Tell me why ?

[rashedahmed]

<p>Both Canon & Nikon put two interesting features in their cameras. One is HD video and the other is high ISO.I put my questen here from a professional point of view & I expect that professionals/knowledgable persons will answer these questions.<br>

1) Why do a professional photographer need a HD video in his/her DSLR ?<br>

2) Why on earth ( if not in moon) a pro need 25,600 ISO in his/her DSLR ?</p>

[jarle_aasland]

<p>Easy:<br>

1) Video has become a must-have feature for photo journalists covering breaking news (for web publication).</p>

<p>2) Again, high ISO is needed by photo journalists, often working under extreme conditions with little or no light (and no, you can't always use a flash)</p>

 

[matt_needham]

<p>1) I don't believe there is HD video in any of the cameras Nikon or Canon would consider their pro lines, yet. This is trickle up technology. Video has been a feature in compact digital cameras for years; now they are including it in entry/mid-level DSLRs too. Why does a pro need it? Even if they aren't selling video services to their clients I can see how it might be handy for self promotion. I'm a wedding photographer who only offers still photography, but when I get one of those fancy HDV DSLRs I may offer some short videos too. A lot of folks want their ceremony on video.</p>

<p>2) You don't need ISO 25,600 on the moon because it is brightly lit by sunlight. High ISO comes in handy indoors when you'd rather not use flash. I regularly shoot in areas that require 1/30 @ f/1.4 @ ISO 3200. I'd love to have the option of 1/125th @ f/2 @ ISO 25,600. Right now the quality may be questionable for some, but that is going to improve.</p>

 

[michael_oxford]

<p>The question really has to be asked why you wouldn't want these features? While video is somewhat redundant, especially with a CMOS based camera, ISO25600 is not, especially if you've ever tried to do sports/fast action in low light. The problem at that point becomes if the cameras AF system will work in light that low.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>People are going to expect video. If they have to choose between doing a month of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_President's_Men">research to type out one paragraph</a>, or <a href="

a video of whatever's available</a> , they'll <a href="

the video</a>. News-wise, it'll be faster. It's expected. I don't personally think it is intrinsically superior; but, equipment features are about sales. That's part of what the customers want.</p>

<p>ISO 25,600: trying to make up for lack of flash with high sensitivity. While the results are almost always worse than they would be if people used the correct amount of light, there is still a push for higher sensitivity. There is such a push for higher sensitivity in digital cameras, that there is a huge area of opportunity in lower sensitivities. Want to use your lenses and shutter in a way that would be appropriate for 32ASA? Good luck.</p>

<p>Let's face it: even night vision goggles are not good enough for some people. [i'm limited to xx kilometers per hour! I want to drive 100 mph in total darkness! These night vision goggles are no good!]</p>

<p>In a way, some of this is about chasing a statistic that could get another sale. In another, it could be turned to good use.</p>

[rashedahmed]

<p>Ok,I don't need HD video & high ISO options.Maybe photo journalists need them. So, why should I pay more for which I am not going to use ? Can they make a non-photo journalists version ?</p>

 

[michaeljlawson]

<p>Why do you think you will be paying more? Is the new 5D more expensive than the original was? Is the T1i more expensive than the XTi was....the answer is no, they are not.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Rashed: it is <em>less</em> expensive for the manufacturers to make more of one version than it is to make two slightly different versions - two that differ only in the fact that they've switched off a feature in software, or hidden the higher ISO choices in the menu. If they make two slightly different products, they have to market them separately, produce separate documentation and web content, stock them separately, deal with different packaging, clueless buyers who bought the wrong one and think something's wrong or missing, product reviews full of caveats distinguishing between the two sibling products, and so on.<br /><br />If they can remove all of that costly extra overhead by making a D90 that has video you can ignore, instead of a D90 and a D90NV (with "no video") then they are more able to compete, on price, with other makers. The result is a <em>less</em> expensive camera in that general class, not a more expensive one. Economies of scale are real, and when companies compete, you win. You can also just ignore that video feature until you wake up one morning and realize that you actually have a reason to shoot a brief bit of HD video using your lovely fast prime lens with all of that gorgeous bokeh ... you never know.<br /><br />I don't use the cigarette lighter in my vehicle, either. But I'm very glad that in the process of purchasing the vehicle, we didn't have to make a sales decision about whether it was installed, and thus slow down the process. Actually, I <em>did</em> use it to melt the frayed end on a piece of nylon rip cord from a camera bag once ... so there we go!</p>

[dkm]

<blockquote>

<p>The question really has to be asked why you wouldn't want these features?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Because I'm never going to use them? Especially the video ...</p>

<p>Henry Ford sold cars in any color people wanted - as long as it was black. That gave way as other makers came online though. Companies competed on value, price, and features, and the consumer benefited.</p>

<p>The idea that it's cheaper for manufacturers to make one model instead of two is valid to a point but ignores the marketplace. One size never fits all. Business is founded on giving the consumer what they want - high end, low end, features, status, whatever - not forcing the consumer to take what's given and they'd better darn well like it. Competition is free market economy at its finest.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>So, why should I pay more for which I am not going to use ? Can they make a non-photo journalists version ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, as has already been pointed out to you, you're not paying more. Nikon D90 with video launched at the same price as Nikon D80. Canon 5D II with video launched $500 lower than the original Canon 5D. D90 and 5D II have better high ISO performance than their predecessors. It would cust more to split off a variant camera without those features.</p>

<p>Even if you don't use video, it is a technology driver. The technology that gave the camera video capability also improved its still photography capability in many ways:</p>

<ul>

<li >

<p >Cooler running sensors and electronics. A video camera needs to run the sensor for minutes at a time, 24 frames a second or more, with the processor churning away to compress that video, and the display running full time. Figure out how to do that, and you've got a cooler, quieter sensor for long exposures (10 second exposures for "cotton candy" waterfalls, minute or hour long exposures for anything from night scenes to astrophotography).</p>

</li>

<li >

<p >Better power management. Five minutes of video is 7,200 exposures. Figuring out how to do that is a step toward figuring out how to do thousands of still exposures on a charge.</p>

</li>

<li >

<p >Better (faster, quieter, more accurate) auto focusing. Video AF can't focus, overshoot, focus again, overshoot, and have a subject fading constantly in and out of focus. It has to lock, quickly, and accurately. And, to keep the AF motor whine from appearing on the soundtrack, we're seeing the first appearance of really silent AF lenses.</p>

</li>

<li>

<p >Faster, higher resolution liveview processing. For a serious macro or product shooter, liveview is somewhere between "must have" and "God send". Pre-video liveview, like my D3, does under 20 frames/sec at 640x480. Cameras with HD video do liveview at 720p (1280x720) or 1080p (1920x1080) at 24 or 30 frames/sec. And that's today, in a couple of years, we should be seeing some of the "high temporal resolution" video capabilities, 60fps or faster.</p>

</li>

<li>

<p >Better exposure metering and white balance. Photographs exist in small numbers, and are generally treated one at a time. White balance can be tweaked. With raw files, even exposure can be tweaked after the image is shot. with video, one doesn't usually have that luxury. Exposure and WB have to be both more accurate to start with. And they have to be more consistent from frame to frame, or you get flickering.</p>

</li>

<li >

<p >Flash memory writing. Whatever you do to a camera to make the CF or SD writing reliable at video rates makes for a camera that buffers and writes still images more efficiently. So, for the wedding shooter or sports shooter doing high resolution stills, the buffer clears faster, and there's less chance of being stuck swearing at a full buffer when something needs to be shot.</p>

</li>

</ul>

<p>Now, as far as high ISO, that's pretty much the same thing. I'm not a photo journalist, and I find it very useful. The same technology that gives a PJ an ISO 25,000 image useful for reportage gives you:</p>

<ul>

<li >

<p >Better shadow detail at low ISO. That's a boon to everyone from landscape to portrait. Even in a studio at ISO 100 with strobes, there will be more detail in dark hair and clothing.</p>

</li>

<li >

<p >Less noise in long exposures, which is useful to people doing night shots, long exposure nature (cotton candy waterfalls, etc)</p>

</li>

<li >

<p >ISO 1600 shots good enough for a wedding album. More available light work at weddings, and better blends of fill flash and available light.</p>

</li>

<li>

<p >Shorter exposures and more keepers for my candlelight portraits at ISO 1600.</p>

</li>

</ul>

<p>In other words, the people who whine about "why are they putting money into new feature X when I want Y and Z instead" don't typically realize that X is giving them Y and Z.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[not forcing the consumer to take what's given and they'd better darn well like it.]]</p>

<p>Who is forcing you to use camera features you don't want to use?</p>

 

[jim_momary]

<p>When I started out in electronics, we had voltmeters, ohmmeters, oscilloscopes, oscillographs, waveform generators, waveform analyzers, signal generators, power supplies, spectrum analyzers, chart recorders and etc. The gear filled several workbenches.<br>

<!-- [if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!-- [endif]--><br>

Today all that, plus oodles more, is done by one PC with the appropriate D-A and A-D cards (analog/digital). If I need 5 instruments, I simply use 5 programs that simulate their function. The software let’s you ‘custom’ build whatever instrument you wish with some simple coding. PCs are almost given away with Dunkin Donuts, so memory and storage space is cheap. No reason to go backward.<br /> <!-- [if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!-- [endif]--><br>

This is what’s generically referred to as ‘convergence’, wherein various disparate things are melded into one thing. The analogy is your cell phone which is a phone, a camera, an ipod, a voice recorder and an internet tool, all in your shirt pocket. (Albeit with 450 buttons per square inch that needs a toothpick to use effectively)<br>

<!-- [if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!-- [endif]--><br>

Convergence is cheaper to offer; one part sits on the self awaiting the purchaser. The massive amount of physical equipment inventory is replaced by silicon micro-electronic space and some programming.<br>

<!-- [if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!-- [endif]--><br>

Jim</p>

 

[photomark]

I don't have much need for video, but I can understand why someone who needs short video clips would rather not carry

around another device and another set of glass.

 

For me the high ISO performance fundamentally changes the way I can shoot. You can make a much different kind of shot

if you can avoid flash in low light conditions, especially when you want to capture the environment around the subject. It is

often impractical to light the entire scene so with flash you end up lighting just the subject and lose the ambient light in the

surroundings or you drag the shutter and get blurred backgrounds—not always bad, but more options allow for more

creative choices. I have a couple examples of recent shots here that would not have been possible without good high ISO

performance: http://www.photo-mark.com/notes/2009/jul/06/ambient-heaven/

[hjoseph7]

<p>"Easy:<br />1) Video has become a must-have feature for photo journalists covering breaking news (for web publication)."<br>

====================================<br>

Well I don' t know there are so many hand holdable camcorders out there that provide excellent image quality, are easier to handle, do not hog up your flash-card, have swivel preview features, can run longer and are excellent at capturing images in very dim light.<br>

I would find it hard to beleive if a photographer told me that taking videos with his 5D is just as easy as taking videos with a camcorder, I mean they would have to have some pretty big hands, or a tripod.<br>

However, if I was a Nature photographer on Safari and I ran accross a lioness with her new born cubs, then I could slap the 400mm lens, or the 300mm f2.8(just dreaming of course) and capture that scene on video. This is when the video feature on the Canon would come in handy !<br>

As far as ISO of 24600+, I think that is just simply overkill, IMHO. Why would I want to take a picture at night and make it look as if it was day ? Instead of high ISO I would rather have more focusing points, bettter weather sealing, wider latitude, an extra slot for a flash-card etc. I spent allot of money for my flash and allot of time on learning how to use it, so I dont mind carrying it with me once in a while. <br>

</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Jarle said it all in the first reply. These are features <em>needed</em> by electronic journalists, which include independent journalists and bloggers. These are not just desired features, not at all superfluous, but essential features for that specific niche.</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>

 

 

<p>1) Why do a professional photographer need a HD video in his/her DSLR ?<br>

They don't. OTOH what Nikon or Canon professional DSLR has that feature? <br>

2) Why on earth ( if not in moon) a pro need 25,600 ISO in his/her DSLR ?<br>

That is really not so much a "feature". At least not a "new feature". It is merely an expansion of an existing "feature". Since a photograph depends on four factors focus, aperture, shutter speed and ISO. In order to achieve the highest focus you require either a small aperture, a fast shutter speed or a clean sensor for the highest ISO. So when a camera manufacturer gives us more definition in high ISO it is a good thing. A professional photograph can also use it.</p>

 

 

 

</p>

[alan_ginman]

<p>"Instead of high ISO I would rather have more focusing points, bettter weather sealing, wider latitude, an extra slot for a flash-card etc."</p>

<p>And if someone made a camera offering these features someone would write into Photonet asking why they have to pay for features like those that they don't need!</p>

<p>Regards</p>

<p>Alan</p>

[dkm]

<blockquote>

 

<p>[[not forcing the consumer to take what's given and they'd better darn well like it.]]<br>

Who is forcing you to use camera features you don't want to use?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I have to deal with cluttered menus. (I'm not a huge fan of menus anyway once they get a certain number of levels deep - it's a well known design problem in software circles.) I have to deal with buttons and modes with more crammed onto them resulting in smaller print and increments. And I have to deal with potentially buggy software, since the more complicated it becomes, the greater the chance something will "fall through" given a particular combination.</p>

<p>When I recently upgraded my dSLR it went from 1 line of information in the viewfinder to 2. (It has live view, I happen to loathe it.) I've got tons of new, superfluous info I don't use, and I can barely read it. It might as well not be there. I also got a slew of new modes - but I've been a photographer for years going back to film days and will never use them. To say nothing of a slew of digital filters for use with jpeg only. Silly me, I shoot raw.</p>

<p>I think the real bottom line is that the customer is still the customer. It may be cheaper for the manufacturer, but that's false economy - make enough of anything and different models are efficient. Cram a bunch of stuff in for people who don't know how to shoot or post process and at some point the camera is no longer a joy to use - it's an obstacle course.</p>