p.5 #3 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
Somebody mentioned Live View, which I never use either, but is another way to capture a photographic opportunity, if you will. But video is not photography, rather it's something else. It's more akin to incorporating a telephone or a mp3 player into a DSLR, the only difference being that it's a visual medium. It just makes me wonder what else they intend to bolt on to cameras in the future that they think will give them an edge.
I know I'm a purist about these things and because you can't have photography without photographic tools, I see this attempt to make our cameras all things to all people as a corruption of the photographic process. I have nothing against video if it's what you want to do. If I wanted to do it, I'd buy a video camera. But I don't.
p.5 #4 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
Micky Bill wrote:
I think I recall some of the same attitude regarding Live View a few years ago...I like live view and the video option makes me $$$. So I'm happy with both.
I don't see attitude, just responses to the initial question:
"How many people consider video important to the purchase of an SLR body ?"
To that question my answer, along with some of the others here, is that it was not a consideration when we purchased our DLSRs. If your answer is that you find it useful and something you considered, that's fine.
I may not care but I do understand there are those that do and that find the feature important to them. My personal concern is that at some point the video features will impact the still feature/ability/quality. If they can do both without impacting still then great. If the work in video ability enhances the still feature set, I'm all for that as well (live view being such a feature).
p.5 #5 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
Steve Torelli wrote:
Somebody mentioned Live View, which I never use either, but is another way to capture a photographic opportunity, if you will. But video is not photography, rather it's something else. It's more akin to incorporating a telephone or a mp3 player into a DSLR, the only difference being that it's a visual medium. It just makes me wonder what else they intend to bolt on to cameras in the future that they think will give them an edge.
I know I'm a purist about these things and because you can't have photography without photographic tools, I see this attempt to make our cameras all things to all people as a corruption of the photographic process. I have nothing against video if it's what you want to do. If I wanted to do it, I'd buy a video camera. But I don't....Show more →
But why spend twice the price and have twice the bulk when you can have both stills and video in one camera and use the same lenses for both? That just does not make sense to me.
p.5 #6 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
Steve Torelli wrote:
It's more akin to incorporating a telephone or a mp3 player into a DSLR, the only difference being that it's a visual medium. It just makes me wonder what else they intend to bolt on to cameras in the future that they think will give them an edge.
I know I'm a purist about these things and because you can't have photography without photographic tools, I see this attempt to make our cameras all things to all people as a corruption of the photographic process. I have nothing against video if it's what you want to do. If I wanted to do it, I'd buy a video camera. But I don't....Show more →
I'd rather see it as a wonderful creative extension to the photographic process than a corruption!
And it's easy enough to say just go grab a video cam if you want to do video, but as has been said, will you give us all $3000-$10,000 to pay for that? Will you give us a teleporter so that we always have access to it without needing to lug yet another thing around along with the camera and lenses all the time (even worse if the video cam uses it's own exclusive lenses then a second set of lenses to be dragged around as well)? And what if you are dealing with weight restrictions for say internal flights on safari or something?
(And certainly in the 5D2 era there was nothing remotely small or reasonably priced that did large sensor video at all.)
As for having put resources to better use, for those who don't like to do video at all, well it is hard to say. Has video actually sped progress and brought in more money and resources overall or have some stills things been compromised for video read out and work? Hard to say. Maybe it could have had 26MP instead of 22MP and kept 6fps They didn't even bother giving it zoom modes or zebras or live focusing aids so they didn't really seem to much time at all there. I think video brought them a lot of extra $$$ for 5D2 sales. If it hurt stills in any way and you don't like video I could see the complaints. I'm suspicious that it hasn't likely cost you anything much on the stills front, although perhaps 4MP more? It's all very hard to know exactly what the real deal is.
However, maybe had they not split the line into 30 different tiers they could've saved a lot of development effort though and given a 5D3 with better video and spent more time on sensor dynamic range It surely would've meant a lot less silly crippling of 5 series and below video features at the absolute least.
p.5 #7 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
Steve Torelli wrote:
Somebody mentioned Live View, which I never use either, but is another way to capture a photographic opportunity, if you will. But video is not photography, rather it's something else. It's more akin to incorporating a telephone or a mp3 player into a DSLR, the only difference being that it's a visual medium. It just makes me wonder what else they intend to bolt on to cameras in the future that they think will give them an edge.
I know I'm a purist about these things and because you can't have photography without photographic tools, I see this attempt to make our cameras all things to all people as a corruption of the photographic process. I have nothing against video if it's what you want to do. If I wanted to do it, I'd buy a video camera. But I don't....Show more →
Steve -- Perhaps you'd feel more of a purist if you disavow digital altogether and stick to the wet collodion process, or better yet, classical oil painting?
p.5 #10 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
"Steve -- Perhaps you'd feel more of a purist if you disavow digital altogether and stick to the wet collodion process, or better yet, classical oil painting?"
I knew somebody was gonna go there. Actually I made the transition from film to digital very easily.
I don't think because one doesn't blindly embrace every new technology that comes down the pike that makes one a dinosaur. The "wet collodion" process not withstanding.
I know Canon, Nikon et al are in it for the money, no problem with that. I just want cameras to remain photographic tools. I won't apologize for being a purist.
Good luck.
p.5 #11 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
Steve Torelli wrote:
I know Canon, Nikon et al are in it for the money, no problem with that. I just want cameras to remain photographic tools. I won't apologize for being a purist.
But the video has not, in any way, impaired the ability of these cameras to produce still photos. In fact the DSLRs with video are among the best at producing still images.
p.5 #13 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
I love having video on my cameras - it helps with critical focus on tripods and macros and tilt-shift tweaking etc. Handheld, not so much. I rarely record it, however. (Yes, I mean Live View)
But video is not photography, rather it's something else.
And calling moving photography (movies, cinematography etc) "not photography" I think misses the point entirely. Or perhaps you don't go to the movies ever? If you mean video is not cinematography because it's digital, then the movie industry is making the move you just did to digital for "movies".
p.5 #14 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
Dan,
My point is that video doesn't have anything to do with photography and the fact that the current DSLRs with video are the best photographic tools there are is coincidental.
Adding video is the one thing the camera companies have done that has nothing to do with photography. If they liked it once they'll love it twice so I'm afraid they'll start throwing in a lot of extraneous stuff to justify selling you a new camera every three years or so.
Look, I'm not trying to tell anybody what they should do. And we're not all going to agree, some people want all the doodads that the company can put on whether they'll ever use them or not. Others like to keep things simple like myself. But, IMHO, cameras are getting more and more sophisticated which is fine. I just think they should stay with what got 'em there.
p.5 #16 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
Steve Torelli wrote:
Dan,
My point is that video doesn't have anything to do with photography and the fact that the current DSLRs with video are the best photographic tools there are is coincidental.
Adding video is the one thing the camera companies have done that has nothing to do with photography. If they liked it once they'll love it twice so I'm afraid they'll start throwing in a lot of extraneous stuff to justify selling you a new camera every three years or so.
Look, I'm not trying to tell anybody what they should do. And we're not all going to agree, some people want all the doodads that the company can put on whether they'll ever use them or not. Others like to keep things simple like myself. But, IMHO, cameras are getting more and more sophisticated which is fine. I just think they should stay with what got 'em there.
And what exactly got them here? I remember the days when I had to focus my lenses all by myself with my eyes. Then came the day when my lenses could focus themselves...how dare Canon stray from the norm. LiveView...who needs anything more than the viewfinder...again, how dare Canon stray from the good old ways.
Things change and usually for the better or they will die away. Video migrating into still cameras is just progression. Open up your eyes and mind and see how you can utilize this progression. I thought I would never use video...boy was I wrong. It now gives me more freedom to bring back my vision, whether that be in still, video or a combination.
p.5 #17 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
Steve Torelli wrote:
Dan,
My point is that video doesn't have anything to do with photography and the fact that the current DSLRs with video are the best photographic tools there are is coincidental.
Adding video is the one thing the camera companies have done that has nothing to do with photography. If they liked it once they'll love it twice so I'm afraid they'll start throwing in a lot of extraneous stuff to justify selling you a new camera every three years or so.
Look, I'm not trying to tell anybody what they should do. And we're not all going to agree, some people want all the doodads that the company can put on whether they'll ever use them or not. Others like to keep things simple like myself. But, IMHO, cameras are getting more and more sophisticated which is fine. I just think they should stay with what got 'em there.
Maybe you should look at some of Romy's (aka Liquidstones) videos he's done while birding. I'd say it compliments stills photography very nicely if you have the time to edit the files. Sometimes stills cannot convey what you are seeing as well, especially when recording animal behaviour.
Simple fact is you never have to switch to video mode if you don't like it, but I like the option even though I don't use it much and I don't think it's costing us additonal money to have the feature. In this regard it's not like a car where they make there money on additional features most of which are questionable.
p.5 #19 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
Steve Torelli wrote:
Dan,
My point is that video doesn't have anything to do with photography and the fact that the current DSLRs with video are the best photographic tools there are is coincidental.
Adding video is the one thing the camera companies have done that has nothing to do with photography. If they liked it once they'll love it twice so I'm afraid they'll start throwing in a lot of extraneous stuff to justify selling you a new camera every three years or so.
Look, I'm not trying to tell anybody what they should do. And we're not all going to agree, some people want all the doodads that the company can put on whether they'll ever use them or not. Others like to keep things simple like myself. But, IMHO, cameras are getting more and more sophisticated which is fine. I just think they should stay with what got 'em there.
Good luck...Show more →
I suggest you go to a place called a cinema one day and see a wonderful invention called "moving pictures" - they take many photographs a second and then project them like slides on a screen very quickly so it sort of looks like looking through a huge viewfinder at real life. I think you'd enjoy it.
p.5 #20 · How important is video in a DSLR to you ?
I storm chase and travel often. Use it quite a bit. I have two canon DSLRs and will run video and photography on both quite often.
I can in invest in one system and take care of both my needs. Hugely valuable to me.
I love being able to snap pictures out of video mode as well. My video isn't as serious as my photography,however, losing video ability would be a huge drawback. It'd make my adventures much more work.
They didn't even bother giving it zoom modes or zebras or live focusing aids so they didn't really seem to much time at all there. I think video brought them a lot of extra $$$ for 5D2 sales. If it hurt stills in any way and you don't like video I could see the complaints. I'm suspicious that it hasn't likely cost you anything much on the stills front, although perhaps 4MP more? It's all very hard to know exactly what the real deal is.
(Yes, I mean Live View)