In defense of video

[steven_oster]

<p>I've been reading some of the critiques of Nikon's video feature in their SLRs, and I find some of the criticism to be unfair, or inaccurate, so I'd like to share my experience.<br>

Over the summer, I've procured an internship at the Houston Chronicle as a photojournalist. One thing that I learned is that newspaper photojournalists are wholeheartedly expected to shoot video as well as still photos for the newspaper website. This was new to me, and whenever I interview someone, they are often puzzled at what the local newspaper is going to do with a video of them. Most of the photographers are kitted with consumer grade camcorders to go along with their pro-grade Canon gear. All that extra gear seems to be a pain when you are expected to get video and stills for an assignment, but the photographers I've worked with are not afraid of carrying tons of gear around. (There are full-time videographers at the Chronicle who use pro-grade video equipment as well).</p>

<p>One of the photographers uses his own 5dMKII, and we came upon a bus on fire. We were both able to quickly shoot video and stills of the fire. His 300mm 2.8 was a lot more powerful than the camcorder zoom, and the video quality is amazing at 1920x1080 30FPS. (That quality never shows on the compressed clips on the website though). </p>

<p>I use a Nikon D90, and have done a few videos for the Chronicle. I feel that it gives great quality for what it is. For me, the weak point is definitely the audio. An input like the 5DMkII, or D300s would be wonderful.<br>

Some of the issues that people have are as follows:<br>

1. Manual exposure: You can lock exposure by going to the info screen and selecting the "AE (hold)" setting. Furthermore, if you use a lens with an aperture ring, you can lock exposure and have full manual control by manipulating the aperture ring. You can also place the "green rectangle" on the face of the person and lock exposure. To me, this is a non-issue.</p>

<p>2. No AF during shooting: For interviews, this isn't important. For tight shots and B-roll, this is still not important. For moving things, I've used manual focus while watching the screen carefully. Focusing slop does show, but post processing can cut to the more accurate seconds that look good. The new D300s can AF, although I've been mostly disappointed with liveview AF speed and accuracy.</p>

<p>3. "Rolling Shutter" artifacts. I think this is more accurately called sensor refresh rate. In real-life, this hasn't been a problem. I've seen some nasty examples, but for my purposes this hasn't been an issue. Most of my stuff is tripod mounted, so I think that helps.</p>

<p>4. D90 has no microphone input. This has been close to a deal-breaker for me. The video tech says that my audio quality is at the lowest they can post to the website. I was tempted to buy a quality voice recorder, and sync the sound in post, but with the D300s, I'd rather get the new camera. The features that seem like fluff to some are just what the doctor ordered for others. Now I can put a lavaliere mic on the interview subject, and get quality voice without the background noise.</p>

<p>5. "Only" 1280x720 24p: For web clips this is more than enough. For a 1080 TV, this may be lacking. Not very many people can see the difference between 24p, and 30p. For my purposes, resolution is great!</p>

<p>6. Video is for amateurs: I argue otherwise. Video is for working pros. In my application, the D90 has been great, and I think the evolution of Nikon's DSLRs will only get better. I like the analogy of how autofocus was snubbed in the F3/F4 era, I think this is the same sort of thing. It's the D3/D4 era!</p>

<p>I'm sure there are some other issues, but those seem to be the most common complaints. I hope my experience is informative.</p>

<p>Everyone likes to see examples, so this is an example of my work. Shot entirely on the D90.</p>

<p>http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/07/templates/listpop.html?bcpid=823433113&bctid=30239025001</p>

 

[dcphotography]

<p>I fully agree with you, I don't get the needless bashing of video.</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>Hi Steven.... Yeah! I agree with you too! I don't bash the video function! I am sure some people can find it useful.<br>

Personally, I bought a video camera back in the 90's. I used it once while visiting Yellowstone and never again. I also have video functions on my cellular for the past 6 years or so... I only used it when I am drunk in bar. So personally I don't like the idea of paying for the video function on a DSLR. I would rather have something else more useful for photography. Like dual cards, etc. But I don't bash it. If it is there... be it! But its not a reason why I would buy a DSLR camera!</p>

[howard_m]

<p>most people can't see beyond their own needs. the purists dont want video functions 'polluting' their still camera lest they feel as though they are being lumped into the Uncle Joe consumer world of cameras. </p>

<p>But it's about the fact that the camera is an image recording device be it still or video. I personally dont have much interest in video but for those that do, how many would settle for the convenience of NOT having to drag a video camera, storage, chargers, batteries, case, etc etc etc in addition to their still camera kit?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Thanks, Steven. As a former journalist myself I figured that video capability built into a dSLR was a no-brainer. Your observations confirmed every argument I've made in favor of video from a dSLR. I doubt the most ardent skeptics and still photography purists will be persuaded but you've clearly described the advantages for those who can use this feature.</p>

[rj]

<p>Sure, video is useful for some, not useful for me because if I want to shoot video I will buy a decent video camera with good zoom, focus, aperture and sound controls and make the video look and sound good.</p>

<p>If I am going to shoot video, I want to shoot a decent video and see the need for riding the exposure, focus and zoom manually to make it look clean. Can you do these things on a dslr? How can the operator manually change the aperture without it being clunky. I guess I am thinking back on my television days when changing the aperture without it looking like you are changing the aperture during a pan or tilt was important. How does this work on a dslr when the lens not only doesn't have a seemless aperture ring but doesn't have an aperture ring at all? I guess crap quality video is all the rage now so its a selling point.</p>

<p>If it doesn't add to the cost of the camera or degrade the photographic quality fine, put it in. But if it does, I don't want it and would be better served with a still camera and a good video camera, probably something that has a zoom ring, manual focus ring and manual aperture ring and an xlr input for audio.</p>

[rj]

<p>I guess what I am really trying to say with my rant above is a video camera that I didn't have real time manual control over the focus, aperture and zoom of the camera lens, the video camera is way too limiting to get excited about. There isn't any way to do camera movements properly, which for me, that is half the fun of video.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Many lenses for Nikons have aperture rings; this shouldn't be a problem, and in most cases those rings allow stepless control. What seems to be an issue is that in video mode, the shutter speed and ISO vary with subsequent changes in the noise level. Does the exposure lock lock the overall exposure or all the three parameters also? Personally I'm used to manual exposure in still photography and would prefer to have it in video also. Because of this omission I haven't made an investment in a DSLR with video yet.<br>

Clips I've seen from Nikons seem to suffer from refresh artifacts when the camera is moved or a substantial part of the image changes. The Panasonic GH-1 appears to have much higher video quality. This camera (not a DSLR but can use interchangeable lenses from various SLR systems) as well the Canon 5D Mk II have manual controls for video. Nikon seems to have a lot of catching up to do though the still capabilities of Nikon DSLRs are nice.<br>

I think it is essential to distinguish between the desirability of DSLR video and the capabilities of the early impementations. Without doubt the problems will be solved. DSLR video has the potential for much richer tonality, better low light image quality, larger dynamic range, access to shallow depth of field and comprehensive lens lines unlike camcorders which have tiny sensors. In a few years I would expect DSLR video to cause major changes in camcorders as the manufacturers of those find themselves needing to offer interchangeable lenses and APS sized sensors.</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>Personally I don't care for video but I don't really understand the purists who refuse to buy a camera with video. I'm capable of simply not using the feature. I've never used the full auto mode on my D70 but I'm not bothered by its addition.</p>

<p>My biggest problem with video on a DSLR is that you have to use the rear LCD to compose. One of the major benefits of still shooting with an SLR is bracing the camera against the eye to help stabilize the system. It makes me cringe when I see someone using live view on their new DSLR holding the camera at arms length instead of using the optical viewfinder. I've used consumer level ($800) camcorders and after using the flip out LCD for 20 minutes I realized that I get much more stable video using the electronic viewfinder. Steven says he uses a tripod so for that the rear LCD should work fine. Tripod shooting is the only time I use live view on my D3 for stills. </p>

<p>As for manual controls, I don't see how it makes a difference whether you use an aperture ring or the front command dial. Either one is going to introduce about the same amount of camera shake unless you have attachments to adjust them like movie set focus pullers etc. The Nikon video adjusts exposure by changing the ISO. Canon recently had a 5D Mk II firmware upgrade that allows more manual controls for video.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>i was in photojournalism in my film days so i welcome the arguments/points of steven; lex's followup and of course nikon's introduction of this feature. the D90 has replaced my D40/D70s as my everyday-carry camera now ------------ because of the video feature. you'll never know what you can capture in video.</p>

 

[rossb]

<p>I do not want vidio but I am not bashing it either. I think it will be very useful to many people and a good marketing plan for the camera companies. I am not going to purchase one. However I do want a native ISO 100 and a wider dynamic range in a camera. I will wait for that and in the meantime I am going to explore other photographic interests besides shopping.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Ross, for awider dynamic range & native ISO 100, the camera already exists; the D3X.</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Maybe Nikon/ Canon/ et.al. could make available stand alone amateur-quality DSLR video cameras for the small percentage of photographers that absolutely need that medium instead of saddling everyone with something that only a small percentage truly need? Like Obama's health reform proposal, do we need socialized photography too?</p>

[rj]

<p>Shooting video is a much different discipline than shooting still photography and I just don't see how the current dslr and lenses could be adapted all that well for it. I actually could see a video camera being adapted to still photography over a dslr adapted to video, at least in my mind that would be the logical and easier progression and give the creative brain behind the lens a better tool.</p>

<p>I understand the need or want of having both for some people, and I can see a photographer making good use of video and stills in the same camera, but just don't see the implementation of video in dslrs as that great of a technological leap because its so crude. When I shot video, zooming in or out while racking focus and at the same time changing aperture, all fluidly and steadily, was something that was done a lot (afterall, camera movements are a staple and frankly imho essential to good video) and I do not see how you can performe that same task with a dslr, unless you are relying on some form of auto exposure/auto focus that actually gets it right. To me, that is a big failing in a video camera. If the technology gets to a point where that is possible, hey great.</p>

[bsd230]

<p>If they want to give me the feature I'll take it. I can see how it would be an interesting feature. I am definitely more concerned with still image quality, but I think there is a place for it. I would imagine it is a papparazzi's dream. Just watching some of the things they did on Nikon's web site with the video option makes it intriguing.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I don't understand why you would use zoom during the taking of a clip. It looks awkward. What you do is move the camera with a crane or a dolly and without zooming, right? Well, I know very little about filmmaking so maybe someone can correct me.</p>

[rj]

<p>A crane or dolly are ways to move the camera, which look different than zooming. Watch some tv closely and you will see cameras zooming all the time. <br>

A basic head shot interview scenario with camera on a tripod you would be zooming to change framing during the interview fairly frequently. Get your wide shot chest high, if subject starts talking all intimate or whatever, slowly zoom into the face. The trick is to make it look like its not really happening. Or for instance, you shoot news and you get to a car accident scene. One shot you know you want is to start on the shoe that is lying in the gutter in the shade and tilt up to the wreckage farther off in the distance that is in the sunlight. While you are tilting and panning, you are going to be zooming, racking focus and changing your aperture so the sunlit scene isn't blown out. </p>

<p>Anyway, camera movements like this are going on all the time in video, tv, film, whatnot. Changing focus, changing focal lengths, changing aperture, changing camera location are all things that can be done real time during a shot that add to the creative aspect of a video production. A dslr that has video capability is pretty limited in this regard, which is why if I were going to shoot video, I would use a capable video camera with manual focus, motorized zoom and stepless manual aperture ring on a decent fluid head. With the mini dv cams on the market, you can get into some a very quality video camera for not a lot of cash outlay. What the camera engineers need to do is find a way of making those cameras shoot stills like a D300 and then you would have a kick butt system for both formats.</p>

[waltflanagan]

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe Nikon/ Canon/ et.al. could make available stand alone amateur-quality DSLR video cameras for the small percentage of photographers that absolutely need that medium instead of saddling everyone with something that only a small percentage truly need? Like Obama's health reform proposal, do we need socialized photography too?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How exactly is everyone being saddled with video? I've used a D90 before. The video feature didn't get in my way at all so I can't see how I was saddled with anything. If you mean that we have to pay for something we don't use then I think your idea of a "stand alone amateur quality DSLR video camera" would cost even more to develop. Let's assume that 5 engineers worked on adding video to the D90. It would take a team of 20 or more to design the video camera you are talking about. If you think that those 5 video engineers end product (video) is completely useless then I could say the same thing about the entire Coolpix line. Nikon should stop making crappy point and shoot cameras. Either make a good one or assign all those people to making better DSLRs.</p>

[matroskin]

<p>from reading just a few posts where people express their dislike of video, its very clear that they have a very narrow minded view of video. you don't even have to be a photojuornalist to apreciate the feature - just travel. i wish i had a video option when i was taking <a href="http://www.kostyanakazny.com/India_animals/India_animals.htm">these photos</a> or <a href="http://www.kostyanakazny.com/Peru_Rural/peru_rural.htm">here in Peru</a> . alas, it was just before nikon introduced d90. it won't be long before i get it.<br>

right now i'm working for youth organization and we do all kinds of events that are technology based and have to record both stills and video. in short there are all kinds of applications for video in DSLR camera. thank god it bacame avalable so soon. </p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Walt, to me it is being "saddled" merely because I don't want it on my cameras, and it would bug me knowing it's there. It's a different medium, not just a feature, and I'm a photographer only, not a photographer/ videographer. Again, to me, it's not about the cost of implementing this other medium on a still camera, I just don't want it on my cameras. Period.</p>

<p>And Kostya, how is someone "narrow-minded" by knowing the exact tools he needs to do his work, and not wanting a tool he doesn't need?</p>

<p>How about creating a new category of camera: the "DVSLR" and keeping photographers who know what they want out of the equation entirely?</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>I read a Poynter Institute study that said journalism schools were about to stop granting degrees to students without basic video and video-editing skills.</p>

<p>I've also read that some newspaper/TV combos shoot most of their reportage (not yet sports) stills with video and many shoot occasional broadcast/online video with DSLRs. BBC routinely uses cellphone video. The "better" newspapers and magazines all have online versions and most of them have occasional videos.</p>

<p>Slides are dead, just in case nobody's noticed. </p>

<p>Surely more huge TV monitors are sold daily than slide projectors are sold in a year. Just looking at retail outlets, I'd guess far more of those huge TVs are sold than all photo printers combined...amusingly, some amateur camera owners claim they're doing photography without printing, so you can bet they'll go to video soon (and P.N will inevitably have video Galleries). </p>

<p>Those big monitors look great with stills, even in relatively brightly-lit environments (reception areas in offices, galleries etc). I notice them in spaces that never hung big photo prints.</p>

[sd_woods]

<p>The reason I don't like video on a DSLR is because I have no need for it, yet must pay for it anyway if I want the camera. If I wanted to video things I wouldn't have bought a still camera. I would like it if you could buy the camera for X price with video, and say, X-90 without video.<br>

I don't think people hate video or think it amateur, they just don't want to pay for it when they're not even going to use it.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The video feature might actually work to reduce the price of the camera, as it makes it attractive to a larger audience and this increase in sales volume pushes prices down. The video as it is now is just live view data feed written onto a memory card. Probably required very little effort to implement. If it is to be made competitive with mid or high end video cameras then it'll of course require a substantial effort and this isn't easiest for Nikon as they're a new player in video, with Canon, Sony, Panasonic et al. as competitors who all have a video camera business of their own.</p>

<p>You need to start thinking about the fact that the broader the applicability of the product, the cheaper it is to the end user. And the fact is that the newspaper photographers must have this functionality; would you prefer that they have to use another camera than a Nikon? If Nikon weren't competing in DSLR video they could say good by to PJs as customers, which would probably also kill all professional camera development by Nikon. Think about what you want and what the probable consequences for having your way would be.</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>A few weeks ago I was at a nature reserve listening to a pack of wolves howl. I could not take any worthwhile shots from where I was positioned, but everyone around me was going "quickly take a movie". I was like so..... sad.... Wish I had a digital camera with a movie capture mode :(<br>

And I don't see how putting or not putting in a movie feature would make the price of the camera any different... it's not like anyone but Nikon is setting the price....<br>

The D300s looks damned awesome. I will definitely pick one up once its replacement arrives in like 2-3 years :) In the meantime, I'm looking forward to getting a used D300 in a few months.<br>

Alvin</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p><em>"Walt, to me it is being "saddled" merely because I don't want it on my cameras, and it would bug me knowing it's there."</em><br /><em></em><br>

<br />That's got to be one of the most stupid statements ever. So, every feature of your DSLR that you don't use bugs you? Yeah, I know what you mean... someone offered me a free 800mm f5.6 so I chased them. I knew I'd never use it so it would bug me knowing I've got it at home. Good grief!</p>

<p>What do you do with your car? It came with a cigar lighter and you don't smoke so you took an axe to the dashboard?</p>

<p>C'mon man. If you're that touchy I'm surprised you own a camera at all.</p>

<p>On a more serious note, I have the Canon 5D MkII and although I didn't buy it for the video function I do use it occasionally. Those of you who bash it and say a consumer video camera would be better... I don't doubt it. But how much would you have to spend to match the quality of the true 1080p HD video of the camera? Especially in low light... the 5D2 video quality is truly awesome. Yeah, it's not perfect and although it now has full manual control over aperture, shutter speed and ISO there's still a few things it could do with.</p>

<p>Hell, if the video was so bad can you explain to me why many scenes of the latest Harry Potter movie were filmed using the 5D2 coupled with Panavision lenses? Or can you explain why virtually the entire Iron Man movie was also shot with the 5D2? Big budget movie studios didn't pick up the 5D2 for fun... they chose it because it was the best tool for the job. It's low light filming capability is actually groundbreaking.</p>

<p>When all DSLRs come with a video function as standard are all you video bashers going to give up photography altogether? or stick with your old DSLRs from yesteryear? Or are you going to swallow your pride and get with the times even if you don't shoot video?</p>

<p>It's here, it's happening, it's good... get over it!</p>