they put a second sensor in it for the video feature --- you remember the 8mm film camera's -- you popped out a side window, and got a double image, where you could overlay a title... well instead, you would have a secondary sensor which was smaller which could capture the video?
they put a second sensor in it for the video feature --- you remember the 8mm film camera's -- you popped out a side window, and got a double image, where you could overlay a title... well instead, you would have a secondary sensor which was smaller which could capture the video?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Olympus's E300/330 use a second CCD?
I can understand some people's skepticism for the idea, but I think it would be a neat feature. Think of all the cool things you could do with manual focusing while taking the footage. That can't be done with an everyday camcorder.
Welcome to the future of photojournalism. This would be a great idea, but the camera would become FAR too breakable. Plus, its very hard to keep a camera steady compared to video cameras. Although something that could take 3 minutes or so of footage would be great.
Jay Kopinski wrote:
Thats a stupid idea. If you want a camcorder by one. I want an SLR built as a camera not a 2 in 1 gimmicky device. Buy a Coolpix.
soooooo, you don't think that it would be cool to take video with a 70-200 VR at f2.8 and have the depth of field control you can have when taking stills.... or for that matter, a 400 2.8....your right... that's stupid..... I can easily get the same, or better quality out of a cam corder, thanks for fixing my broken thoughts.
It is called film making, good video cams have super lenses that would put the 70-200 to shame. If your only experience with video auto exposure video cams and the TV news, you should try the real stuff, much harder than digital photography. Yes you can adjust dof etc, but you only have one speed to work at.
That is why I'm still doing still work, you can have more of a life.
.