D90 for Real?

[rdompor]

^^

Actually, I think he meant DXX as in D70, D80, D90.

 

[Samriel]

^^

Actually, I think he meant DXX as in D70, D80, D90.

And you are right. :mrgreen: But I also meant the D40, D50 and D60. Every model except the top models is a compromise, and I'm far too poor at the moment not to compromise.

 

[Bifurcator]

I didn't understand why people would want a camera on their phone. It's a useless feature any way you'd look at it, but never underestimate the customers. Someone somewhere may find a use for it.

See, this is exactly what I mean by luddite. Basically resisting change, and out of touch with the device in question's use.

Sorry Garbz but I know you're cool and won't take it personally. Manaheim too but he would just laugh it off.

Old guys and luddites use a cell phone as a phone only. People that have had one since day one realize it is indeed a camera, a text messager, a video camera, a web browser, an appointment book, a calendar, an alarm clock, an MP3 player, an interactive GPS location device and map-book, a TV, a movie player, a video phone, a calculator, an audio recorder (voice memo), an answering machine, a game machine, a radio, and if you get a few of them together even [ame=http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj6SZgbBuSQ]a popcorn popper[/ame]. And they all use them for all those things naturally without even thinking that what they're holding in their hand grew out of and is "supposed to be" only a telephone. Here in these contrasting examples you can see the definition of a luddite as I used the term in my sentence above.

If you're not in favor of video in a dSLR you ARE a luddite whether you think you are or not.

If you think there's no advantage to having a video recording abilities in a dSLR just go price any HD camera that features interchangeable lenses!!! You're talking five figures before you even get started. I paid $62,000.00 for my last one. So why would any sane person not what a $20k ~ $30k camera for free with their $1k dSLR? Movie recording on a dSLR is coming whether or not the d90 is the 1st to market with it - so get used to it or admit your luddism and accept the fact that you're turning up your noses at $20k worth of free technology.


PS: I'm pretty drunk right now (seeing two or three letters appear for every key I press) so I hope that made sense.

 

[tasman]

I though I read from someone else on this forum that the image sensors on a DSLR are to sensitive to be able to be in a live view mode or to capture video. So how does the live view or vidoe capture work?

 

[manaheim]

See, this is exactly what I mean by luddite. Basically resisting change, and out of touch with the device in question's use.

Sorry Garbz but I know you're cool and won't take it personally. Manaheim too but he would just laugh it off.

Old guys and luddites use a cell phone as a phone only. People that have had one since day one realize it is indeed a camera, a text messager, a video camera, a web browser, an appointment book, a calendar, an alarm clock, an MP3 player, an interactive GPS location device and map-book, a TV, a movie player, a video phone, a calculator, an audio recorder (voice memo), an answering machine, a game machine, a radio, and if you get a few of them together even a popcorn popper. And they all use them for all those things naturally without even thinking that what they're holding in their hand grew out of and is "supposed to be" only a telephone. Here in these contrasting examples you can see the definition of a luddite as I used the term in my sentence above.

If you're not in favor of video in a dSLR you ARE a luddite whether you think you are or not.

If you think there's no advantage to having a video recording abilities in a dSLR just go price any HD camera that features interchangeable lenses!!! You're talking five figures before you even get started. I paid $62,000.00 for my last one. So why would any sane person not what a $20k ~ $30k camera for free with their $1k dSLR? Movie recording on a dSLR is coming whether or not the d90 is the 1st to market with it - so get used to it or admit your luddism and accept the fact that you're turning up your noses at $20k worth of free technology.


PS: I'm pretty drunk right now (seeing two or three letters appear for every key I press) so I hope that made sense.

I laugh nothing off... well, except your typing a message that long coherrently while drunk.

Speaking specifically to your cell phone example, you would probably call me a luddite because I disdain certain aspects of my phone/pda/email thing/bottle washer...

I disdain these things, however, not because "it's a phone, damnit! you whippersnappers need to use it as a phone and stop your tomfoolery!" but rather because a lot of these devices do 15,000 things, and do all of them POORLY.

The device I have does email actually quite well, so I have no problem with that. The browser, however, regularly completely crashes the device and is horribly ill-suited to display the typical web pages of today just on size alone. The calendar thing is GREAT, and works awesome, but god save you if you want to make a simple phone call without risking a crash. Overall the whole thing is so delicate that all of the operations I might like to do with it, I don't dare do, because if I just use it for the basics it crashes about 1-2x a week, requiring this laborious and slow restart process.

I can't stress enough... it even makes for a CRAPPY PHONE, which is kind of the key and core of what the stupid thing should be anyway.

Now, I am not a videographer, but I used the video functions on my point and shoot digital cameras pretty frequently, and they kinda sucked. I mean whatever... they were fun and it was easy, but they really did kinda suck. The device just wasn't really made for that.

So my thing with the D90 is that it may be the same... sure, it works, but it kinda sucks. And since this is a device that wasn't really intended for that, what are we doing to it to make that work? Sustained wear on the mirror from lockup? What about the issues that may result from the sensor being left on? Don't we sit here and tell people over and over again that the sensors heat up and talk about all the problems that causes, etc? Or will they make compromises on either sensor quality or capability to compensate? Or will they just gimp the video to smaller res (as it sounds like they have) and/or short capture time frames (as one of my older P&S cameras did), thus making it way less useful anyway?

I mean, whatever... people want it, people will buy it, so put it in. I'm not gonna scream as long as I'm not paying extra money for something I don't really want.

It's just that, in general, I would rather have far fewer things that work well, than a cornicopia of crap.

EDIT: Added the last because I was laughing when I said it. I mean it, but I was still laughing.

 

[Moglex]

See, this is exactly what I mean by luddite. Basically resisting change, and out of touch with the device in question's use.

Sorry Garbz but I know you're cool and won't take it personally. Manaheim too but he would just laugh it off.

Old guys and luddites use a cell phone as a phone only. People that have had one since day one realize it is indeed a camera, a text messager, a video camera, a web browser, an appointment book, a calendar, an alarm clock, an MP3 player, an interactive GPS location device and map-book, a TV, a movie player, a video phone, a calculator, an audio recorder (voice memo), an answering machine, a game machine, a radio, and if you get a few of them together even a popcorn popper. And they all use them for all those things naturally without even thinking that what they're holding in their hand grew out of and is "supposed to be" only a telephone. Here in these contrasting examples you can see the definition of a luddite as I used the term in my sentence above.

If you're not in favor of video in a dSLR you ARE a luddite whether you think you are or not.

You are typing absolute twaddle.

What you are effectively saying is that if you take any piece of technology and add the function of any other piece of technology, anyone who thinks that is a bad idea is a luddite.

And this is ignoring the fact that you are using the term 'luddite' incorrectly as they were a group who opposed technolgy for economic reasons rather that philosophical/technological/aesthetic ones.

Most people (including children) use the majority of extra functions on a mobile phone just a few times to impress themselves with what a marvel their new phone is. They quickly realise that the compromises made to enable them to fit in a package with the appropriate ergonomics for a phone are too significant. Note that I said 'most' that still leaves a sizable minority that do use a phone for two or three functions.

If you think there's no advantage to having a video recording abilities in a dSLR just go price any HD camera that features interchangeable lenses!!! You're talking five figures before you even get started. I paid $62,000.00 for my last one. So why would any sane person not what a $20k ~ $30k camera for free with their $1k dSLR? Movie recording on a dSLR is coming whether or not the d90 is the 1st to market with it - so get used to it or admit your luddism and accept the fact that you're turning up your noses at $20k worth of free technology.

More complete twaddle.

If a $1k camera has video then by definition it is not $20k of free technology. It is $1k of technology which has had some extra technology grafted on.

Doing that grafting will have cost money that could otherwise have been spent on improving some aspect of the camera's prime function or reducing the price so that the purchaser could spend the money saved of something they actually want.

Of course, if the manufactirer is aiming the device at a specific market segment that really does want a DSLR with true video features, than that is quite sensible.

It just doesn't mean that people who would reject if for their own use because it incorperates unnecessary functionality are luddites.

 

[Tolyk]

I wonder how well they'll make it auto-focus in video mode. It's effectively the same as Live View, meaning they'll have to drop the mirror to focus for you, unless you're manually focusing.

I can picture people trying to hold it at arms length and manual focus now...... *chuckle*

I know there's the use of a tripod, but the instant advantage of camcorders over an SLR with movie abilities is that faster focusing and the portability.


Oh, and Switch, I get a lot of people asking that same question.

 

[andrew99]

Auto-focus is an interesting point. Also will you be able to record video only in live-view mode? And what about the aspect ratio and resolution. Anyway, this camera will be interesting, I'm still getting used to the idea of speakers and a microphone! That other thread with the D90 parody might have more truths than the author realized, how long until DSLRs do play MP3's?

 

[dEARlEADER]

the feature isn't high on my list.... i'd prefer money spent on better dynamic range... but having said that.... i'd most likely use it here and there.... especially some off the trail landscape/waterfalls type stuff or impromptu behaviour etc... maybe a 1080p of a humming bird or something...

i carry a small vid cam in my camera bag for this kinda stuff but it's not 720 or 1080...

 

[MelodySoul]

I disdain these things, however, not because "it's a phone, damnit! you whippersnappers need to use it as a phone and stop your tomfoolery!" but rather because a lot of these devices do 15,000 things, and do all of them POORLY.

Bingo!

Also how can one not see the benefit of a spork? It's call cup o' noodles.

:mrgreen:

 

[jvgig]

I am really failing to understand why anybody would be unhappy about this!

We have to remember that in a digital world, everything is exactly the same, 1's and 0's. Thus it is all processed with the same technology, stored on the same media, etc. So now all we have different from a video camera to a still camera is how long the sensor can remain on and how fast the processor needs to be. In a still camera they sacrifice time for better image quality (size, dynamic range, etc), but in a video camera they go the other way. Since the goal of both a still camera and a video camera is to take light and translate it into digital data which can be read to display an image as close to life as possible, it is only a matter of when the engineers will figure out how to combine the two into the same device. A video camera is only a still camera that captures 24 frames (or more) per second.

As nanotechnology improves, efficiency improves, as efficiency improves, power consumption decreases, as power consumption decreases, less heat is produced, as less head is produced, you can take more pictures faster. The question we need to ask is when technology will allow us to take an image sensor that can capture 20+mp images over 24 times a second over a long period of time. This is still some time to come, but in the mean time, if they can figure out how to only use part of the sensor for video which results in less heat and thus allows them to leave it on longer, then we seem to have a winner. Sure, it wont capture the 8mp images that a $100,000 professional video camera will, but if it can sustain a measly 1mp over a few minutes at 24 fps with a basic audio input for a simple mic, then they will have an extremely successful product not only among parents and amateur photographers, but also among amateur videographers who don't have the funds to purchase that $50,000 camcorder with interchangeable lenses.

This is the first generation of such a product and will certainly have some bugs to work out. It may only be able to capture standard definition video for 30sec, but without a single bit of hesitation, I can say that the engineers will improve on every aspect of its video recording capabilities with every new model. Within a few years EVERY dslr will have this feature from your $500 consumer model to your $8,000 professional benchmark camera. There is absolutely no reason that it will not go in this direction. The only thing I am not 100% sure about is how long this will take, it may be in the next generation of cameras, it may be 2 or 3 away, maybe more, but it will happen and when it does, there is no turning back.

 

[K_Pugh]

I must be a luddite, too.. i HATE the idea of video on SLR's, video and liveview etc etc, to me it is just a gimmick and a selling point just to broaden the market. Speakers on an SLR.. i really don't have any words for it lol.

What next, Internet browsing? TV? MP3? GuitarHero? Games? Leave all that for the mobile phones!

More crap means more messing about, more menus to go through, more buttons that we wont use.. all that jazz. Nice! (jazz cat voice required).

I guess the Dxx range is the entry level and as such "noobs" will be buying them (i've got a D80 so don't flame me), especially as the prices keep dropping and these features just attract them even more - you could say it was inevatible?

I'm a simple man with simple plans.

It's like door salesmen. If i wanted new dougle glazed windows i'd call someone up to get an estimate when i want them.. i ain't going to wait for someone to come to my door trying to throw them in my face!

ack, consumerism, eh?

where's that Leica brochure?


*just a side note. what does this mean for the sensor being 'on' for so long recording video.. i'm assuming they're less prone to heat etc now?.. what's the chances of more dust gathering on the sensor?, i just don't like the idea of it.*

 

[bhop]

Technology sucks...

 

[jvgig]

technology does not suck, the only things that suck are those who fail to use technology to their advantage

 

[Overread]

I don't think the sensor being on longer should affect dust by that much = key dust problem times are changing the lens - and even then one can leave the camera on with no ill effect (if one has luck). Once the lens is connected to the camera dust should not get in (even the canon 100-400D should not let that much dust into the actual system)