I got the rain in here about the video... are pro photographers really going to use video on their shoots? Is a wedding photographer really going to "stop" taking pictures to shoot video (remember you can't do both at the same time). Are sports photographers?
I have to also say, 99% of the "videos" I have seen shot on DSLR's so far have been really mediocre content wise... great quality wise. I firmly believe that there is a fundamental difference in approach to shooting images than shooting video. One is telling a story in one frame, one is telling a story over 1000's. It's not a simple matter of shooting a "day at the park."
Will a wedding photographer that has video capabilities really be able to capture great video moments in the wedding and tell the story of the day? And if that photographer IS capturing great video, are they capturing great photos?
I honestly would like to know how everyone feels about this... I can't seem to think of a situation where that would work. Great photographers don't make great directors... and vice versa.
As a "cool feature," I think it is great and am sure it will show up in the 1D soon. Just wondering about the real life application.
sskoutas wrote: aaronlam wrote:
I got the rain in here about the video... are pro photographers really going to use video on their shoots? Is a wedding photographer really going to "stop" taking pictures to shoot video (remember you can't do both at the same time). Are sports photographers?
For wedding photographers, it is a value added service to stand out above the competition. Many, many of us use multiple bodies.
For sports photographers, I was listening to a podcast last week (sorry, I can't remember which one) and I think it is the ESPN or SI photographers that are now required to come back with video and still images. Memory seems to tell me it was ESPN because of their larger web (flash) presence.
The points you make back about being able to tell a quality story with one frame or thousands, however, are as valid as it gets. Maybe the cream will rise to the top?
sskoutas wrote:
For wedding photographers, it is a value added service to stand out above the competition. Many, many of us use multiple bodies.
For sports photographers, I was listening to a podcast last week (sorry, I can't remember which one) and I think it is the ESPN or SI photographers that are now required to come back with video and still images. Memory seems to tell me it was ESPN because of their larger web (flash) presence.
The points you make back about being able to tell a quality story with one frame or thousands, however, are as valid as it gets. Maybe the cream will rise to the top? ...Show more →
@ wedding photographers... although multiple bodies are being used... still only one photographer. one eye. one set of feet. one brain.
@ sports photographers... I don't shoot sports so I am curious... is there not a licensing issue here? I know photographers have always shot some video at sporting events. As this practice becomes more rampant... would Fox or whoever has license to broadcast the game not eventually get upset others are shooting video footage? Obviously not applicable and probably very valuable for smaller events. But there is still the question of how do you shoot stills and videos at the same time.
@ the livebooks article... interesting reading. I find it most interesting they all do make a separate distinction and note separate skill set between video and stills.
I think video in DSLR are really allowing advanced amateurs to shoot with better lenses that you couldn't get on a consumer camcorder. And it's good that people are trying new things. I think it just need to be remembered there are very different approaches to shooting video. Even music videos and commercials many times are just a slice of life. Just like photographs, just because they are technically perfect... doesn't make them great photographs.
I shoot videos in my day job. Have been for 30 years. I shoot wedding photos on the weekends. I also own a 5DII but I would never, ever try to do both.
jcolman wrote:
I shoot videos in my day job. Have been for 30 years. I shoot wedding photos on the weekends. I also own a 5DII but I would never, ever try to do both.
agreed.
Also I find the dSLR video is of a pretty good quality... but without all the camera mounts, microphones, mixers, video lighting, etc... you can't do a professional job.
I wouldn't just 'do video' with just a camera... and the post-production is a lot more work than editing RAW files!
I think I would want to go full on to do that... I have a thing about quality
I get a chuckle out of the "progressive" pro wedding and event photographers jumping on the video bandwagon just because their camera shoots video now. I just tell them if they need a photographer to shoot their stills while they're taking video, I'm available for hire
There are lot of business clients out there who are looking for video to put on websites. Just like the bar of quality in still photo has been lowered so has what is needed for web videos or youtubes. I get that request pretty often lately from clients who don't want to hire a full video crew but want a small amount of video. From what I hear many news photographers are now doing some video for the newspaper's website. I know some guys who shoot for magazines who are also offering video because once again the mag has a web presence. Most of these are pretty simple videos and not very long, they show the product a different way than a static shot.
Not every photographer will make a good director (or photographer for that matter), just like not every photographer is not a photoshop guru or a smart businessman. That doesn't stop very many however
There is a huge shift coming so when your competition has learned (or hired people who know) the process of video it may time to play catch up. I am trying to not be left behind.
