In defense of video

[joe_le]

<p>The E-P1 has a built in IS so there is no need for IS lens. The maximum 1080P movie times are 8 minutes for Olympus and 12 minutes for Panasonic. I would not clasified this as professional video category.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>I would not clasified this as professional video category.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How much do these professional video cameras cost, as compared to the EP1 and GH1, which are $800 and $1500 with the kit lens? How much does a professional video camera weigh? EP1 and GH1 weigh less than 300g. I am not a pro-videotographers and do not know the work flow. But a feature film is stitched together by many small pieces any way, unless of course you want to shoot a concert in its entirety. If you go to the web site I found, the guy must shoot video as a professional and from comments left by his peers, it is very clear that many colleagues in his field are buying these cameras b/c of their size (volume and weight), cost, and IQ. Isn't that the same argument why people choose SLR vs MF, although the latter is clearly better in IQ?</p>

[joe_le]

<p>The cost comparison with the professional video cameras is irrelavent. It should be based on the quality that is acceptable to the corresponding industries, not based on one or the public opinion. I am very sure the Nikon D3000, Canon Rebel SXi or Olympus E-P1 are fine cameras for what it does; but neither one will go on a resume of, say a Sport Illustrate or Rolling Stone phototgrapher.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>thanks, shun!</p>

<p>to me its probably 25% on the D90 and i haven't touched the video, yet. but i will because that was one of the many reasons why i bought the camera. btw, i'm having fun with it at the moment.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>that is the video will probably will have some limitations and could never match the quality of HD camcorder.</em></p>

<p>You've got it backwards. Properly implemented DSLR video is far superior to camcorders in image quality and creative options. See e.g. the insect macro video example on the page <a href="http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1200">http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1200</a><br>

shot on 5D Mk II. Try that with a camcorder.</p>

[aidjoy]

<p>The opposite tack being that, with one of these rigs, you can shoot video and just swipe frames for still images. Here are some images that the shooter claims were captured in this manner:</p>

<p>(from an alert post on lightstalkers.org)<br>

http://pa.photoshelter.com/c/danfung/gallery/Afghan-Korengal-Fighting/G0000ghdf6pcgOB8/</p>

<p>Works incredibly well for journalistic purposes! (in my opinion)</p>

<p> </p>

[steven_oster]

<p>The argument against the 5 minute time limit seems irrelevant to me. It would be some sort of special purpose when you need more than that. When I do interviews, sometimes they can last 10-15 minutes, but I just stop and restart at a good time. My final products are 45 seconds-2 minutes long after editing. No one is going to watch a continuos 20 minute clip of anything. Even Bigfoot would get boring. When was the last time you've seen a shot in cinema lasting more than 5 minutes? It's mostly 20-45 second shots. It's rare to see a shot lasting anything more than 2 minutes. In the final editing process for my purposes, each visual shot is 5-10 seconds long. <br>

See the link in my original post for example.</p>

 

[rj]

<p>Of course individual shots are shorter than 5 minutes in a finished cut piece, but if you are stopping and starting, like say while you are doing an interview of the President of the United States or you are shooting the Cubs actually take the series because you only have 5 minutes of "tape" you are screwing yourself and it doesn't matter what the quality is like. Back when I was shooting, changing the beta sp tape out at 30 minutes was an annoyance (thankfully you could get longer tapes), I couldn't imagine doing it every 5 minutes. Talk about pissing the interviewer and interviewee off. </p>

<p>Our average interview went from 20 minutes to an hour or so to get one or two soundbites talking head shots, maybe a bit more if you were lucky and the dude or dudette had something to say. Of course you had a break or two, but every five minutes aint going to happen.</p>

<p>I find the video "feature" to be crude and really limited, but the future implementation of the two can become something a lot more, and I hope it does get better. But, like I said above, if the still camera makers don't figure a way out to get video/motion picture optical controls on the camera and lenses, the "feature" will be nothing more than a glorified toy. </p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>while you are doing an interview of the President of the United States</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Some people will just go out of their way to say that the video in dSLRs is crude, despite the fact that many professionals have started to use these tools to make creative video/still projects. C'mon, tell us, when a TV network interviews President Obama, what kind of video equipment do they usually use? How expensive is it and how big it is? </p>

<p>When you guys see the various links showing videos created by these cameras that cost no more than $2,000, are you really not impressed at all by what they can deliver at this price point and size of the equipment? God, you guys are so negative. Well, any way, for those who need to interview the president and film the whole concert without interruption, the current sub $2,000 camera is not going to do it for you. Sorry for the inconvenience. However for those who recognizes the creative potentials in these cameras, they are powerful tools that cost relatively little.</p>

<p> </p>

[photo5]

<p>Here's the bottom line folks. If you need to shoot more than 30 minutes edited together, don't use any DSLR. You need 16 bit audio, or your audio and video will lose sync. Video on a DSLR is just a gimmick to sell more cameras, nothing more. No photographer ever said "I need video on this thing" - it was pure marketing, nothing more.<br>

A pro videographer will use a pro video camera, period. Think of this as a point and shoot with video, only it's not a point and shoot, it's a DSLR. I made the mistake of using my point and shoot for video while in London last year. My nearly 1 hour of video edited onto one DVD lost sync around 30 minutes. My solution was to make two videos, each 30 minutes long, to preserve audio and video sync.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>the D4x will have the "feature" of the capability of being a projector!</p>

<p>just kidding :-)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>No photographer ever said "I need video on this thing" - it was pure marketing, nothing more.</em></p>

<p>AFAIK the DSLR video feature was added in response to demands by<strong> newspapers</strong> so that the photographer doesn't have to carry<strong> </strong> two separate rigs on assignment. It's to do with the practical needs of working photojournalists and not the creation of marketing. Nothing would make Nikon happier than if this had never happened as they have to start from nearly scratch to add a feature which they have little previous experience with, in contrast to their competition (Sony, Canon, Panasonic etc.) who all have since long ago made pro video cameras and are much better positioned to create a working merger of video and still photography systems than Nikon.</p>

<p>It so happens that still cameras have larger sensors than digital video cameras, which means they have the potential for much higher image quality once the little glitches (which are just engineering) are worked out. To add still imaging to a small-sensor video camera never worked out well as the sensor is just too small to make useful stills. This is why in the merger, the DSLR will emerge as the winner and in a few years the video quality from camcorders (both pro and consumer) will be seen just embarrassing.</p>

[williamting]

<p>Video also is a big push on consumer end DSLRs. I know many people upgrading to a DSLR who refuse to buy an older model because of video. They are used to video on their phones and point & shoots, and can't fathom a better quality camera lacking features that they're used to.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>Maybe Nikon will make custom firmware to disable the video feature in newer DSLR's. That should be worth an additional $500 to the purists.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>No photographer ever said "I need video on this thing" - it was pure marketing, nothing more.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I copied a few exchanges between a dSLR purist and professional videographers who many of you here say would consider video in dSLR a marketing feature or toy: (those in bold type face are the replies from a professional cinematographer.) This was copied from a D300 forum at dpreview and I hope I am not violating any copy right law.</p>

<p>---<br>

Silly. If I object to a cell phone, a GPS, or a Swiss army knife on my camera I'm an old fashioned >Luddite? LOL<br>

You know, you can take still images w/a camcorder. How come no one is excited about that? Take >your camcorder as your all in one tool. Bunch of fuddy duddy Luddites :<del>)</del></p>

<p><strong>Ummm, because you are making still images with a 1/3 inch sensor, and with limited if not cheap optics in most camcorders with this feature. That is the opposite of using a full frame or APSC sized sensor and taking a 1080 frame from this sensor.</strong><br>

This is what is takes to make a 5DII into a decent video recorder:<br>

<a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=32426629">http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=32426629</a></p>

<p><strong>What makes the 5DII a decent camcorder is the sensor size and quality , the shallow DOF and the usel of high quality optics.</strong><br>

and it still doesn't do AF and you have to install bootleg software to override the AGC.<br>

Did the OP videos have any panning? Did they have any live sound? Did anything move towards or >away from the camera that wasn't covered by the DOF? Pretty limited I think, got very boring after >a while.</p>

<p>I<strong>t may not have occurred to you, but these cameras are in the first generation. This genre is in it's infancy. How capable were DSLR's in the first years of their existence? Your argument is a straw one, at best.</strong><br>

Sure, video will get better, maybe the AF will work someday, maybe they'll get sound figured out so >you don't the motor s ound but why? For $500 you can get a flash based camcorder smaller (and >cheaper) than one SLR lens, and it will do YouTube just fine. Or is everyone a professional cinematographer today?</p>

<p><strong>These cameras are generating tremendous interest for projects and for high end use, in spite of their severe first generation limitations. As for audio, folks are using what they always have- a sound recorder. Film production 101.</strong><br>

<strong>By the way, I am a professional cinematographer.</strong></p>

[rj]

<p>Illka, the quality difference between the sensors in kind of moot since the end product will be shown on a computer monitor/tv screen/high def screen or if you are really really lucky, a movie theater screen. The end product doesn't have to be as clear and detailed as a photographic print, really, the human eye isn't going to pick that kind of detail up at 24 or 30 frames a second.</p>

<p>I have said several times on this thread I can see the need to marry the two technologies and do it well, but the optical motion controls have to be there or its very limited. Video without camera and lens motion is using a third of what motion picture is capable of, creatively speaking. Frankly I see canon or panasonic or sony doing it way before nikon does it (especially sony) and the idea will really be something worth gooing over when they make a video camera shoot quality stills IMHO. This is my prediction: When we get to generation 5 of video/still camera marriage and the thing actually operates like a still and video camera, our still cameras will look and function like sony video cameras, not the other way around.</p>

[sem_svizec]

<p>>Furthermore, if you use a lens with an aperture ring, you can lock exposure and have full manual control by manipulating the aperture ring.<br>

You don't really need the ring, the aperture may be set easily in A or M before entering Live view. But it will not go below f/8 (ring or no ring), unless you have an old non-CPU lens. This is needed for wide DOF in bright light. It is also used by some in another workaround to force ISO low to get better quality with narrow DOF (set to around f/16, point to a bright spot, lock exposure, then set to around f/2). I think a 5DII style firmware update would be in place. I find the idea of having to buy and carry another old lens for this purpose funny.<br>

However I fully understand the people that prefer Nikon spending engineering resources on photographic issues rather than playing with video. </p>

[mario_a__buenos_aires_]

<p >I´dont want a video feature in my DSLR because I don´t want to pay for something I won´t use. Video it´s a totally different conception than still photography. If one day I decide to shoot video I will buy a specialized camcorder, not and hybrid one. </p>

[raysgallery]

<p>I know that you guys know a lot more then me about this subject, but there already is a video camera that can do far more than any Cannon, Sony or Panasonic. It's called the Red one. It's price is about $28,000.00, but they are comming out with two (I think it was suppose to have been released last year) this fall starting around $3700.00 that will take 120fps at photo shoot and magazine quality still frames.</p>

<p>From the way they talked to me the quality of their video frames should be as good as any DSLR out there today. But of course, that was my interpretation of what they said.</p>

<p>Long time no see, guys and gals. I just saw this in the monthly magazine.</p>

<p>Check it out. http://www.red.com/</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>I´dont want a video feature in my DSLR because I don´t want to pay for something I won´t use.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As said already a number of times, also in this thread, video does not cost you anything. The feature is there, and whether you use it or not is up to you. But there is NO cost, for two quite simple reasons:<br>

1. simply because there is no D90 without video, and the D300s without video still has features the D300 does not have. D5000 also has no equivalent without video.<br>

2. Video recording is a lucky side effect of Live View. Basically, all that was needed was a codec and continious storage. All the other ingredients were already there.</p>

<p>Some people like it, some people don't. Fine if you do not like it, but please let's stop the purist nonsensical debate "I do not pay for features I do not use" and "I want my camera plain vanilla"... Nikon tries to make money, and does that by addressing the needs of a large portion of the market (and a bunch of enthusiasts like us here make up a terribly small percentage of that!), and sell as much as they can. And I want Nikon to do that, because I want Nikon to invest buckets of money in R&D for new lenses. So when it starts itching again, there are still lenses to want :-)<br>

If you insist on purist: get the F3, MF lenses and rolls of B&W film. Digital imaging has always been about convergence of media for the masses, P&S and camphones already showed that. It is a bit silly to think DSLRs would escape that wave.</p>

<p>For the high end pro gear, though, I do expect to keep two seperate markets. Interesting as the RED is (and it is!), in handling it is a video camera. It will not really replace the D3/1D for people who primarily take stills, and vice versa the D4 with HD video will never replace that Sony/Canon videocamera. <br>

Real broadcast quality and cinema quality videocams will stay as well, just like digital medium format stills-only. But these are a small, very specialised market anyway.</p>

<p>But DSLRs? If you want a new one, you get a video button. And I, for one, will not use it since I hate shooting video :-)</p>

[eric_m4]

<p>I know a lot of pros don't like video (although I'm sure a lot do) because it forces them to shoot video when the reason they got into photography was to shoot stills. Photographers are being forced in another direction. Look at any newstand and you'll see all the still photo magazines promoting video as if most photographers have always been closet video shooters who were trapped in the world of still photos. Although I'm not anti-video, I've never had a strong interest in video, I've always prefferred a well taken still photo. But thats what you gotta do to make money. Especially in photojournalism. I personally don't mind having a video camera built into my SLR, in fact sometimes it comes in handy. But I don't like the fact that newspapers are expecting you to shoot <em>both</em> stills and video for the same money. Thats the main reason most news videos are such poor quality. Video takes more time to shoot and more time to post process. That and the fact that they depend on amateurs submitting anything they shoot. If you have video of a planes crashing into skyscrapers, that will <em>always</em> be powerful video. But how often does and event like 9/11 happen? Thats why News websites are full of "Fluff" video stories about "Cute pet stories" or "the latest excercise" fad or some celebrity affair, etc... In this area, the local newspaper sent out a photographer to videotape a dead whale that had washed ashore. 1-2 minutes of a whale. Its dead. Its not moving. Where's it gonna go? What were they thinking? But the online world thinks "If there's no video, then it never happened." Video has a very disposable feel to it. Photos have hundreds if not thousands of iconic images that will stay with us forever. Still photos have obviously been around much longer than amateur video, but even though amateurs have always shot stills, only professionally shot stills made it into publications. Therefore, a very high standard was set in still photography. Video is the hottest thing now but from the get-go its being shot by amateurs with cheap cameras and even cheap cell phones. Which means that video is setting a very low standard for itself from the start. Video can be <em>very</em> creative but it runs the risk of burning itself out if so many people have access to making so much garbage. I think thats why so many people don't like it. Even though there are some good videos out there, most videos makes you feel like you wasted your time. When I see a camera icon next to a news story online, I usually just skip it because its not worth the time waiting for it to load. And many of those videos are professionally shot and edited. Video has its place but its being over hyped and that seems to turn off a lot of photographers. </p>

[raysgallery]

<p>This is my opinion. Do you want to pay $5000.00 for a D4 that may take 8 fps or $5000.00 for a camera that will take just as good a stills as the D4 at 30 fps. Do you think that Nikon would refuse to build the D4 if it could take 30fps. How do you define a still camera. One that won't take over 10 fps or should it be just 8fps. </p>

<p>If you want to keep a still camera on the market, then your going to have to set a speed limit on how many fps it can take. The only way that your going to be able to define a still camera, is one that won't take over 24fps or so.</p>

<p>The art of Photography is not in how many fps a camera will or won't take. Its in the person holding that camera.</p>

<p>P.S. Even thouth I do shoot some video, I love my D700 dearly.</p>