SLRs that shoot video

table1349 · Sep 13, 2008

My dislike of the idea doesn't come from the "purity" aspect. Rather from the practical aspect. Nothing in this world is free. Everything has some sort of cost. By incorporation video into a DSLR what is it that was given up?

There has to be a trade off somewhere. Size, weight, fps, better AF, something or things. For me there are other features that I would rather have in my DSLR over video.

This is no different than my other hobby of woodworking. There are a ton of Shopsmith Mark V users out there for various reasons. Cost, shop space etc. I know several myself. The Mark V is a good piece of equipment, but will never be better than a shop full of dedicated tools. I have yet to find a Mark V user that wouldn't have a shop full of dedicated tools if they could. This is my concern with adding something like video to a DSLR. Not what I am getting in the way of video, but what am I giving up in the way of useable features for the main emphisis of the equipment.

Overread · Sep 13, 2008

As far as I see it the giving up of things started with the incorperation of liveview - that forced the mirror to be removed and istead you have eletronics doing the work. Once that was in place recording the output of the liveview was a more natural progression of the technology.
Increasing the buffer and processing power of the camer would have to be done of course, but a large video buffer and faster processing power are only good things for the single shot side of photography. Currently the video is ata lower resolution because the buffer tech and processing is not fast and small enough to be included in the camera as is - though as the technology progressses I can see it improving quickly.

Like I have said video is not removing practicality mearly extending the features of the camera based along its existing design structure - live view is not going away, so why not have a feature to record that viewview output? Especailly when it promots FPS boosting at the same time

Mike_E · Sep 13, 2008

Look folks, if you don't want it don't buy it!

If you do want it then get it.

If you get it and don't think that it's good enough,THEN it's time to gripe.

Iron Flatline · Sep 13, 2008

...and what I really wanted this thread to be about is whether video in cameras would lead to more bans for SLRs, and other ancillary effects... but some people here can only talk about gear, not what they actually do with it.

Bifurcator · Sep 13, 2008

But that's uber-speculative and probably case by case. I think (as previously mentioned) that those in charge of "making the rules" are never hip to technological abilities and don't usually base their decisions on that at all. It's usually a political thing. Like, if they don't want TV news to be there they'll ban equipment that THEY (usually mistakenly so) associate with "TV News". Likewise news rags with bulky looking dSLRs and etc. I doubt there will be a chief of police or policy maker in the USA that can or will consider that dSLRs can do video or not when making up these unconstitutional rules.

Maybe in 5 years if and when the association of device shape with media type changes?? <shrug>

usayit · Sep 13, 2008

Doesn't bother me any bit.... We vote with our $$$$'s. If incorporating features introduces compromises, then I'll opt out and not purchase. (Just as Gryph said). If there are no compromises, I'll seriously consider a purchase.

I tend to purchase items according to how well they perform their primary function. It just so happens that they tend to be products that don't suffer from feature creep.

Technology will always push the envelope of legalities.... no way to know until the technology hits the market.

Bifurcator · Sep 13, 2008

But do you think video in cameras will lead to more bans for SLRs, or other ancillary effects?

JerryPH · Sep 13, 2008

Iron Flatline said:
...and what I really wanted this thread to be about is whether video in cameras would lead to more bans for SLRs, and other ancillary effects... but some people here can only talk about gear, not what they actually do with it.

How do you mean it, like would people ban dSLR cameras with video capabilities built-in?

That still comes back to my initial thought... if quality is exceptional, why not... but I highly doubt it will ever happen, so why would I need to settle for something not to my standards? I wouldn't, thats what.

`

I have a dSLR, and I have a camcorder. I use them both (about 60/40 in favor of the D200)... so I am not clear about where this is going, if it is not about gear?

Overread · Sep 14, 2008

Its about many places now having a video or production/lecture happening where the material is copywrited. Now naturally if you have gone to the expense of paying for a lecture or for a video to be made the last thing you want is for someone to copy it, so you ban all video cameras.
The argument is - though - that with DSLRs gaining the video option will these oneday also be covered by the ban - banning video cameras of all kinds?

One thing though that I don't get is that many of these places are holiday or tourist destinations for most the productions that they use are not stella = and many are often just single episodes of a TV series - so with that in mind who does want to rip off those videos? and better who wants a cheap recording which wabbles and has a head infront?

Its the same with the film industry the recorded films, they do seem to sell and be distributed, but mostly it seems that htey are often dumped and also replaced with the genuin article (or a rip of the DVD which is another area)

usayit · Sep 14, 2008

Bifurcator said:
But do you think video in cameras will lead to more bans for SLRs, or other ancillary effects?

Anymore than cell phones and the integration of cameras into them?

Paul M · Sep 14, 2008

Here is my attempt to make this clear for those that are still fuzzy on the topic.
Today, I am headed to the Tampabay vs. Atlanta game held at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, Florida. Their rules on their site says cameras allowed with lenses no longer than 12". When I called to find out about bringing my monopod, they said they only allow them to the photojournalists on the field and not in the stands (which is okay with me even though I plan on taking my 50-500mm lens). Then they said the camera, body, filter etc. cant be more than 12" combined. (The site said LENS not entire camera system). I'm still okay with this because when my 50-500mm is mounted to my D80, it's 11.5" long with the filter. I am just going to play stupid and not realize theres a zoom lock on it that keeps it at 50mm

if they make me open it up to full length, it is about 17 inches long.
With that said, their rules also state "no video allowed". When they find out the new D90 and other models take video, do you think they will allow cameras other than p&s in the stadium? I highly doubt it and it ticks me off. :thumbdown: :grumpy:

Are we as photographers that threatening in some capacity? Who are we disturbing? I know rules are rules, but we don't have the chance in voting to change the rules or anything. It just sux.

Mike_E · Sep 14, 2008

Iron Flatline said:
...and what I really wanted this thread to be about is whether video in cameras would lead to more bans for SLRs, and other ancillary effects... but some people here can only talk about gear, not what they actually do with it.

Iron, I think that the answer would be rarely. The obvious places like movie theaters and play houses surely but most of the places you can carry your DSLR into won't care that it has video capability.

As you know there is a LOT more to quality video than you can get with a snapshot style (I don't care how much Blair Witch made). So the video you could capture would be little more than a video-postcard. Why do I get the feeling that we will be hearing and seeing the term V-Card a lot more in the near future? :/

Iron Flatline · Sep 14, 2008

On various pro forums there is a LOT of conversation about Red.

Story on Engadget (hardly a pro community, but it sums it up nicely)

Here's a thread started by one of the principals of Red on their own forum.

Joves · Sep 14, 2008

Well to get back on the point. Yes I could see it as becoming more restrictive. Especially where the no video rule applies. Wether the resrticters just simply ban cameras by models or not will be the question. But so far they seem to like to blanket ban everything.

manaheim · Sep 14, 2008

Joves said:
Well to get back on the point. Yes I could see it as becoming more restrictive. Especially where the no video rule applies. Wether the resrticters just simply ban cameras by models or not will be the question. But so far they seem to like to blanket ban everything.

I don't see them more aggressively restricting P&S cams now, and most of those DO take video. Can't see how they would logically restrict the DSLRs more. In fact, the DSLRs tend to be more restricted now because people look at them as "more serious", not to mention they are far more likely to notice them over a P&S crammed in your pocket.