Camera Labs

I've started working in a camera store while at uni, since the 7D came out last year I've had nothing but canon **** go on and on about the HD video on the 7D.
Nikon has the D90 which does 720p video and again the nikon users (who I find better than the canon at the moment) go on about it a little. But I couldn't care less about video or not.

Firstly, I'm a photographer, if I wanted to do video I would have studied it, anyone IMO that thinks video on a dSLR is a great idea is not a true photographer and are wasting away.

Now I rarely use live view, I somethings do when I'm in a crowd with other photographers trying to take a media image over the crowd, the auto focus on the sonys live view beat anything the 7D or these video cameras have to offer.

If I want a video camera I'll spend the money and get one, I'll spend $1000 and get a top of the range one. I wouldn't want to add over $700 to the price of a corp sensor just for the video.

I hope Sony doesn't go down the same path and follow these other brands, and go for a better still camera.

_________________
http:/dowdenphotography.com/
Camera: who cares its the photographer
Lens: Lots

The D90's video really is a last-minute addition. I'd say the engineers were like "hey, lets output the live view stream to a file", and the marketing department went crazy over it.

Video on Canon DSLRs is much better implemented BUT:

video on DSLRs still sucks when you look at handholding. Imagequality is very nice, but the wobbling (jello effect) because of the CMOS sensors is pretty bad.

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".

Please elaborate. Can a photographer not be interested in videography and use his or her current equipment to record video?

It's true that DSLRs aren't the ideal devices to record video, but unlike the high-end camcorders that give similar results in terms of depth of field and creative control, DSLRs are quite affordable.

Video in a DSLR shouldn't become a headline feature, I agree. DSLRs should primarily be still cameras, with video capabilities being more of an extra feature. The enthusiasm and rebuke for video, in many ways, is like the HDR hype. Those who do not like HDR, may argue that anybody with a camera that uses the technique isn't an actual photographer. Same goes for video, I guess. Some love it, some hate it. I myself cannot wait to start recording videos on DSLR, simply because I 1) like the results you can achieve with it and 2) because I can't afford a camcorder that would give me satisfactory results.

- Bjorn -

_________________
Street and documentary photographer | Google+ | Twitter | Tumblr

Leica M9-P (my article on Camera Labs) | Leica D-Lux 5 | 50mm Summilux

I agree with you. I own a D5000 and I think have only ever used the video function to test it out.

On the other hand, companies want to sell cameras, that how they make money. If Sony see people flooding to CaNikon due to a lack of video functionality, they will have no choice but to implement video into their slrs. Its no harm to have it and not use it (thats what I do).

Dont knock dslr video too much, its getting a lot of commercial use nowadays.

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

If sony wanted to take over from one of the other 2 as the top 2 on the market I think staying away from Video is the go.

I think trying to get a camera with no noise at 6400ISO, aim for 50mp by the end of next year and offer a few more full frame options.
Work on those areas and let people choose video by buying a video camera which Sony do lead that market in.

Bjorn, a photographer can be, but imo if they were they would buy a video camera and a dslr

_________________
http:/dowdenphotography.com/
Camera: who cares its the photographer
Lens: Lots

Video is a tricky one. As something to implement, it is relatively easy and wouldn't really take significant resource away from other parts of camera development. Certainly it is magnitudes easier clean ISO6400 would be as that really requires a revolution in sensor technology. 50MP (I assume FF) could be done today if they wanted to, as the pixel density would be similar to highest crop today. Guess what I'm saying is, don't expect cameras to be better by not having video.

Ken Rockwell has a good write up on DSLR video, and why it doesn't matter for the normal person. click here

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

At the end of the day, entry level DSLR's are where Canon, Nikon, Sony and all the rest make by far the majority of their money. In these entry level cameras, there is a lot of demand for video.

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

Deja vu.

Didn't we have similar discussions way back in 2008 when the D90 was released and the photography purists were complaining about it back then.

Bottom line: If adding a feature to a DSLR does not impair the original function of the DSLR (i.e. to take great photos) then why complain? The addition of video to the current crop of DSLRs has not made them any less capable.

_________________
PhilipGoh.com

The same discussion happened elsewhere about live view . All the Canikonians:"live view is a gimmick, for novice photographers, people who are used to operating a P&S! Gimme a nice big OVF with a pentaprism and 100 % coverage! I'd rather die than use live view"...and all that . Until they found out live view could actually be convenient (like the implementation in the A550 with the articulating LCD and quick AF), they hammered it down...

When implemented and used properly, video on a DSLR is a great thing...the effect of a big aperture, a cityscape coming into focus slowly...beautiful!

Just hope that Sony will retain the current AF-system in live view (with the two-sensor design), so there still is fast AF in live view when necessary, albeit with less coverage (95 % I reckon...no problem for me...).

_________________
Sony α77V/VG-C77AM/α350/18-70/70-400 G SSM/NEX-5/18-55 OSS/Lowepro Pro Trekker 600 AW/CompuTrekker AW/Nova 140 AW/Street & Field gear/Toploader Pro 75 AW. And a huge wishlist...

My photos on Flickr...

Before I bought the FZ28, I thought: Wow, HD film! Ill be filming alot.
For now, I only have shot a serious film for my brother who had to make a film for school.
Video, IMO, is booring.

_________________
Ruben

Panasonic DMC-FZ18, Panasonic DMC-FZ28, Canon G5, Canon 350D, Canon 50D + BG-E2N
Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM,
Canon 18-55 II plus lots of Minolta MD/M42 lenses and bodies

Joris, rewind a few years and the same complaints were for autofocus, and before that auto exposure.

There will always be people who resist change and evolution, just because it doesn't suit their personal requirements.

I agree that if a new feature somehow compromises a core photographic capability, then yes, it's a bad thing, but when it's an added extra which you can ignore, then I have no problem with it.

I do of course understand some R&D budget will have been spent on this new feature when it might have been spent on improving other core aspects, but that's life in the technology fast lane. It's also assuming core improvements were actually even possible for the same budget. It's a lot easier and cheaper to implement video on a DSLR than mega resolutions with ultra low noise, so it's not like both options were necessarily available to the design team and they voted for video purely on marketing reasons.

I also understand the argument that you're paying for a feature you don't want or need. That sounds true, but the bigger picture is that by equipping a camera with this feature, it will appeal to a bigger market, sell more units and be available cheaper through volume manufacturing as a consequence. So that 'unwanted' feature could in fact make the camera cheaper in the long term than it would have been without it. And the money the manufacturers make from selling this product can fund longer term R&D into the low noise sensors we all want. Many people jump to conclusions without thinking about marketing, manufacturing and volumes.

For better or worse, digital cameras are like computers these days and to appeal to a mass market, the manufacturers need to implement these new features. And as mentioned above, they can often be implemented relatively easily on systems which already have Live View.

For the record, I love video on DSLRs as it's capable of results I could never achieve with a camcorder - and it also saves me carrying two cameras. I also love Live View and the way it can eliminate focusing errors and poorly calibrated optics. The sooner Sony implements video on a DSLR the better.

I agree with you, Gordon.

It is nice to have, LV, video etc., but the higher the range (7D, D300, A700) the less usefull LV, video etc become. I mean, how much people owning a 7D are using live view? I think less than users of the E420 from Olympus. For those dSLRs the manufractors can remove, or make those feautres less broad, that can save money too.

But, what Im seeing now, dSLRs are looking more and more to P&S cameras with their LV, video, flip out screens...
Id say: Go for it, but dont make the camera less ''good'' due offering more feautres people will ever want (such as blink detection).

_________________
Ruben

Panasonic DMC-FZ18, Panasonic DMC-FZ28, Canon G5, Canon 350D, Canon 50D + BG-E2N
Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM,
Canon 18-55 II plus lots of Minolta MD/M42 lenses and bodies

I do not agree, Ruben (is it just me, or is this forum being invaded by Dutchspeaking people ).

It's not because live view is working in a decent way that, say, an A900 would become less professional.

I think some of these P&S techniques may be valuable in everyday professional use. I can imagine that for instance live view, when used on an articulating LCD, may come in handy for photojournalists. The reason most Canon or Nikon users do not use live view, is because of the way both manufacturers implemented it: live view is considered a P&S gimmick, which is slow in use. We see that this is not necessarily true...look at Gordon's review of the A550 - it shoots at 4 frames per second in live view, which is as fast as the D5000 in OVF mode!

E.g. the D5000 has a very handy LCD, and if the live view would use phase-detection AF like an A550 or A350, it would be a very versatile camera, much more than it is now.

_________________
Sony α77V/VG-C77AM/α350/18-70/70-400 G SSM/NEX-5/18-55 OSS/Lowepro Pro Trekker 600 AW/CompuTrekker AW/Nova 140 AW/Street & Field gear/Toploader Pro 75 AW. And a huge wishlist...

My photos on Flickr...

The 1D has Live view, doesnt it?
I dont think there are many (or at least some) users who use LV.
Because that heavy camera, straight out with the hands, that could be a painfull for your arms.

_________________
Ruben

Panasonic DMC-FZ18, Panasonic DMC-FZ28, Canon G5, Canon 350D, Canon 50D + BG-E2N
Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM,
Canon 18-55 II plus lots of Minolta MD/M42 lenses and bodies

Like I said in my OP.
I use live view when I need to, at times I can have 10 photographers around me trying to get a winning owner, trainer or jockey after a race, AF live view allows me to swap over LV, put the camera above my head, see what I'm shooting and allow to AF. No other brand allows that as in LV you have to use MF, I've used canon LV and its bloody hard to get the right picture with it.


If I wanted to do video I'll buy a video camera.

_________________
http:/dowdenphotography.com/
Camera: who cares its the photographer
Lens: Lots