DSLR's + Video

[Ben H]

So, just a general forum poll.

Now that DSLR's are starting to include HD video, and that although it's a bit first generation at the moment, the video feature is likely to become more popular and added to more and more cameras - how interested are you in shooting video / video clips in high quality from your camera?

Do you think it's a great feature to explore? Or could you care less about video - stills is the only thing that interests you?

For me - it's *definitely* a useful tool that I could use, being that home video cameras have such poor crappy video quality...

[Mad Aussie]

So, just a general forum poll.

Now that DSLR's are starting to include HD video, and that although it's a bit first generation at the moment, the video feature is likely to become more popular and added to more and more cameras - how interested are you in shooting video / video clips in high quality from your camera?

Do you think it's a great feature to explore? Or could you care less about video - stills is the only thing that interests you?

For me - it's *definitely* a useful tool that I could use, being that home video cameras have such poor crappy video quality...
At this point I have no interest in video. I'd have a video recorder if that was my passion.

[kat]

With two young children it is a nice option!

[tirediron]

I'm in agreement with the guy from down under. I look at the D90 and 5D Mk II in the same way I do 18-200mm lenses and swiss army knives. That is: "Do-all" gimmicks. Any time you try and make a tool do too many things, the overall quality suffers.

[Ben H]

I'm in agreement with the guy from down under. I look at the D90 and 5D Mk II in the same way I do 18-200mm lenses and swiss army knives. That is: "Do-all" gimmicks. Any time you try and make a tool do too many things, the overall quality suffers.

While I understand and often agree with that statement (just look at the video cameras that also take stills - horrible!), it's interesting to note that the video capability doesn't make the 5D2 any lesser a camera, and the video quality and potential *vastly* outweighs any camcorders at that price.

No - the 5D isn't going to be a replacement for a real video camera to shoot films or documentaries just yet - it's use in this *is* flawed (first generation, remember, there are definite tradeoffs). If you are primarily making films, one of those cameras is not the right tool for the job.

However, if you do want to capture some video in a decent quality, it appears (to me) to be an excellent additional feature that lets me do things I previously couldn't (or with far less quality).

So yes, as long as the compromises and tradeoffs are in the right direction for me, I'm all for these cameras getting better at video, as long as it doesn't interfere too much with their primary function of shooting stills.

[tirediron]

...it's interesting to note that the video capability doesn't make the 5D2 any lesser a camera...

I'm not entirely sure of that. I've seen a number of fairly learned people express concerns about what recording HDMI video may do to the sensor's life. After all, a five-minute video clip must surely equate to months, if not years of use when compared to taking stills only. I suspect that these cameras, at least for the next few generations are going to be much more susceptible to burned pixels, excessive noise, and shortend life-spans.

[Ben H]

Ok, I see your point on that one. Like I say, we're still early on in the game, and the technology will doubtless improve. I very rarely jump on the first product cycle of these things away to see how it plays out.

[Iguanasan]

I've been hearing a lot about this lately and I really don't think this convergence will eliminate the differences between photographers and videographers. They serve two different purposes. We've had camcorders, in one fashion or another, for 20+ years and yet people continue to buy still image cameras to take photos.

I do believe that at some point in the future we may have one device that will handle either situation but until that time (a long way off) I think I'll continue to shoot video with my camcorder and photos with my camera.

[Mad Aussie]

I agree the video is a cool feature ... IF you want it. I don't and therefore don't want to pay extra for that feature. Hopefully there will be an option to purchase with or without. Maybe that's already decided ... I haven't looked.

[Iguanasan]

I understand that with the Canon 5D Mark II all they did was record the Live View when you want to take video. It's not so much an add-on as it is a side-effect of the camera features that they capitalized on. Unlikely that you'll find a "non-video" option.

[mindforge]

I like the d90's video capability. I didn't get the camera for it, but I like it. It was an extra for me. One I use for family stuff, I don't use the d90 video professionally. One, because I am a photographer, not a videographer - soon I will be both, just learning videography. Two, it is good (not HD enough for high end weddings) but I don't think that video featured DSLR's are going to become a standard feature in all DSLR's - just some of them, the higher end ones.

[Marko]

I must admit that I am drooling over the Canon 5D Marko II :D and think the video feature is really interesting. I think it will come in SUPER handy to start video podcasts.

I know 2 people that have the camera for under 2 weeks and I'm waiting for those personal reviews despite all the others I've read.

[tirediron]

I must admit that I am drooling over the Canon 5D Marko II :D and think the video feature is really interesting. I think it will come in SUPER handy to start video podcasts.

I know 2 people that have the camera for under 2 weeks and I'm waiting for those personal reviews despite all the others I've read.

But... but... Dude, it's a Canon! :yuck:















:p

[Marko]

What can I say...I have no loyalty. :p
I shot nikon on film for 20 years, then switched to canon when I went digital. Most days I don't regret it.:D

[Mad Aussie]

A Canon 5D Marko 2 http://www.mtbdirt.com.au/home/smf/Smileys/classic/hihi.gif It must be a Canadian camera that likes taking photos of itself http://www.mtbdirt.com.au/home/smf/Smileys/classic/biglaugha.gif

Im guess the yankie doodle version would be called Canon 5D JJeling 1 http://www.mtbdirt.com.au/home/smf/Smileys/classic/hmm.gif

[mindforge]

I must admit that I am drooling over the Canon 5D Marko II :D and think the video feature is really interesting. I think it will come in SUPER handy to start video podcasts.

I know 2 people that have the camera for under 2 weeks and I'm waiting for those personal reviews despite all the others I've read.

Just to say something real quick about that. Umm... you couldn't really do vidcasts at that quality. You are probably better off getting a d90 (wink!). You can shoot 20 minute videos at the mid setting, which is still pretty dang close to dvd quality. 1.5 minutes of video at the high setting took something like 100 meg. 720i, more than enough for a video podcast.

On a side note, I wouldn't turn a Canon 5D Marko II :D down if someone offered one to me. My next camera is a D700 or a D3 anyway... no Canon for me, not now that I have a bunch of cool lenses for the Nikon.

[BlueX]

I am a Nikon shooter but have to admit, I am very interested in the 5d II too, not because of the video capability, but as a dslr. My next camera might be the d90 (although I am looking very hard at the d300) because it is a good dslr, but I am very curious about the video capabilities and would very much like to play around with it.

I can think of times when video would come in handy. I am primarily a stills photographer but I'd like the ability to take video. As long as the stills side of the equation didn't suffer from the addition of video, I think It is a good feature to have. I have an older digital camcorder but don't take it with me as much as the dslr because I can't use 2 devices at the same time. A picture may say a thousand words, but sometimes that is not enough to tell the whole story.

The big problem I can see (right now) is that the dslr is not ergonomically designed as a video camera and its physical operation can be awkward, resulting in some bad videos. I think amateurs like me would like the ability to capture video, but might get turned off by it once they see how hard (or maybe how expensive it could be) to get some decent video from these cameras.

[Gatepc]

I would love to have video on mine since i would love to just mess around with it mostly its not "that" important but its still very nice

[Barefoot]

"But unlike recent DSLRs which have offered video capability, the GH1 is capable of continuous autofocus in movie mode using its purpose-designed contrast-detect AF system; this should make it a far more usable option for users looking for a fully functional stills/video hybrid."

Link: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030316lumixgh1handson.asp

It' not a DSLR, but clearly a welcome innovation.

[Duane]

So, just a general forum poll.

Now that DSLR's are starting to include HD video, and that although it's a bit first generation at the moment, the video feature is likely to become more popular and added to more and more cameras - how interested are you in shooting video / video clips in high quality from your camera?

Do you think it's a great feature to explore? Or could you care less about video - stills is the only thing that interests you?

For me - it's *definitely* a useful tool that I could use, being that home video cameras have such poor crappy video quality...

I'd really rather if the manufacturers of DSLRs concentrate on still photography. I think that adding video will make an SLR go up in price. I have a very nice video camera with built in HD for video. I doubt I'd ever use the option if it was on a DSLR. I never used the option on past none DSLR cameras when it was available.

[mindforge]

If you want to get into videography, a dslr with video is not the way to go. The sheer amount of features in professional video equipment is massive compared to the video features on a dslr (which is nil).

The video features on DSLR's have not pushed prices of DSLR's up any more than other features do. Here is why.

In business, well, smart business anyway -- you never, ever, ever reduce prices for long term. Sure, a sale on something for a month is different, that all has to do with hitting the quarterly blacks. You never reduce prices, you increase value and features. Technology has reached the time where the price of DSLR's should be plummeting now, like computer technology has done. So, instead of dropping the price, you add features to make your camera a good option for the price.

I think we will never see prices drop, we will only see higher quality and more. Within a decade, these cameras will be amazing compared by where they are now... a digital sensor recording 11 stops for a thousand dollars with blueray recording etc...