As I'm sure most of you know the D90 looks as if it has video recording capabilities and from what I have seen here (assuming this is actual D90 footage) it doesn't look all too bad. So now, the question...If Canon was to implement the very same feature how many of you would actually use it? How many think DSLR's should stick to still frame and focus more on features and specs photographers that would better benefit a photographer?
I shoot with a P&S a lot these days due to its compact size and portability. Having the video feature has been a huge plus. You can record good times with friends, see their mannerisms, hear their voices, and so on. It feels much more realistic than a photo.
I think it would come in handy from time to time. Frankly, I'm surprised that Canon wasn't first with this feature on a DSLR, given their presence in the video camera market.
Tom_W wrote:
I think it would come in handy from time to time. Frankly, I'm surprised that Canon wasn't first with this feature on a DSLR, given their presence in the video camera market.
Perhaps they are taking the time to feature AF when shooting video...?
Great for vacations. I carried a SLR and a HD camcorder to Disneyworld a few months ago... looked like a dork. It would be nice to just have to carry one thing.
Soccer Moms across the world are going to get this camera for Christmas, New Year, Easter, Anniversery, etc. Just watch. Dad can have a neat still camera to play with and Mom can do all the little 5 minute clips of the kids, friends, and party time.
I could personally care less, but I think Nikon has just nailed a niche in the consumer market for this product cycle.
"I think it would come in handy from time to time. Frankly, I'm surprised that Canon wasn't first with this feature on a DSLR, given their presence in the video camera market."
Maybe they want to continue selling video cameras as well.
For working purposes I don't care. My clients pay me to make photographs. If they would hire me to make movies, I would need dedicated film gear anyway.
For recreational/travel/holiday purposes I might use it, if the quality meets that of todays camcorders and you can record a substantional amount of time. But it would probably eat a lot of memory that can't be used for photos anymore. And I like photographing more than filming
M Vers wrote:
How much footage (shooting at the highest res. of 1,280 x 720p) could actually fit on, for example, a 4GB card?
up to 30-35 minutes (630mb per every five minutes give or take) in clips of 5 minutes each. That's plenty if you ask me.
I'm considering switching for this feature alone, there's nothing to lose for me. The tokina 12-24 f/4 and the tamron 28-75 f/2.8 also come in f mount, I'd just have to look for an equivalent of the 70-200 f/4L.
Sure it's gimmicky and possibly not the best implementation since it lacks AF, but that wouldn't stop it from being useful from time to time.
The camera will record clips up to five minutes long at 1280 x 720 pixels (20 minutes at the smaller movie sizes) before recording is stopped to give the image sensor an opportunity to cool. The file size for a typical five minute, 1280 x 720 pixel clip is roughly 600MB. There's no control over the JPEG compression level. A mic on the front of the camera picks up audio.
it depends on what the cost is. and by cost, i don't mean necessarily monetary. but overall, i think it's a nifty feature. and if nikon can pull it off on a very generously-featured camera, for under $1000, i think that's phenomenal! that was/ is a total surprise attack by nikon (again).
Say what you will about not wanting video in a still camera, but it will come anyway. And I suspect a lot of naysayers will surprise themselves by finding the feature more useful than expected. Sure, for serious motion picture work one will still want proper video gear for the near future. Eventually the boundaries will blur, like how DSLRs are now used in applications that used to dictate large format or medium format equipment, because the results will be "good enough." A prime example of this is the newspaper industry where photographers also shoot video. Why bother with a $5000 HD video camera with all the fancy features when the end pieces are often shot very simply and output at less than 640x480 for the web? And aesthetically look borderline due to factors such as rapid highlight clipping and infinite depth of field. Imagine the improvement (and granted, the technical challenges) being able to shoot wide aperture on a large sensor, using your existing lenses, without having to buy into a RED system. There will probably be a run on talking heads shot at f/1.4 and fisheye shots... but it will be fun.
I like the idea of having an option between still and video, but without AF, the video feature is only half as useful. It also depends on the storage requirement for the video clips.
