If Nikon made a new DSLR with no video....

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Video and Live-View are two features that I enjoy using in my compact digital camera but not in my dSLR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is really weird. Live view should be the preferred way to focus on still subjects from a tripod such as macro, landscape, etc. It is a lot more precise than AF or focus from the traditional viewfinder.</p>

<p>Nikon making any D3X or D800 without live view is like suicide.</p>

<p>Frankly, if Nikon were ever stupid enough to make another new DSLR without video, and you never use video, I would still be very reluctant to buy one because it can be difficult to resell. In fact, that was my main concern with the D800E. If the D800E turned out to be with a lot of moire issues, I could easily be stuck with one. That was exactly why I waited a bit until earlier test results showing moire was rarely an issue before I ordered mine. Back in April, that also meant another two months of waiting, giving me additional time to check things out.</p>

<p>Looking back, the difference between the D800 and D800E is so small that you can argue that Nikon might as well not make a separate D800E. Likewise, if you don't need video, just don't use that feature. Nikon is not going to bother to make a separate version.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>@Shun Cheung<br>

Careful with those "10%" and such percentages. Look what trouble Mitt got into with them.<br>

:)</p>

<p>On my camera with video, I have so far only used it once, by accident when I was getting out of the car with the camera and accidentally shot video of the steering wheel and my crotch. Still, I wouldn't say I'd NEVER use it again.</p>

[dave_donaldson]

<p>Shun said "Live view should be the preferred way to focus on still subjects from a tripod such as macro, landscape, etc. It is a lot more precise than AF or focus from the traditional viewfinder."<br /> Shun, I've got 30 years of manual macro and landscape experience shooting Nikon & Canon systems. I now exclusively shoot the Fuji X-Pro 1. Once I got used to mirrorless with a high quality EVF (and 3X and 10X magnification options), I never wanted to go back to "live view" or optical viewfinders. When manual focusing, live view is NOT as accurate as EVF with 3X and 10X magnification. I have since sold all my mirrored cameras for this reason.<br /> As far as video goes, I have never used it except for holiday family videos made with my compact Canon camera.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>live view is NOT as accurate as EVF with 3X and 10X magnification</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is strange as well. With live view, you can also make magnifications on the LCD for precise focusing. After all, both EVF and live view are viewing a live image on an electronic device, instead of optically on a traditional SLR. I see no reason why EVF is any more accurate.</p>

[dave_donaldson]

<p>Shun, I would equate using EVF to using Live view "with a loupe". With the EVF your eye is <strong>right on top of the image</strong> and you see better because it is so close (provided your diopter adjustment is dead on). Whereas when using live view your eye is a foot or so from the screen (no glare or scratches to contend with on EVF, also no plastic protector to blur image). Also, my EVF always stays much cleaner than the viewing screen on the back of the digital camera.<br /> So, if using Live view "with a loupe" I'd say EVF and Live view are about equal. But when comparing live view (with no loupe) and a good EVF (with magnification), I still believe that EVF will probably produce, over time, slightly more accurate focus.</p>

<p>When using EVF, the EVF image is taking up just about everything your eye is seeing. However, looking at an LCD screen from a foot away, you are using only a small percentage of what your eye is seeing.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>Dave</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>Perhaps you are confused by what "live view" means. "Live view" on a Nikon DSLR (which is what we're talking about on this thread) means flipping the mirror up, opening the shutter, and reading the data off the sensor and displaying it in real time on the rear LCD. This is exactly the same as displaying the data in an EVF except you can't put your eye right up to it. The magnification factor on my 5 year old D3 is up to 13X in live view. I always use it when on a tripod as Shun says.</p>

<p>An optical viewfinder will never show exactly what is in focus because of tiny variations in the distances and alignments of the mirror, phase detect AF system and secondary mirrors, the pentaprism, ground glass, and the sensor itself. I think we all agree on that. It's generally good enough though.</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>Dave, you brought up the loupe. I often use a Hoodman loupe when using live view. I would actually prefer if Nikon went back to interchangeable finders. A traditional OVF and an EVF. EVF would make handheld video ok. It's pretty difficult to shoot handheld video using the rear LCD in live view with a moderate to long lens.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Dave, I see your point. Some people do add a loupe on the back LCD. However, I happen to be near-sighted, about -6.5 (in the UK, that call that short-sighted, which means something different in North America, but that may apply to me also :-) ).</p>

<p>Therefore, when I use live view, I simply remove my glasses and look at the LCD from 3, 4 inches away. I don't need any loupe. For many many years I never thought being near-sighted was an advantage, but I used to look at slides without any loupe and nowadays, it is very convenient to watch live view.</p>

<p>Walt, any traditional interchangeable optical viewfinder would be blacked out during video capture on an SLR, unless you go the Sony way with a fixed, semi transparant mirror, which IMO is a very bad idea, but that is another topic.</p>

[rossb]

<blockquote>

<p>That is really weird. Live view should be the preferred way to focus on still subjects from a tripod such as macro, landscape, etc. It is a lot more precise than AF or focus from the traditional viewfinder.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> I have never owned a camera with live view but I will take your word for it. However I do not feel I have a problem with focus on any of my camera's. So it's not something I would really feel the need to spend money on. I no longer take scenic pictures seriously so I do not bother taking a tripod on extended hikes any longer. Over the decades I have taken so many scenic pictures of everywhere I go I just one day decided I do not need any more of them. Family and friends in a journalistic style. Photos on the fly I suppose you could say. However I plan on using my F100 with B/W film for the next decade and see where it takes me. So live view is not in the cards for me. Next year I will retire and I am thinking about exploring different printing methods. </p>

[john_narsuitus]

<blockquote>

<p>“Live view should be the preferred way to focus on still subjects from a tripod such as macro, landscape, etc.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me, live-view is the preferred way to compose and focus on macro, landscape, video, and still life subjects. I also prefer it for composing waist-level, ground level, and over-the-head shots. Plus, these preferences are for tripod mounted or hand held.</p>

<p>However, I avoid using the live-view feature on my dSLR because activating its live-view feature requires too many steps and once activated it only stays activated for a short time before it turns itself off.</p>

<p>I prefer to use the live-view feature on my compact digital camera because it is very easy to activate, it remains active for an extended length of time, and it is easy to view at other than eye-level because the articulated LCD has a swing/tilt feature.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you think engaging live view takes too many steps, you must be using an older DSLR such as the D3, D700, and D300. On any Nikon DSLR with video capture, it involves pressing or pushing just one button to initiate live view, because you need to get into live view and then start video capture.</p>

<p>See, having the video feature also makes live view easier to use. That is why you want to have the video feature. :-)</p>

[johncrosley]

<p>I had a Nikon camera with video (one of several) that time came for me to sell.</p>

<p>The buyer out of caution, wanted to know that the video on the little used camera worked.</p>

<p>Would I demonstrate?</p>

<p>I had to confess I didn't even know how it worked, but we could figure it out by going online to find the instructions which we did. It worked fine, and I learned a lesson in SLR video.</p>

<p>It was a piece of cake, but frankly I had NO interest in shooting video; still don't at least not with an SLR.<br>

I'd prefer a full-fledged HD video camera for such work -- they're frankly much better suited for video, especially for handholding, zooming, etc.,and especially the larger ones and with image stabilization of the images.</p>

<p>I agree, video in still SLR cameras is here to stay probably but they are not going to be replace dedicated video cameras, at least if I have a say, just because of 'ease of use issues'.</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>video in still SLR cameras is here to stay probably but they are not going to be replace dedicated video cameras, at least if I have a say,</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It's safe to assume that you haven't had a say so far. As I said above, most of the events I have worked have people using 5D2s for video. All the press conferences have. The TV guys are usually the exception, but they have a live feed. At one event, I asked the video guy why he wasn't using a DSLR. He said they had too much investment in the gear they owned. That was it.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I think it is quite unlikely that a DSLR be used to record video on some sports, e.g. the close up of a figure skater approaching at high speed. It's much more likely to come out well on a dedicated video camera. And no, the professionals who shoot this kind of stuff do not do it with a DSLR, at least I haven't seen it. Perhaps Jeff, as a sports photographer, can show how it is done with his DSLR, maybe the others can then start doing it if it's the wave of the future and professional video cameras cease to be available on the market.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I never said DSLRs are being used for sports. That's something I don't really see because the sports events I shoot have always been covered by video professionals with a live feed. There are fans that use a variety of devices including small dedicated video cameras, but I suspect the results from those are, at best, similar to the DSLR video.</p>

[fedelucero]

<p>I believe there was a season finale of House entirely filmed with a 5D2, I would say dslrs can definitely FILM a video.</p>

[tord_s_eriksson]

<p>Well, I hardly ever take video, but I have several cameras that manage AVCHD, a format computers have a lot of problems with. So I don't need yet another camera, that produces AVCHD, no thank you!<br>

So, as an answer to the question, yes, of course, not least as the video button on many cameras often get accidentally pressed because absolutely illogical placement of these little red knobs, and seldom, if ever, are they lockable! So I have taken hundreds of accidentally shot video snippets, and don't need any more!</p>

[tord_s_eriksson]

<p>A D600 without video would be just fine!</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>I realise now that live view is one of the most important parts of a cameras feature set. I did not realise that stop-down focus shift affected so many of my lenses so now I focus with live view at taking aperture on photos that allow it. My results are much sharper and when printed it really helps them come alive.</p>

[rossb]

<p> I guess Leica has even entered the world of video on their M camera. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Tord - the video mode on the D800 and, I think, D600 is lockable (there's a slider around the live view switch). Does that address your concern? I've never activated video accidentally in my move from a D700 to D800.</p>

[rossb]

<p> Leica just came out with two new digital camera's. One is the M model which has video and live view and also the M-E model which seems the same as the M9 to me. I do not follow the line enough to know the minor differences. However it seemed to me they are offering products for the minimalist and the high tech photographer. <br>

On a side note i went to MOMA, Monterey Ca yesterday and they had a exhibition by Heick and also an exhibition of Monterey Calif photographers such as Adams, Weston, Cunningham and Willard Van Dyke. It was great. I try to get over there twice a year for a show. Also they had an exhibition of Rodin and his wonderful bronze busts and sculptures..Apparently Tony Dow (Wally) is an artist and works in bronze. I saw that on yahoo today. </p>

[allan_crookes]

<p>I just picked up my D600 yesterday and kind of wondered how much you'd save if there was no video in it. Probably not much but just personally, if I wanted to record video, that's what video cameras are for. Then again, most video recorders take stills, don't they.? Yes, it's time for payback. They've gotten away with it for too long now...</p>

<p>I doubt very much if I will ever use the video recorder in any of the electronics devices I have, including Sony Walkman, iPod Touch, Samsung cellphone, a couple of point 'n' shoot cameras and the D600...</p>

[yuri_yupiter3]

<p>The camera would cost more if they stripped out the feature most all want. It has to cost more since you want an oddball custom variant that requires a cost to carry an oddball freak variant in inventory. Unless there is much demand a custom gizmo that strips out a common feature costs more. Maybe you want Kodak to make 18 exposure rolls like they did 50 years ago, or 20 exposure rolls like they did 30 years ago. There is no savings unless you place a giant order to make this freak product.</p>

<p>In some products like the Agilent Field Fox RF analyzer they add all the features and only turn on the base features when you buy the typical starter unit for say 7k. With a fully loaded unit the price goes up to 15 to 22k. You BUY the software key for your serial number to do an upgrade. It is already all installed. All the key does is turn on that feature and the upgrade is all secure and the pricing has a flat universe with really no discounts on upgrades. This unit has all the RF front end and spectrum analyzer inside and all software inside too. The upgrade just turns on that feature and there is really no hacking since the key only works with one serial number ie yours. Thus you buy one feature for 2k say from Newark and you get an envelope in a giant box that has one upgrade for your unit only. If you want to do 2 port RF work and the 2nd port is already there but dead until you fork out hard cash. </p>

<p>Cameras could do this too if a feature was pesky or they could get folks to pay for upgrades for features. I doubt it will happen. This is done on high end printers and some obscure CAD software, It is all there already. One pays to turn the features oon or have it work in full bore mode and not trial dumb mode. With the high end printer it does still print with the disabled feature it just adds bars across the image to ruin it. </p>

<p>Today is is really hard to buy a digital camera or a cellphone without video. This feature is a major selling point on Still cameras and the feature is mentioned on the display unit as an added tag that is often marked 1080p. Cameras with only 720p are thus shunned as a lessor unit. </p>

<p>Thus folks here want a custom camera with a key feature stripped our that all most want.</p>

<p> From a resale standpoint the removed feature would be a disaster. You are buy the snowblower with a 12HP engine and then have the electric starter removed. You buy a new laptop and have the usb ports removed. </p>

<p>I doubt still digital cameras with no video will fly in marketing circles</p>

<p>You may too never use a tripod and want makers to make the same cameras with no sockets and they cost less too?</p>

[exposed1]

<p>I never really thought this question would bring on this kind of response. But I am glad it did. I have done some video shooting with DSLR's and I was not happy with the time it took to get them to work right, when I was doing it all. Picking up even the older Canon XL2 I was able to get a much better product, no matter what I was shooting. All in all, guess it depends on how you work, what you like and how you use it. </p>

<p>At this time I use the D300 and D70s along with the Oly epl-2. I may just have to deal with the video in the D7000 or move up to the D700 as all my glass is older D lenes.</p>

<p>Thank you for the help,</p>

<p>Randy</p>