In defense of video

[rj]

<p>Do you have a link or some info page where these feature movies were shot using a 5d2? I find that really fascinating.</p>

<p>I tell you, if they made a dv cam with full manual controls of focus, motorized zoom, stepless aperture and xlr audio inputs that also shot d700 quality still frames with interchangeable lenses and flash control, it would be a dang hot seller. A wedding photogs dream camera. But they don't. What they have now is not anywhere near what I would need a video camera to do.</p>

[waltflanagan]

<blockquote>

<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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is your own psychological issue. Most people are capable of ignoring features they don't use. My D3 has a "Retouch Menu" with tons of filter effects and a bunch of other stuff that I've never used but I don't really care. My house has a phone jack in a closet. Why I don't know but I don't really care. My laptop has a hardwired button to turn off wifi. Wifi is the entire reason I got a laptop so I'd never push the button but somehow I've managed to not be annoyed by it.</p>

 

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Jamie, listen pal, first of all, you must not have read my post except for taking that one sentence out of context, and merely because my feelings on this issue don't jibe with yours doesn't make my statement "stupid." Did it ever occur to you that maybe you're being stupid? Video is more than just a feature, it's a different medium with its own set of features. Features relating to still photography I have no problem with, even if I don't use them, but incorporating a different medium, to me, is where I object. If I was interested in video I wouldn't resort to the crap video and sound incorporated into DSLRs.</p>

<p>With that being said, video in a DSLR wouldn't prevent me from upgrading to another DSLR if I needed to, but I don't have to like it, even if it has been annointed by the endlessly sucked-up-to Nikon Corporation. I just don't drink the Kool-Aid. For the photographers who want the convergence of amateur video, your ship has come in, but to ME it's just absurd. Just MY honest opinion, no one elses, just MY honest opinion, FWIW, take it or leave it.</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Walt, again and again, video is not a feature but a different medium. Big difference.</p>

[milton]

<p>Why shoting the same scene at 24 fps is considered as a different medium than shoting at 8 fps?</p>

[rossb]

<p > </p>

 

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Ilkka, I looked up the D3x and your correct. It is everything I want in a camera. It has 12.84 stops dynamic range at a native ISO 100. That is the camera for me. Thanks for pointing that out. I probably will not post in the vidio threads again as I do not care about vidio one way or another. My hobby is framing and printing and vidio is not relavent for my purposes. However the D3x actually has what I want in a camera and that will be what I am going to save for. Much cheaper then the Mamiya 645 with digital back and more versatile.</p>

 

[rj]

<p>Milton, video is motion picture and photography is still picture. Its a different medium. Not that the same person can't do both, but they are different. When you shoot 8fps you are after one frame (or several depending on the final outcome). Bottom line, the final image is a still frame. </p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>what's in the D90 is the <em><strong>feature</strong></em> of having the capability of video. video is a different medium indeed, but it is not the one in the D90. it's a feature. the "medium" to produce stills is still that plastic box with a lens.</p>

<p>people who do not like the <strong><em>feature </em></strong>can monogram the front of their camera that says "<em><strong>like</strong></em> <em><strong>the camera but not using video --- am a pro</strong></em>". nice on a photo vest, too :-)</p>

<p>now look at what you started, steven. but it's all fun reading.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>I'm with JR and Jamie. The ergonomics are all wrong, no balanced inputs for audio, focus pulling has a zooming effect.<br>

If you want the look of 35mm frame depth of field (without using a Red ((don't get me started on that P.O.S.)) using something like the Redrock adapter on a video camera is much more practical.</p>

[p_m12]

<p>I worry about the complexity of the camera. Soon we will have an I-phone built into it, then something else later. As the complexity increases the reliability decreases. We will see if the recall rate starts affecting people in the future. Look at the D5000 recall issue.</p>

[ryan_long]

<p>You've got a point Steven. I'm a journalist here in Alaska, and while I have yet to really be drawn into having to work in video for internet packaging and distribution I would certainly be heading that route if I was working as a reporter or an editor down south. The newspaper industry has to revise its business model to compete, particularly with strictly internet distributed news sources with much lower overhead costs, as well as the timelier news outlets of radio and television. </p>

<p>I've never used in-DSLR video before, but I look forward to its addition to the current DSLR as we know it, and particularly to its refinement over the coming generations of body offerings. </p>

<p>I know there is a good deal of complaint over the over-complication of DSLRs already, but when I'm shooting with my D300 I'm pretty much set and the only changes I make will be through a button or a wheel and I rarely have to enter the menu system once I'm locked in for an event. That and the custom menu lets me cull out what I want to use.</p>

<p>Anyway, if I'm going for simplicity and pure still-taking bliss, I reach for my Hasselblad 500C and leave the rest at home.</p>

[richard_eng]

<p>This is a silly debate. The addition of video to a DSLR is not a problem, except in one respect (I'll get to that below). First of all, it doesn't really cost anything to add movie mode. No manufacturer simply adds this one feature to a model and ups the price. Marketing and pricing are a complex process, and it is not possible to assign a price incremental to movie mode. Canon or Nikon will determine price based on numerous considerations, many of which have nothing to do with R&D costs.<br>

Second, movie mode is just a hack on top of live view. Engineering-wise, it's no big deal at all. If you object to movie mode, then you should object to live view. I think live view is a perfectly legitimate feature of still photography, and if they hack an additional feature on top of it, who the hell cares?<br>

Third, the process of still photography, as implemented by today's DSLR, is fundamentally different from video. With the above-mentioned hack, video will never be as good as from a traditional camcorder -- there will always be serious compromises. If they come up with an entirely new device architecture to marry still with video photography, then they'll have something to write home about. In fact, it would probably kill the DSLR as we know it today.<br>

(Similarly, the addition of still pictures to traditional camcorders is also a hack, with serious compromises.)<br>

My problem with the current video craze in DSLR product development is that it's a *distraction* for the camera manufacturers. Instead of focusing on improving image quality (high ISO performance, higher dynamic range, etc.), they're chasing after gee-whiz features like video in the hopes of wowing consumers and increasing sales. (And, yes, even professional photographers are consumers.)<br>

Real photographers are being cheated, and for this, we should be raise a stink.</p>

[steven_oster]

<p>I agree about the abundance of features on every consecutive camera model. I never used the video feature until I started working at the newspaper, it just seemed like a gimmick. But after making so many movies for the website, I realized that it is a serious tool in the right hands, and with the right editing. In the 6 months of owning the camera before using video, I never really thought about the feature/medium. It never got in the way, and I mostly forgot that it was even there.<br /> I can sympathize with those that wish their camera was without some features. I am sort of an elitist/purist snob when it comes to the mode dial on the top panel. I like the MASP, but could do without action, portrait, and whatever else is on there. It's even sort of embarrassing to have that junk on there. My friend once said "Dude, just put it on mountain!" It would have cost $800 more to get rid of that stupid dial, so I live with it.</p>

<p>Has anyone seen the "pictmotion" feature in the menu? It puts on a slide show with cheesy music. That's definitely a feature I could do without! I would delete it from the firmware if I had the option, but it's not really detracting from anything.</p>

<p>I predict that all future Nikons will have video on them. Only because it's a point of contest between rival manufacturers of a product. The convergence of media is putting a demand on professionals to produce a relevant product. There have been newspapers that have gone out of print and are web only. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is one of them.</p>

<p>Consumers of news/media are buying printed news less, reading web sites more, and seem to enjoy 1-2 minute video clips the best. The newspaper must then cater to that demand to stay competitive, photographers must then make video if they want to be secure in their job position, and camera manufacturers must make a product that the professionals need to bring information to the masses.</p>

<p>So about photography and video being two different mediums? That's right. But things are changing. We live in interesting times.</p>

[richard_eng]

<p>Video and still photography both use the same medium, and that medium is the raster sensor. However, the *process* is different -- video is not simply a series of still frames.<br>

Video and photography are both methods of capturing *visual* imagery. Logically and philosophically, there is no reason to separate them. That's why we find them both in P&S, camera phones, webcams, and now DSLRs.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<blockquote>

<p>...can you explain to me why many scenes of the latest Harry Potter movie were filmed using the 5D2 coupled with Panavision lenses?...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because it was coupled with Panavision lenses. That's the whole point. Just like with still photography, it's all about the glass. And motion picture glass is made to focus without breathing, zoom without losing focus, focus without putting your hand on the lens, have accurate and repeatable focus marks (focusing is done by measuring with a tape, not by eye) and is often ten times the size of a still camera lens.<br>

That kind of engineering is expensive. Panavision glass is hand made in Woodland Hills. Do you know how much it costs to buy? YOu don't because it's never sold. But comparable lenses are in the tens of thousands of dollars range. Or even six figures.</p>

<p> </p>

[bensgalguerra]

<blockquote>

<p>But after making so many movies for the website, I realized that it is a serious tool in the <strong>right hands</strong>, and with the right editing.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yep. Some people just don't know <em>how</em> to take advantage of that "feature" in a DSLR so they just bash it.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p><em>"Because it was coupled with Panavision lenses. That's the whole point."</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Wrong. Panavision lenses have been around for years. Why would they take the time to take them off their usual movie cameras and bolt them onto a 5D2? There has to be a reason (or reasons)... VIDEO QUALITY and PORTABILITY. In other words, out of ALL the movie cameras currently available they chose a 35mm DSLR. That speaks volumes.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>The future of photojournalism is anyway going to be people sending in their cellphone snaps and videos. Costs a lot less than hiring PJs and the coverage is a lot better; can get the shot immediately not having to send anyone over.</p>

[paul_aylett1]

<p>This thing about Harry Potter - is this fact or rumour? I've found this on the web: http://blog.planet5d.com/2009/05/rumor-harry-potter-film-crew-using-2-canon-5d-mk-ii-cameras-with-panavision-lenses/</p>

<p>But it clearly states it's a RUMOUR only - anyone got anything a little more concrete?</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<blockquote>

<p>Wrong. Panavision lenses have been around for years. Why would they take the time to take them off their usual movie cameras and bolt them onto a 5D2? There has to be a reason (or reasons)...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Whatever, dude. You're right. Go shoot yourself a movie with your camera.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>And motion picture glass is made to focus without breathing, zoom without losing focus, focus without putting your hand on the lens,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The new 14-140 lens that comes with the Panasonic GH1 addresses most of these issues, except that you still need to manually turn the zoom ring. If Nikon is serious in implementing video into its dSLRs, they need to come up with a lens like that. The 14-140 lens from Pan is similar to the 18-200 lens from Nikon, but Nikon already updated the latter to fix just the zoom creep issue. Without a lens like the 14-140, it seems that the GH1 is a much more robust solution for the PJ or anybody who is interested in shooting bout video and still with dSLR versatility and IQ.</p>

[matroskin]

<p>Jeffrey, your vision is narrow-minded because you only think about what is userful for you in the camera. there are people out there who have wider aplication for their DSLRs.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Folks, someone once pointed out that most photographers merely use 10% of the features on an SLR, but the problem is that each person uses a different 10%. (Personally, I think it is more than 10% at least in my case, but that is besides the point.)</p>

<p>The fact of the matter is that for each camera, Nikon will have to put in a number of features that seem to make the most sense. And whenever there is some new capability, it will look primitive at first. I recall about 20 years ago, there were a lot of "purists" who did not want auto focus and they were very vocal about the "junk" plastic lenses. Back then, AF was quite primitive and nearly useless also. It look years before the technology became mature.</p>

<p>My suggestion is to keep an open mind about new developments. If there are features you don't like, simply don't use them. If it bothers you so much that you cannot accept a camera with video capability, just vote with your wallet and don't buy it. If enough people agree with you and Nikon ends up with a model that they cannot sell, they'll stop it. Otherwise, if you are in the minority, you simply has to accept that.</p>

<p>It really doesn't help to keep saying that you want or don't want the video feature in this forum; we already have more than enough threads about that. Instead, it would be a lot more constructive to provide ideas about how to use video, and perhaps that can change some minds. If that still doesn't change your mind, again, just don't use that capability or even just not buy those cameras.</p>

[joe_le]

<p>I skimmed through the thread but have not seen any mention about the still image capture feature on camcorder. So here is my ten cent. I never used my camcorder to take pictures because I knew it would be so crappy and unworthy. I think video in DSLR might be the same thing here; that is the video will probably will have some limitations and could never match the quality of HD camcorder. It does not bother me to have the video feature in DSLR though; as long as I don't pay extra for it and it does not short change the still picture portion. I had tried the Olympus E-P1 in local store and recorded small footages on my own SD memory card and was impressed with it; I now can shoot still pictures and then a short movie footage of something special, an UFO sighting for example, where any quality would be acceptable.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>I think video in DSLR might be the same thing here; that is the video will probably will have some limitations and could never match the quality of HD camcorder.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This point has been discussed many times before and I think it in general it shows that most dSLR "purists" are just not familiar with the development of new kind of cameras. The EP1 is a good start b/c you can use lenses with shallow DOFs and the camera has in-body IS. However, the EP-1 lacks many of the tools that are important for the dSLR folks. Furthermore, the EP-1 does not have an IS lens that can AF silently, but these issues are addressed by the Panasonic GH1. I came across some videos here to show you that in the right hands, what beautiful HD images can be created with the GH1: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.vimeo.com/5226497" target="_blank">http://www.vimeo.com/5226497</a> and <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.vimeo.com/5226497" target="_blank">http://www.vimeo.com/</a>5264787, which costs $1500, as compared to the very expensive and professional video cameras. In the same web site, this guy used to shoot videos from the D90 with again beautiful results, although he admits that the GH1 blows the D90 out of the water as far as the video is concern. GH1 is also highly rated as a still camera. I hope that Nikon, or Canon, is watching how Olym and Pan are bringing out truly innovated cameras that may some day replace SLRs.</p>