Those with movie capture abilities...

Hey guys, let's not let this thread drop into bickering. :)

I respect everyone's right to choose what they want and voiced an opinion that was respectfully handled by many in an opposing manner. Very cool. Video in a dSLR is not for everyone, it is more of a consumer thing. Me, I take my photography seriously and do not want to have expensive options in it that I will never use or have other items that can do the job better.

All I can say is... I can take a picture of my camera and a video of my dSLR... let's see them do that with the same unit (without shooting in a mirror)... lol
 
Hey guys, let's not let this thread drop into bickering. :)

I respect everyone's right to choose what they want and voiced an opinion that was respectfully handled by many in an opposing manner. Very cool. Video in a dSLR is not for everyone, it is more of a consumer thing. Me, I take my photography seriously and do not want to have expensive options in it that I will never use or have other items that can do the job better.

All I can say is... I can take a picture of my camera and a video of my dSLR... let's see them do that with the same unit (without shooting in a mirror)... lol

I'm with you on this, i want a 5Dmk2 without video, so i will probably keep my 5D for a good bit longer
 
No bicker intended here, but when I get called an idiot consumer it stings :D

Eeeek sorry. I definitely did not mean to say idiot consumer. That is just something that slipped out in the general bitchyness of my reply. I meant the targeted group of idiots who shouldn't be using an SLR in the first place which is unfortunately the primary target market for these features, not someone who's heavily into photography and appreciates the video additionally; the "omg this does everything, I must buy it" consumer.

Generally an "idiot consumer" by what I meant, is not someone you'd actually find on a photo forum. I did not mean to call you or anyone else on this forum an idiot and I retract.
Except if someone on this forum is primarily a videographer and you're only camera is a DSLR, I'm still calling you an idiot.

But on the one side you say it's not affecting your camera's picture taking ability. How would we know. This is a sizable R&D budget gone to a feature not characteristic of the equipment. But really there's no telling this money wouldn't have been wasted on some other useless feature anyway.
 
I should apologize as I may have read more into JerryPH's post them what was actually there, and then wrote my post around that.

I can follow the logic, and kind of agree, that my camera is a camera and that's all I want it to be. But the video feature doesn't hurt the photo taking ability so who cares if its there. Then as said, if you don't want it, don't use it.
 
I say use video camera to make video....still camera for pictures.

Mixing them is a great idea...but completely unecesary.

If you really dont have the money to get one of each...you REALLY shouldnt have either.

*Becomes mod and locks thread* :p
 
I would like to put it like this... I would MUCH rather camera companies invest money in making a better picture... rather than investing money in a video option.

I can understand it on something like the D5000.. and the D90... Something that the average public kinda buys.. But I do NOT want to see it on the D700x or D800... [I'm a Nikon user]. I don't like the route Canon took with the 5d when they slammed more MP's in it and added video... rather than increasing FPS or focal points.
 
Parkerman! I BE FAKE MOD! I LOCKED THREAD!
YOU BE BANNED NOW!

:p

Just kidding...I agree....video in the higher end cameras isnt worth it unless Im getting the qulaity of a RED video camera (in chich case I want 1TB of memory to record any length of video)
If you could get the option of a camera with and without video (maybe like a d700xI for video and d700xII for no video...or something....same specs tho if you get what im saying) I would have no issue...because then I could get the cheaper non-video one and later get the one with video! (I have no money...I buy whats cheap now...and sell to buy more expensive later)
 
I would like to put it like this... I would MUCH rather camera companies invest money in making a better picture... rather than investing money in a video option.

I can understand it on something like the D5000.. and the D90... Something that the average public kinda buys.. But I do NOT want to see it on the D700x or D800... [I'm a Nikon user]. I don't like the route Canon took with the 5d when they slammed more MP's in it and added video... rather than increasing FPS or focal points.

The new Canon 1D4/1Ds4/60D, the Nikon D4/D400/D800, etc, will all feature HD video, because professional journalists (and documentary filmmakers) are clamoring for it. They're buying D90s and 5D2s so that they can shoot video with them, and work done with these cameras is appearing in multimedia projects and newscasts all over the place. From the standpoint of a photojournalist, a combined package is beyond ideal. Aside from the fact that the pure quality of output is so far beyond what you can do with an ordinary (or even fairly pricey) handheld video camera, the fact that you can now shoot stills and video with the same device is borderline revolutionary.

Obviously there is appeal to the consumer market for video in the sense that "point and shoots have it why doesn't my SLR." And perhaps Canon and Nikon thought that was where it ended (see: 5D2's video pre-firmware update). But that is simply not the case.

Or maybe they just invented it so that guys on the internet could feel more "professional" by trashing it.

edit: not to mention that the title of the thread is directed at "those with movie capture..." not "people who get angry with new features that they don't personally need"

edit II: video is largely a software development, given that live-view has already been implemented in most cameras, so it's not like it's either costing a lot extra or taking away other features.
 
Last edited:
I've never bothered to try video on my camera but this thread made me think about giving it a go...... then I had to think of a subject to film but was finding it hard, I seem to think in stills....... then I had a brain wave...... then my wife said NO;)
 
So out of curiousity when taking videos, your shutter remains open the whole entire time until you stop recording? Meaning shutter speed would be uneventful when recording videos right?

Can you also change certain values such aperture, iso settings, and white balance while recording or is it constant until you stop recording?

I may just have to get a hold of one of these units to test them out. So far I have been impressed from vids I've seen using DSLR's. The flexibility and capabilities seem far and beyond from what even high end camcorders can do.
 
So out of curiousity when taking videos, your shutter remains open the whole entire time until you stop recording? Meaning shutter speed would be uneventful when recording videos right?

..

The flexibility and capabilities seem far and beyond from what even high end camcorders can do.

The actual shutter yes. God at 24fps that would wear out the shutter within 2 hours and make people think they are being shot at. :) While the shutter is open the the sensor is read out periodically, however the speed at which it is read out can vary between a lower limit speed that would start cutting into the framerate, or an upper limit dictated by how fast they can read out their sensor. I have no idea if they actually do it like this but it is how I am imagining it.

...

The hardware and picture is good, but flexibility and capabilities overall match maybe low end cameras. Heck there are some clever hackers out there have written custom firmware to add what many would consider basic features to the video functionality. Magic Lantern Firmware Wiki (Including Zebra Stripes!)
 
I'll have to look into this a little more. That would suck if your shutter would wear out... if it does. I understand if you have to record an entire show or event, I wouldn't dare use my DSLR (if I had one). But i'll just use my camcorder for such events (which carry more of a sentimental and personal value for the person taking it than creating a work of art.)

When making quality videos, you only record several takes for a few seconds each take anyway. I've never recorded an entire show, school play, musical etc.. so regular use of my camcorder is not needed. It's not like I have to put it on a tripod and keep it recording for an entire hour.

But for special events like party's, social events, vacations, I can see the positives for lugging around just 1 piece of equipment that can do both video and take quality pics without having to switch from 1 to the other.

Pictures only tell part of the story, but peicing together quality pictures and videos, then creating a DVD for family and friends is an awesome idea.

My previous DVD's had mediocre vids mixed with high quality pics especially in low light situations. So having a DSLR that can give quality to both media types in any lighting would be great .
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top