Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Forum & Miscellaneous | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · DSLR cameras with no video
  
 
Veedotcom
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · DSLR cameras with no video


I'm wondering if Nikon camera is going to make hi end FX series cameras with no video. Just wondering because I dont shoot video. Also I wanted to convert to full frame capabilities and I'm thinking that could bring the price down on full frame cameras. Maybe replace video section with camera housing stablization or gyros.


Mar 16, 2013 at 09:10 PM
trenchmonkey
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · DSLR cameras with no video


I'm still shootin' with 2 great ones...D3/D700. No stinkin' video, useable ISO6400, nice fat pixels,
pro build...how "high end" you lookin' for



Mar 17, 2013 at 09:29 AM
Veedotcom
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · DSLR cameras with no video


trenchmonkey wrote:
I'm still shootin' with 2 great ones...D3/D700. No stinkin' video, useable ISO6400, nice fat pixels,
pro build...how "high end" you lookin' for

Love the D3 but in 3 months I be ready to purchase a full frame DSLR camera & lenses. D5nv (no vid) would be awesome,with built in stabilization. Just wishful thinking.



Mar 17, 2013 at 02:00 PM
mpmendenhall
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · DSLR cameras with no video


"No video" wouldn't lower the price much; in fact, it would probably raise it. There isn't actually a big, heavy, expensive separate "video section" in the cameras --- the expensive parts for video (sensor, real-time image processing chain, fast storage IO) are already there anyway for still photo capabilities (live view, high frame rates, etc.). Once Nikon has spent the initial research/development/manufacturing-setup costs to make one video-capable sensor and data processing chain, the marginal cost to crank out each of a million copies of the video-capable camera isn't going to be much different from the marginal cost of non-video devices. Maintaining two product assembly lines instead of one, and needing separate packaging/distribution/marketing/support for the non-video version, will increase the cost over making everything with the same video features.


Mar 18, 2013 at 03:41 PM
borderlight
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · DSLR cameras with no video


People who are serious about video don't use a still camera to get a paying job done. That's not to say it can't be done, just not as well as a full-fledged video camera. And video cameras are not expected to provide the same quality stills as a high-end DSLR. This whole camera/video thing started with the P&S and slowly worked its way to the DSLRs as camera companies copied each other. It's a phase that will have to run it's course. Video on a DSLR is like a safety on a pistol: it's there if you need it, but ignored if you don't.


Mar 18, 2013 at 05:13 PM
mpmendenhall
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · DSLR cameras with no video


borderlight wrote:
People who are serious about video don't use a still camera to get a paying job done.


That statement is provably false by counter-example. There are many quite-well-payed wedding videographers primarily using DSLRs. As I recall, there was an episode of the high-budget broadcast TV show "House" filmed entirely on 5DIIs --- and if multimillion-dollar-budget prime-time TV shows aren't "serious about video" for "a paying job," then what is?

This whole camera/video thing started with the P&S and slowly worked its way to the DSLRs as camera companies copied each other. It's a phase that will have to run it's course. Video on a DSLR is like a safety on a pistol: it's there if you need it, but ignored if you don't.

I doubt this is just a passing phase, any more than having games and cameras on cellphones was just a passing fad before people went back to carrying separate phones, cameras, and game pads. There is a lot of overlap between the technology and expensive components useful for stills and video. While I suspect that high-end systems more specialized for one task than the other won't disappear, video-from-still-cameras and stills-from-video-cameras are already, and will remain, good enough for "serious people" to use for "paying jobs."



Mar 18, 2013 at 07:39 PM
borderlight
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · DSLR cameras with no video


Borderlight:
People who are serious about video don't use a still camera to get a paying job done.

mpmendenhall:
That statement is provably false by counter-example.


When my words are taken out-of-contex it's not "provably false". You forgot my second sentence: "That's not to say it can't be done, just not as well as a full-fledged video camera".

You are fooling yourself if you think that wedding photographers in general are using a DSLR as a video camera on an extended basis. First of all, still photography and videography are two completely different genres. If you think you are a filmmaker when you show with a DSLR to shoot a wedding having only been trained in still photography you are seriously mistaken. Because a few photographers have demonstrated it's possible doesn't mean that's what the mainstream photographer is doing. If someone filmed "House" on a DSLR he was an accomplished videographer, and had a crew of secondary cameramen backing him up at different angles with more than one camera. B&H isn't listing hundreds of video cameras for fear of a DSLR video takeover.

It's important to clarify that a DSLR is a still camera that will also shoot video. One big reason that it isn't used as a full-time video camera is of sensor overheating. Yes, you can completely trash your camera if you use it exclusively for long video episodes. Here's more reasons why a DSLR is not a video cam:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/camcorders/cam-cam.shtml

As you said, the DSLR w/video, and the Video/w still capability may coexist in the future, just don't confuse their individual strengths.





Mar 18, 2013 at 09:08 PM
mpmendenhall
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · DSLR cameras with no video


I wasn't talking about wedding photographers playing amateur videographer with their DSLRs --- I was talking about professional wedding videographers (who are fully trained in their distinctive art) opting to use DSLRs because they offered better capabilities (per price and weight/portability/flexibility) than video-centric devices. I'm by no means trying to say that photographers with video-capable DSLRs can/will replace videographers --- rather, that dedicated videographers currently are, and likely will continue, using DSLRs for professional production work (encouraging manufacturers to keep good video technology in their still cameras). Technology issues like sensor overheating will fade away with further progress in sensor design (and super-long-take shots are much rarer in actual professional work than aimless rambling home-video shooting); the other current issues with DSLRs listed in your (now somewhat dated) article reference will also, with time, become trivial to implement in future video-capable DSLRs (keeping the form factor relevant as an attractive lighter weight, lower cost alternative to video-dedicated devices).


Mar 18, 2013 at 09:24 PM
borderlight
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · DSLR cameras with no video


Likewise, I am expecting auto manufacturers to turn cars into transformer-like tanks or gigantic robots with a flick of the switch. I think Transformer movie technology applied to cars is only going to improve. For those who want to drive a plain old car in the future, there's that too, even if it was designed just for transporting you from place to place.


Mar 18, 2013 at 10:37 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



mpmendenhall
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · DSLR cameras with no video


If super transforming cars were already available in the real world, at approximately the same price and performance as non-transforming versions (with almost zero marginal cost for adding the transforming features), I would be very surprised if any major car company bothered to continue developing/producing specifically non-transformer cars. Perhaps a few niche luxury brands would still make automobile-only cars for purists with big wallets. Everyone else would be getting the car+dishwasher+ninja-robot combo, even if they only care about the car part, because these would have the best price-performance point with the latest technology as the big manufacturers' main focus.


Mar 18, 2013 at 10:44 PM
borderlight
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · DSLR cameras with no video


My comment was an absurd analogy, just a joke....K? Done with this topic.


Mar 18, 2013 at 11:59 PM
tama01
Offline

Account locked
p.1 #12 · DSLR cameras with no video


mpmendenhall wrote:
If super transforming cars were already available in the real world, at approximately the same price and performance as non-transforming versions (with almost zero marginal cost for adding the transforming features), I would be very surprised if any major car company bothered to continue developing/producing specifically non-transformer cars. Perhaps a few niche luxury brands would still make automobile-only cars for purists with big wallet. Everyone else would be getting the car+dishwasher+ninja-robot combo, even if they only care about the car part, because these would have the best price-performance point with the latest technology as the big manufacturers' main focus.


But the question is, why spending resources on something the intended market is not even demanding for? In the case of DSLR video, I don't think many photographers care for it. I personally would trade it for improved image capture.

Some people might say video is a bonus feature with no real cost to the consumer. Well, I don't know about that. There is, however, the benefit of video as an added tool for the landscape photographer in case one runs into big foot to prove once and for all that the thing is for real



Mar 19, 2013 at 12:05 AM
mpmendenhall
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · DSLR cameras with no video


tama01 wrote:
But the question is, why spending resources on something the intended market is not even demanding for? In the case of DSLR video, I don't think many photographers care for it.


I suspect Canon/Nikon have access to a lot better marketing data than you or I do --- and they decided to push video capabilities. Even if you, and all your photographer friends, and most of the posters on FM, don't particularly care about video, my guess is that Canon and Nikon are not completely stupid about business/marketing; presumably, they know something we don't about what sells cameras. In this case, consider that they aren't necessarily adding video features to make photographers more happy, but to attract videographers who would otherwise need very bulky and expensive rigs to get full-frame-sensor video.



Mar 19, 2013 at 12:15 AM
tama01
Offline

Account locked
p.1 #14 · DSLR cameras with no video


mpmendenhall wrote:
...my guess is that Canon and Nikon are not completely stupid about business/marketing; presumably, they know something we don't about what sells cameras.


That, or maybe the manufacturing cost has come down considerably that the only way to keep a high price tag on product is adding things like video instead of passing the savings to the consumer.



Mar 19, 2013 at 03:44 PM
mpmendenhall
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · DSLR cameras with no video


tama01 wrote:
That, or maybe the manufacturing cost has come down considerably that the only way to keep a high price tag on product is adding things like video instead of passing the savings to the consumer.


So far as video actually contributes to the manufacturing cost, it doesn't help Canon/Nikon any to increase their costs to "force" them to sell their cameras at a higher price point. What you say is partially true --- they probably add video to provide a marketing "reason" for the high price of cameras. However, this only profits them if the actual marginal cost of video is very low, so they can pocket the difference. This means that removing video wouldn't actually make the camera much cheaper to build --- the issue with high camera prices is not that Canon/Nikon are needlessly adding expensive components, but that in small-number-of-players oligopoly markets, big companies get away with gouging customers for cheap components in the first place.



Mar 19, 2013 at 06:01 PM
jefferies1
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · DSLR cameras with no video


borderlight wrote:
People who are serious about video don't use a still camera to get a paying job done. That's not to say it can't be done, just not as well as a full-fledged video camera. And video cameras are not expected to provide the same quality stills as a high-end DSLR. This whole camera/video thing started with the P&S and slowly worked its way to the DSLRs as camera companies copied each other. It's a phase that will have to run it's course. Video on a DSLR is like a safety on a pistol: it's there if you need it, but
...Show more

Really. I guess I have to call back the TV station that hired me to do video promos based on having my DSLR bodies/lens. I usually shoot stills for them but did a 15 second sample showed the quality was over the top. They love the shallow DOF and image quality.

For me I would like to get rid of all the auto functions on my bodies. Never use any of them and they get in the way. Hate hitting them when changing my grip . That is something else that will never happen. The public demands auto functions just like they demand video.



Mar 21, 2013 at 12:54 AM
borderlight
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · DSLR cameras with no video


Yeah, you need to read my second sentence too. 15 seconds! When you shoot 6-8 hours continuously for the station, or shoot an entire wedding with your DSLR in the video mode, let us know how that experience turned out. "The pubic demands" convenience, thus a merge of still and video. Professional videographers demand using the right tool, a video cam, because they are designed for motion pictures, not an afterthought on a still camera.


Mar 21, 2013 at 01:57 AM
15Bit
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · DSLR cameras with no video


tama01 wrote:
But the question is, why spending resources on something the intended market is not even demanding for? In the case of DSLR video, I don't think many photographers care for it. I personally would trade it for improved image capture.


In a word - Marketing. For better or worse consumer DSLR's are on a 12-18 month product cycle, even though much of the technology is very mature. Sensors aren't really getting THAT much better, metering and AF systems are on the development plateau now, and the fundamental design of the DSLR isn't really changing any.

So how do manufacturers differentiate new models from old? They add features that they think customers will want. Or they add features and convince customers that they want them. So we have video. And lets be honest, the average camera buyer faced with 2 equivalent cameras on the shelf, one of which has video and one which does not, WILL buy the one with video "just in case". I've seen this effect so many times with family, friends and strangers - a large majority of people will always buy something with more features, irrespective of whether they will use them. In the future i think you can expect to see a lot more functionality you don't want too, as the manufacturers try to sell cameras that don't actually take any better photos than the ones we bought 3 years ago.

Development costs? Yes, video cost money to develop so in a sense we are paying for it. On the other hand, if say Canon had gone forward with video development and Nikon had chosen to remain "pure" to the philosophy of still photography, most consumer level (and i'm sure many professional level) shoppers would have paid the extra 10 dollars for video functions and Nikon would be dead now. So whilst on paper we do pay for video, you could argue that if all manufacturers hadn't taken this route we would have a smaller number of manufacturers and possibly higher prices due to more limited competition.




Mar 21, 2013 at 06:47 AM





FM Forums | Forum & Miscellaneous | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password