists in the future.

<p>

My interest in the DSLR movie feature doesn't come from the fact that they put both in one box - that's generally a bad

idea because it clutters the user interface. If reasonably priced video cameras had decent size sensors and

interchangeable specialized lenses, I would consider them. But there aren't any, so a new player has to come in and shake up the market

until S/C/P realize that there are people who don't have tens of thousands to spend but want large sensors and interchangeable lenses.

[lmwalker]

If they add a can opener too, I can't say that I would never use it, but I sure wouldn't want to pay extra for it, or have it

get in the way of what I really want to do.