Those with movie capture abilities...

kami · Jun 21, 2009

I like making short movies with my HDD Sony DCR-SR82 camcorder. Last night I was editing some video from a party using Adobe Premier 4 and some effects that I wanted was almost really difficult to attain. Then it just dawned on me, a lot of the effects I wanted could have been done on my D80 except that it doesn't capture video.

I thought about it for a while, then a flow of ideas just kept coming and I seemed to have opened a whole new concept of video editing. On my Sony, I can't get the DOF I always want, I can't shoot in low light unless I use the infrared or nightshot plus functions, etc. I assume quality of the video would be much more impressive than with regular camcorders.

So my question is, have any of you taken this added feature of movie capture seriously?

And what are your thoughts and opinions? So far I could only think of memory problems, but everything else seems like a godsend. Interchangable lenses, the ability to use your filters, and all the other fine qualities of a DSLR at your disposal converted to video without having to buy a $10,000 video camera.

tsaraleksi · Jun 21, 2009

These are the reasons that people are excited about video capture on dSLRs.

JerryPH · Jun 21, 2009

Meh... if you want video effects, try Pinnacle Studio Pro 12 for commercially available software.

I would not take it too seriously for 2 reasons, though others may be for it:

- limited capture times
- slow or no autofocus
- poor low light capture abilities.

My Sony cam has 100gb storage, 0 lux, quick and reliable autofocus and full HD capabilities and Dolby 5.1 sound capture abilities. It also takes photos, but you will not see me ever take pictures with it.

If I want video, I use a video cam... when I want quality pictures, I use a dSLR.

When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

kami · Jun 21, 2009

I know... imagine changing the focus from the main subject towards the background, zooming in on your main subject while attaining an awesome DOF, zooming in would also be much easier, faster, and with more control than an ordinary camcorder, etc.

JerryPH · Jun 21, 2009

kami said:
I know... imagine changing the focus from the main subject towards the background, zooming in on your main subject while attaining an awesome DOF, zooming in would also be much easier, faster, and with more control than an ordinary camcorder, etc.

One spends thousands of dollars on a dSLR... when you spend the same on a video camera, all that is easily possible too.

Garbz · Jun 21, 2009

JerryPH said:
One spends thousands of dollars on a dSLR... when you spend the same on a video camera, all that is far easier, more intuitive and user friendly.

fixed for ya

You're absolutely right. If someone compares a $3000 DSLR to a $600 video camera, then I'm going to compare the DSLR to my phone. Take a guess which captures better pictures.

PhotoXopher · Jun 21, 2009

I wouldn't say I've taken it seriously (I do home video), but I do LOVE having video on my D90. Some people rip it apart and I don't understand why, it's a GREAT add-on and I think it's a smart move.

There's a lot of moments I wouldn't have capture on video had it not been for this feature.

Love It!

tsaraleksi · Jun 21, 2009

The issue is that y'all are trying to compare the video capture functionality on say, the 5D to a camcorder. Of course a camcorder wins in the AF dept, etc, though the 5D's video AF isn't terrible. The ability to use a full frame capture setup, however, trashes the camcorders when it comes to visual image quality. Do you think they have AF on movie cameras?

The fact that there are people in Hollywood starting to use 5Ds for some projects, that they are starting to be used for multimedia news coverage, etc, makes it pretty clear that the naysayers are wrong on this one.

JerryPH · Jun 22, 2009

I knew someone would say "well someone in Hollywood made this movie and uses 5DmkIIs to in 5 scenes make movies with, so it *has* to be as good as or better than a real video camera"... sorry, it just isn't. Just because someone does something nice with a lower end product doesn't mean it is the best tool for the job. It means someone used a hammer to cut their wood with... lol

Now, if 90% of Hollywood used 5dmkII's (just like 90% use the same system today), you would have something... there are all kinds of people making Hollywood movies even with 1980 4mm DAT home camcorders too... doesn't mean that they are the best tool for the job either, it just means they are doing it.

tsaraleksi · Jun 22, 2009

The point is that people are taking it seriously, for a broad range of applications, even if you are not. You simply cannot ignore the fact that video in 35mm (or even 1.5 crop) format opens up a lot of possibilities that camcorders don't offer. Sure it doesn't AF that well (nor do real movie cameras), and sure you'll have trouble turning it on and recording for a sold hour (ever heard of someone doing that for a movie/documentary?) but that's of no importance unless your using your camera to record your kids choir concert (and a camcorder is the better choice for something like that).

Every time there is a new innovation in photography, there are plenty who stand off to the side and attack it. AF? that's for idiots who couldn't focus, and it's a fad, gone in a few years. Film? Glass plates are here to stay. Digital? Will never match the quality of 35mm film. etc etc etc. I think my favorite example is that you could find lots of Nikon shooters who could ramble on for pages about how they didn't need full frame...

No one is claiming that your expensive and no doubt very nice camcorder is obsolete, or not worth what you spent on it. But SLR video is here to stay.

Unmanedpilot · Jun 22, 2009

At one point I would have agreed with JerryPH, but unless you can give me some hard facts for why video on a DSLR is a bad thing, I'm going pro video here. The benefits far outweigh its defects.

To go with your tool analogy,

Lets say I get a pair of pliers. Awesome! they do their job but that's about it. Now lets say I need to complete a certain job, and for that job lets say I need pliers, a screwdriver, and why not, a bottle opener. Now instead of carrying all 3 tools, of which I may lose one, break one, or drop one, I can now carry a Leatherman multi-tool and get all three jobs done with one convenient tool. As long as the functionality of the tool Isn't harmed, I say put on all the add-ons you want! Sure if I lose that one tool I'm up a river without a paddle, but lets bring it back to reality here. I'm talking about a camera. If we lose it, or drop it, we have bigger problems.

It means someone used a hammer to cut their wood with...

Sure, but if they cut that wood to a 45 degree angle and added decorative trimming, then I say MORE POWER TO YA! Just because its not the best tool for the job, doesn't mean its the WRONG tool for the job.

Adding video to a DSLR's doesn't take away from its photo taking ability. It just gives it more possibilities. Instead of spending $10,000 for a camera and camcorder we can now spend $5,000 and get both. How is that bad?

Garbz · Jun 22, 2009

Innovation in photography? Sure. This isn't photography anymore. This is using one product for something that it was never designed to be used in the first place. AF, digital, that was all there to improve photography. This however is something to suck more idiot customers with features they don't need.

If you can point to one person who gave up their camera when they got their new 8mpx Samsung mobile phone then I would be inclined to maybe slightly see your point of view. But my sister's mobile phone has a higher mpx count than her camera, but she still carries it around, and this is a 21 year old girl who still has the sense to use the right tool for the job. Video on DSLR is a gimmick. Fun to use, convenient to have, but don't for a moment think that it is an alternative for any serious video work. Afterall we've all seen good photos from phones I'm sure, but photographers who use their phone to take pictures I am sure are a vast minority.

By the way Tim Burton shot The Corpses Bride on a Canon modified to take Nikkor lenses. This is a big name director too. There you have it. It's the future. May as well sell all your Canon lenses and Nikon bodies know because someone is taking this point of view seriously.

PhotoXopher · Jun 22, 2009

Garbz said:
This however is something to suck more idiot customers with features they don't need.

Speak for yourself!

I guess I'm an idiot customer because I wanted a DSLR that had video. My purpose for this purchase was to capture moments of my children growing up, having the movie mode adds to it's value.

Don't like it? Don't use it.

Simple as that...

Adding video had no negative effects on the cameras photo taking ability, so what's the problem?

For me, the D90 IS the perfect tool for the job at hand... but yet I'm an idiot customer by your logic.

PS
Search YouTube for D90 video, I've seen some pretty cool stuff being shot with it.

I'm not being defensive, I'm just SO sick of people whining about video being integrated into DSLR cameras... if it hurt the cameras photo ability I could see it, but it doesn't - so get over it.

a.rilley · Jun 22, 2009

Unmanedpilot said:
At one point I would have agreed with JerryPH, but unless you can give me some hard facts for why video on a DSLR is a bad thing, I'm going pro video here. The benefits far outweigh its defects.

To go with your tool analogy,

Lets say I get a pair of pliers. Awesome! they do their job but that's about it. Now lets say I need to complete a certain job, and for that job lets say I need pliers, a screwdriver, and why not, a bottle opener. Now instead of carrying all 3 tools, of which I may lose one, break one, or drop one, I can now carry a Leatherman multi-tool and get all three jobs done with one convenient tool. As long as the functionality of the tool Isn't harmed, I say put on all the add-ons you want! Sure if I lose that one tool I'm up a river without a paddle, but lets bring it back to reality here. I'm talking about a camera. If we lose it, or drop it, we have bigger problems.

It means someone used a hammer to cut their wood with...

Click to expand...

Sure, but if they cut that wood to a 45 degree angle and added decorative trimming, then I say MORE POWER TO YA! Just because its not the best tool for the job, doesn't mean its the WRONG tool for the job.

Adding video to a DSLR's doesn't take away from its photo taking ability. It just gives it more possibilities. Instead of spending $10,000 for a camera and camcorder we can now spend $5,000 and get both. How is that bad?

Just thought I would explain JerryPH's post. From what I can see, he didn't mention anything being wrong with DSLRs having the video recording capability. All he stated was that he would get better quality from his video camera as opposed to using his DSLR, which is why he would use his video camera for videos and leave his DSLR for pictures (to get the best possible quality out of both). He wasn't flaming the video capability, but rather giving his personal opinion towards which one he would prefer to use for whichever given situation.

Dao · Jun 22, 2009

I believe the movie feature is not for everyone. But for sure there is market for it. And I will believe more and more video capable DSLR cameras will hit the market.

This type of DSLR is not a replacement for the professional video recording equipment. I am sure Canon will not want to do that.

If you compare it with a regular HD camcorder, I am sure the HD camcorder is going to be a lot easier to use as a video recording device. But most of the regular HD camcorder users (we are not talking about hollywood movies here) will love to change the lens on the camcorder. Someone will spend $200 for an adapter so that they can use a 35mm camera lens.

i.e. FS: Official TWONEIL adapter - Canon HV20, HV30 & HV40 User Forum

Especially for those who want to have the very shadow DoF type video.

So the DSLR with HD video capability open up a new market for them. (User like OP).

Therefore, the HD video from DSLR may steal some market share from the consumer grade HD camcorder. Just like Mobile phones with camera took a big slice in the low end digital camera market.

My camera do not have video feature, if it does, I will use it. If I get serious about making videos, hahaha .. I may even use this to make it look bad ass (j/k) :lol: