Interview with the D700's Desingers

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>"But the bottom line for me, FWIW, is that I don't want video capability in my cameras, and many photographers feel the same. Regardless of whatever arguments that can be concocted for the implementation of video I simply don't need it and don't want it. For those that do, great."</p>

<p>Why should it bother you if video is there and it's buried in the menu system? If you don't want video, then don't use it. Better yet, maybe Nikon will sell a firmware 'upgrade' that removes the menu item for you. Would you be willing to pay and extra $500 for the reduced feature set software? </p>

<p>You can do an awful lot with most Nikon cameras with the external controls.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>Per the interview: "Since SLR cameras can take pictures with a shallower depth of field than compact cameras, if well executed, it should be possible for SLRs to take beautiful videos of professional quality" </em></p>

<p>This statement is100% correct. Video from Canon's 5D Mark II is absolutely spectacular. I wish the D3 had video. Don't want to shoot video with your DSLR that has the feature? Don't push the video button. Like it or not, video is a feature that will likely soon be on every DSLR.</p>

[rossb]

<p>Basically if I am going to buy an expensive item I want to purchase an item that fits my personality and needs. Pop up flash, vidio, live view and that type thing is not what I am interested in. I figure that basically Nikon is moving into an area that I am not interested in. I may find myself moving to a medium format with digital back. I want ISO 50, a wide dynamic range in a high quality camera. I do not want vidio. I do not shoot movies. I have a camcorder already and do not use it. Why buy another one. </p>

[andrewcampbell]

<p>Video on a DSLR is just another creative tool available to us. I don't think people purchase camaras like the D90 for their video capabilities (or lack of them). I certainly didn't. But after two months with this excellent camera, I can certainly see the potential its video offers--that is if you're up to the challenge and utilize all it has to offer.<br>

For those of you who complain about complicated menus and features you never use, why don't you just go back to film? There are so many options available to us these days.</p>

[ken_i_h]

<p>It is interesting to see how many do NOT want video capability in their cameras. It reminds me of the similar debate/ devide between "home theater = multi channel" camp and "2 channel PURE audio" camp among serious audio hobbyists :-) I am in the 2 channel Pure camp.<br>

Seriously, I personally do not think it is really practical to put video capability in those serious dSLRs because it is already too heavy to use like a camcorder, no? I have no idea who really use video capability frequently. Sure, it may be convenient, but can be achieved with COOLPIX line. Well, it may be just me - who still don't understand why there has to be camera in the cell phone :-)<br>

Bottom line for me - As long as the video capability does not compromise the still photo capability, I don't complain. Companies make/sell what the majority of the consumers want. Neither Nikon or I can fight that trend. At least Nikon today makes wonderful products and I am happy with my Nikon equipment.</p>

[cc_chang1]

<p>For those of you who think that video in a DSCR is a waste of resources should read this that I posted a few days ago:</p>

<p>When DSLR first showed up with video capacity, many viewed this as a big waste of feature/money. In the "Lens" section of the New York Times, many PJs started to use these video-capable DSLRs to put together wonderful stories with a combination of still photos and videos. So if you still wonder why such a feature could be useful, go take a look at some of the projects there. For example: <br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/showcase-4/" target="_blank">http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/showcase-4/</a></p>

[rossb]

<blockquote>

<p>For those of you who complain about complicated menus and features you never use, why don't you just go back to film?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is an option to be considered. Since I have film in the fridge already I would not have to go far. But basically I am not complaining about vidio at all. I am just saying I do not want to purchase it. That type of camera has many features I do not wish to have and it lacks features that I do wish to have. Basically I do not want one.</p>

[michael_alger]

<p>I do not use all features i have, and some I probably never will even notice. However, there are features, e.g. such as life view, that turend out to come in quite handy after a while. So even if today, I am not at all interested in video, once I have it I might as well enjoy it.<br>

And for the time being, Nikon can put whatever they want in their cameras, they will certainly not put anything new in my current D700 anyway...</p>

 

[michael_oxford]

<blockquote>

<p>Since we have many years of experience with mechanism design, when we listen to the prototype of a new camera, we generally know what spring is being used by the sound it makes and whether there is still too much vibration.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>anyone else think that is just plain out cool?</p>

<p>also, really, you people need to stop hating the video feature in DSLRs. I went to the HD EXPO @ Navy Pier in Chicago just this week and HALF of the Canon display was 5DII cameras and a single T1i. There was only 1 XL-H1 and XH-G1, and one of their top end consumer camcorders ... but they had 3, yes count them 3 5DIIs with little Sennehiser shotgun mic's mounted on the hot shoe(s) and a whole set of lenses from the 14mm f/2.8L to the 800mm f/5.6. The simple fact of the matter is that for the price, getting a 35mm digital video camera with the ability to use lenses as good as the Canons (not to mention use other mounts like Leica R lenses or even Nikkors) makes cameras like the 5dII some of the greatest all around workhorse cameras of all time.That said, they do need to be refined more, but I think everyone realizes that. Example - you need the ability to record to an external hard drive; dual card slots would be nice in leiu of no external storage, but whatever.Also the autofocus issue - I have ideas about his myself like small "off axis" side mounted mirrors that are used in guiding for astrophotography, but i doubt mechanisims likt ehat would prove very effevtive int he field. ... Anyway, the point is that SLR with video is the future (and this is coming from someone with absolutely zero interest in video).</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Homer, to call video a "feature" seems pretty shallow thinking to me. Video is a different medium altogether, and has its own set of features. I don't mind having features that I won't use on my camera, but where I draw the line is when a still camera becomes a half-baked video camera, a medium I have no interest in. At least still camera features have the possibility of being utilized at some point, but video, to me, is completely worthless, and I simply don't want it on my camera. If it gets to the point where I have no choice, and all cameras have video capability, I don't think it would stop me from purchasing a camera I need, but I just won't like the camera as much. The video capability would always annoy me. This is just my opinion and how I honestly feel, and I don't see that I need to apologize or be attacked for it.</p>

[k_michael]

<p>I just picked one up. It's a great camera. WOW!The exposure meter is phenominal.</p>

[mike mcdermott]

<p>In the UK a second hand F100 costs more than a second hand F5 - by a long way. I think that in years to come the D700 will go the same way and be more desirable than a D3. Sure, lots of pros buy D3's but when these cameras come on to the second hand market, the D700 will command more.</p>

<p>If the next generation have video capability - People who only want a stills camera will keep the price of second hand D700's high. Thats a good thing as it means when I want to sell up, I'll get a good price...!<br /> I picked up a camrea for the first time 18 months ago and shot with manual EM's and FM2's for 12 months and then jumped to a D700. I cant wait for video capability - Photojournalism and social documantary will jump on board straight away. You cant ignore short web based movies for promoting stills projects. Magnum in motion has given us insight into how stills and video will merge closer together over the next couple of years.<br /> News is switching from paper for web based media. Video is coming - like it or not.</p>

[darryl-taylor]

I don't own an expensive DSLR, I'd lke to but at the moment it's just not an option, so I don't have a bias toward a certain set of features that I really must have on a camera. That said; in the future if there was a video/stills hybrid camera that allowed me to shoot action sequences in high quality, and then allowed the extraction of single frames for use as still images (due to a more advanced read/ write system) I'd buy one.

 

Just a thought, but if they keep developing the features along these lines it will eventually happen.

[roypanos]

<p>I haven't read the whole thread.<br>

But, as someone who used to make a living in professional video in the 80's, using broadcast standard ENG cameras for the most part, but directing and editing too, the one factor that is ALWAYS overlooked by amateurs, and seems to be here, is the fact that we've been in the era of talkies for quite a while...<br>

Getting decent sound quality in video shooting is no small difficulty - assuming we're talking about recording "wild" sound of useable quality. A minimal kit of mics to cover even the average newsy shoot involves three or four types and recording at least two channels. And of course you need to monitor and adjust levels, fiddle with placement etc which means wearing cans if you don't have a recordist. There's quite a bit of discussion of af etc in the posts I read but not a mention of SOUND! How exactly is the average DSLR-video production going to deal with this? A Sennheiser 816 zeppelin on top of the D700v?<br>

Roy</p>

[marizu_okereke]

<p>Whilst, I personally would enjoy the option of video in my DSLR, it could be a different story for events journalists. Many events license the video rights separately. I shot at something that the BBC had exclusive video rights for. The marshalls were running around and stopping all of the people trying to video it on their phones!<br>

If DSLR's had video capability, I don't know whether they would have allowed me to use it in the venue despite being the official photographer. The BBC rights were just to valuable for them.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>People who only want a stills camera will keep the price of second hand D700's high. </em></p>

<p>That's extremely unlikely. The successor to the D700 will likely have superior autofocus, superior image quality, better ergonomics etc. Although the D700 is such a nice camera that its price in the 2nd hand market is unlikely to sink like the early DSLRs, there will be better still cameras that come with video and that's what people who can afford a new one will buy. The video doesn't subtract from the camera in any way. Look at the D90: it has one additional control which activates live view (highly useful for precision still photography and especially macro) and also video. The "penalty" in the user interface in this case actually makes it easier to use it as a still camera.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>"Homer, to call video a "feature" seems pretty shallow thinking to me. Video is a different medium altogether,"</p>

<p>Ever hear of convergence?</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_convergence</p>

<p>You must really hate cell phones!</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Robert, I love my BlackBerry Curve 8330, but to me a serious still photography camera is not analogous to a cell phone. Convergence works for me in a cell phone, but it's simply not something I want in my cameras. If I was seriously interested in videography, I would do it the best I could with the best tools available. A serious professional still camera with casual amateur video? Not for me, and I don't want it. For those that do, not to worry, Nikon seems to be fully in your camp.</p>

[mike mcdermott]

<p>We live in an age where people are happy to watch video on their phones or on the internet.</p>

<p>Are most people really interested in the quality of a video if they are prepared to watch it on their phone or on the internet...? How can they be.</p>

<p>Of course video capability in a DSLR wont match the quality that you get from a dedacated system. My point is that it doesn't need to match the quality. The way people view images is changing. 100 dpi images look fine on the internet. So will video from a DSLR.</p>

 

[homer_arment1]

<p>You are absolutely correct Jeffrey. I probably shouldn't have replied to the exact words you used and I'm sorry if you feel that I attacked you personally. I wanted to point out that there are a lot of features on each of the cameras Nikon markets that won't be used by everyone that buys each camera. I will probably never use the video feature except by accident. I didn't expect to use the LiveView feature but now I find it is much easier to use it than to dig out my right-angle finder. I've never used long-exposure noise reduction - I just don't take the kind of images it would benefit. That said, I would rather have a feature available, even though I might never want to use it, than have a camera model fragmented into several subsets with each having various features ''turned off" in the firmware and each costing more because of sales charges and stocking fees, etc. Nikon can stick in as much as they want for me. If I choose not to use it I won't. If I ever do need it I will have it available. </p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Not a problem Homer, I'm just uncomfortable hearing you call video a "feature" when in fact it's an entirely different medium with its own set of features. LiveView is a feature; video is a medium, just as still photography is a medium. And let's get real, if you're going to do some serious video with sound you're not going to use a DSLR with built-in video, so you end up with a serious professional still photography camera/ tool with amateur/ casual video capability. I can see having amateur video available on an amateur consumer camera like the D5000, that makes sense to me. JMO.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p>"How exactly is the average DSLR-video production going to deal with this? A Sennheiser 816 zeppelin on top of the D700v?"</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think a dSLR-video camera will ever replace an ENG camera, at least not in its current form factor, but I have seen examples of creative users jury-rigging dSLR on rails with follow-focus used more like a motion picture camera. There are creative ways to sync separately captured audio in post production.</p>

<p>There's a lot you can do with dSLR video even in its current incarnation and limitations.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>I can see having amateur video available on an amateur consumer camera like the D5000, that makes sense to me. JMO.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, take a look at this:<br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/showcase-4/" target="_blank">http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/showcase-4/</a><br>

and see if that looks amateurish to you. A camera or a camcorder is just a tool that allows us to document our visual experience, and a tool evolves. In this case, once a camera can do live view, the video capacity is already there so implementing it is a natural expansion of feature sets. It seems "unnatural" to me to separate video and still images as two "media," that are not allowed to mingled, and I do not understand what purpose that serves. Up to a few years ago, camcorder and dSLR are separate machines b/c limitation in technology to make a machine that can easily do both. As humans, we capture events both in motion and in still images. Apparently some people quickly see the video feature in their dSLR (in this case it is a Canon 5D Mark II) as a poweful tool for their artistic expression.</p>

[rekfotos]

<p>I think the shutter release will eventually be a thing of the past, like the bow and arrow to the machine gun.</p>

<p>With the ability to isolate the single frames of the video capture, the best image will never be missed...ever. </p>

<p>The frame-per-second rate can only hope to catch up to video. And if it does, what's the point? The improvements in detail and cheap digital storage are increasing together exponentially</p>

<p>Ditto on the 20 yo. wish. If I could do the things I did with digital video...</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>CC/ Edmund, to me, being interested in still images and not video, and a photographer from way back in the film era, I suppose I have difficulty embracing all this change. I enjoy the challenge of trying to capture a decisive moment, or waiting for the light to be just right before releasing the shutter. It's true that you can envision video as a long series of still images, but to me, so what! If still photography evolves into just turning on the video and later selecting still images, it's just not something I'm interested in. I'm not dense or stupid, I can see the possibilities that video represents, and maybe, just maybe, if DSLR video was up to a standard that would render a shutter release obsolete, I might feel differently, but today, I just don't want to be a guinea pig for Nikon's video experimentations, and I'm happy with taking a picture one click at-a-time. JMO. </p>