I'm gonna love HD quality at f1.4. I can't wait! I think this is the kind of innovation that ups the game, pushes the art forward, and increases business for those who make it work.
i don't like the idea of having video capability but i am afraid that's where it is going. however, after looking at the sample videos...that is something pretty cool.
i think someone on this forum mentioned that there will be a day where video would be high quality enough in which we can extract a single frame and it would be equivalent to a high resolution image. heard that a year ago from a pro who talked to a bunch of students.
Couldn't care less. I have my DSLR because I enjoy still photography. I have a video camera for times I need video. If I'm just doing casual stuff with friends and want to take a clip, I'm usually using my G9 at that time anyway, so I already have video.
Great, up till now it was people using P&Ss' walking around with outstretched arms not paying any attention to the surrounding environment. Now they'll be doing the same with a Dslr bonking into things lens extended.
I for one will laugh hysterically while pointing when I see somebody trip over something as they watch body and lens sail through the air and hit the ground bouncing and skidding to a halt. Honestly, what's the point of a 5 minute video without AF unless the teaming masses are all of a sudden start carrying tripods?
Want video, stick with a video camera or a P&S. These days the video cams are all small enough to fit in the pocket of a pair of cargo pants/shorts(based on what's being offered at the big box stores I saw the other day).
But hey those are just my thoughts, to each his/her own.
fungke wrote:
i don't like the idea of having video capability but i am afraid that's where it is going. however, after looking at the sample videos...that is something pretty cool.
i think someone on this forum mentioned that there will be a day where video would be high quality enough in which we can extract a single frame and it would be equivalent to a high resolution image. heard that a year ago from a pro who talked to a bunch of students.
I also have no interest in that, but I can see the attraction for news outlets. I can't imagine sifting through thousands of nearly identical frames for the 'one good one.' Ugh. That's not fun...not to mention the wasted storage space.
Highly interested ... especially HD format. Just last weekend, I found my daughter sitting on my graphics workstation looking at videos from when she was a child. Video is a great compliment to photography. I don't want to have to carry both a video camera and DSLR.
If Canon comes out with one of these, I'd get one. I have no interest in the look of cheap video camcorders and P&S cameras, and to match the DOF that a video-capable DSLR can attain, I would need to invest a lot of money in RED or in letus35 adapters for a (expensive) interchangeable-lens camcorder.
Having a child, and not having a camcorder...I kinda like the idea. A smaller camera that my wife (although she does quite well with the 1D, lol) could operate easily and shoot video if I'm not home and the little one is doing something sounds great. The creative angle with all the different lenses is also a very attractive aspect. I initially thought....yeah....sucky quality like the little compact cams, but nope I was really impressed with the D90's videos, they look very good. 630mb for 5 min only means quite a few more memory cards if you are on an outing and feel like taking a substantial amount of video. My only question is, if there is no AF, how difficult is it going to be to focus properly? Especially at longer focal lengths? Moving subjects, etc....would be nice to put it on servo or a video equivalent (is it called the same thing?). Could get dicey to keep what you want in focus while blurring the background nicely. Maybe it wouldn't be as difficult as I'm imagining.
Shooting weddings, I'd love to have a 3rd shooter along side my partner and I and have them do some creative video and bundle a slick DVD with the pics for the client.
2 words: Indy Filmaking Now I can sprint wearing my steadicam vest with a DSLR attached w/o looking stupid. It also eliminates the need for a video camera. It's a 720p camera with an APS-C vs. the PUNY 1/3" & 2/3" sensor on the broadcast cameras (sound guy not included).
As long as it is in the lower end cameras (Rebel series) then fine, I really have no need nor want for it in my 40D or the 1Ds/5D that I would like to buy. If i want to do video I will buy a nice HD camcorder.
Jman13 wrote:
I also have no interest in that, but I can see the attraction for news outlets. I can't imagine sifting through thousands of nearly identical frames for the 'one good one.' Ugh. That's not fun...not to mention the wasted storage space.
Potentially, the video-photo journalist can mark the instant they want a still while shooting and some software can just extract that still image for static publications.
Edited by EltonTeng on Aug 27, 2008 at 11:35 AM GMT
Jman13 wrote:
If you can get it in focus....manually focusing video with the camera held away from you to look at the LCD is going to be ridiculous.
Being a video/film guy as well, pro cameramen have been using the MF ring on their lens for a VERY long time. These broadcast quality and movie camera lens carry a pretty hefty price too, MF only, because AF is too unpredictable for video and film. The ONLY difference is that your eyes won't be on the viewfinder like the 15-20+ pounds broadcast cameras. As for focusing the lens in front of you, there is a follow focus on 15mm rails that you can use for precise focusing.
Now I can sprint wearing my steadicam vest with a DSLR attached w/o looking stupid. It also eliminates the need for a video camera. It's a 720p camera with an APS-C vs. the PUNY 1/3" & 2/3" sensor on the broadcast cameras (sound guy not included). 