I also have one - and don't use it. I already carry too much stuff around, and frankly, I'm not a video guy. That's not to say that a quick video from time to time wouldn't be desirable. Too bad it isn't AF.
Mike1 wrote:
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.
Exactly. While soccer moms and vacationers rely on autofocus in their camcorders, professional ENG broadcast, music video directors, and 35mm filmmakers use MANUAL FOCUS for practical and creative control.
That said, AF is coming in the next iteration.
-m
Edited by mauriceramirez on Aug 27, 2008 at 08:04 PM GMT
Anybody who doesn't understand *why* a DSLR would produce better, more professional looking video than a "dedicated HD video camera" isn't thinking things through. Just as with the comparison of a small-chip digicam to a DSLR, a small-chip video camera can't match the DOF and low-noise capabilities of a DSLR. Yes, the lack of AF for casual consumer videos will be limiting, but people who make movies have always used MF.
Also, people have been jumping through major, expensive hoops for the last few years trying to get SLR lenses to work with relatively inexpensive HD video cameras to replicate expensive motion picture DOF. For instance, there's a company (don't remember the name) that produces a mount that you attach an HD camcorder to, and the camcorder literally shoots its footage by recording an image that is passing through an SLR lens and is being "projected" in front of it - the video camera never changes focus, it's all done by changing the focus of the SLR lens. The D90 eliminates the need to jump through those hoops at all.
In its current form, it's admittedly more of a marketing tool than something useful for the average consumer, but it does literally throw down the gauntlet for low-cost, reasonable-quality filmmaking, and the technology is only going to get better over time. Plus, anybody upgrading from a digicam will be more likely to buy the camera that can "shoot movies", regardless of how limited it might be.
And for everybody who says "I don't want it in my camera", you don't have to push that button - it's that simple. It's essentially a "free" feature - with the advent of Live View, most of the work was already done, so there's no reason for the manufacturers not to add the movie feature, as it's just recording what Live View was already showing.
Yes, professional video guys use MF. However, they have bright focus screens that are easy to judge focus, and they're on stable platforms with the camera to their eye. That's a far cry from MFing with the average lens (which have crappy focus rings nowadays), while holding the camera away from you, on a 3" LCD.
Unless you have prodigious skill with that, your videos are going to be OOF a lot of the time. And lets face it, if you're that into video, you'll be using an HD camcorder anyway.
I'm not one who will be upset if my DSLR has video...I'd probably use it from time to time. However, it is not going to be a purchasing decision for me...I buy my DSLRs for their still camera capability. If they happen to have video, fine, but I wouldn't buy one model over another due to video capabilities.
For the past ffew years we have seen technology move forward and we always have the nay sayers until Canon provides the feature and then it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
"I don't want automatic dust removal like Olympus...it will break"
"If I wanted live view, I would buy a P&S" --
"Who needs better LCD resolution just to look at the histogram"
"Who every is going to need more than 16K of memory" -- Oops, wrong forum.
rnb2 wrote:
Anybody who doesn't understand *why* a DSLR would produce better, more professional looking video than a "dedicated HD video camera" isn't thinking things through. Just as with the comparison of a small-chip digicam to a DSLR, a small-chip video camera can't match the DOF and low-noise capabilities of a DSLR. Yes, the lack of AF for casual consumer videos will be limiting, but people who make movies have always used MF.
Also, people have been jumping through major, expensive hoops for the last few years trying to get SLR lenses to work with relatively inexpensive HD video cameras to replicate expensive motion picture DOF. For instance, there's a company (don't remember the name) that produces a mount that you attach an HD camcorder to, and the camcorder literally shoots its footage by recording an image that is passing through an SLR lens and is being "projected" in front of it - the video camera never changes focus, it's all done by changing the focus of the SLR lens. The D90 eliminates the need to jump through those hoops at all.
In its current form, it's admittedly more of a marketing tool than something useful for the average consumer, but it does literally throw down the gauntlet for low-cost, reasonable-quality filmmaking, and the technology is only going to get better over time. Plus, anybody upgrading from a digicam will be more likely to buy the camera that can "shoot movies", regardless of how limited it might be.
And for everybody who says "I don't want it in my camera", you don't have to push that button - it's that simple. It's essentially a "free" feature - with the advent of Live View, most of the work was already done, so there's no reason for the manufacturers not to add the movie feature, as it's just recording what Live View was already showing....Show more →
Fair enough, but 720p HD (1280 x 720 pixels) of the Nikon does not compare to 1920 x 1080 @ 17Mbps of the aforementioned HF-10. The effect of shallow DoF is the only advantage I see....
mauriceramirez wrote:
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.
It will be a very nice feature once they get everything right. Once the autofocus works and you can take video up to the length of a card. I would use this all the time.
Also if they ever get true-HD (16:9 2MP) capture sports shooters might start using that to 'get the shot' if quality is a non-issue. Rather than trying to get individual frames they can just shoot a sequence as video and then go frame-by-frame afterwards to find the one or two shots they actually want.
Lance Couture wrote:
Fair enough, but 720p HD (1280 x 720 pixels) of the Nikon does not compare to 1920 x 1080 @ 17Mbps of the aforementioned HF-10. The effect of shallow DoF is the only advantage I see....
your average viewer can't distinguish between 720P and 1080P. Especially at normal viewing distances and sizes.
Being I'm a photojournalist, I think video in a DSLR is great, the news industry is moving in this direction anyway...where still photojournalist will be required to shoot a bit or a lot of video as well as still imagery, dont get me wrong...one wont replace the other....YET.
By YET I mean pulling a high res frame from video and publishing it as a still with great image quality...only in the news industry though.
At first I thought no, I would never use this and that Canon should rather spend their money on making a "photo" camera take better pictures and including GPS, etc.
But after looking at the videos on the site below, I thought it would be pretty cool to take videos with different lenses that I already have. http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/d90/en/d-movie/
I would never use this if I'm shooting an event, but if I'm on vacation, I would definitely play with it. What I would like to know, is there such a thing as RAW for video, and if yes, can this camera do it (I'm thinking not)?
To me, without AF, this is not an option. I would not change to Nikon for this, but if Canon introduces it, I may think about upgrading my 40D to X in a few years.
Jman13 wrote:
Yes, professional video guys use MF. However, they have bright focus screens that are easy to judge focus, and they're on stable platforms with the camera to their eye. That's a far cry from MFing with the average lens (which have crappy focus rings nowadays), while holding the camera away from you, on a 3" LCD.
Unless you have prodigious skill with that, your videos are going to be OOF a lot of the time. And lets face it, if you're that into video, you'll be using an HD camcorder anyway.
Edited by Jman13 on Aug 27, 2008 at 03:03 PM GMT...Show more →
That's why I said it's more marketing than real consumer-useful capability right now. For people who are actually shooting pre-planned shots, though, this should work really well - they'll be using tripods/steadicam setups, focus will be pre-set, etc.
I'd be interested if it could autofocus. I wonder if high end video users laugh at SLRs attempting to do video, like some SLR users laugh at P&S taking pictures.
Can you change aperture at the D90 while recording or do you shoot only at maximum? I havent been shooting videos but the idea of having it available is quite nice. Also considering that you are carrying a big camera bag why not be able to skip the weight of a video camera bag?
The Image wrote:
Being I'm a photojournalist, I think video in a DSLR is great, the news industry is moving in this direction anyway...where still photojournalist will be required to shoot a bit or a lot of video as well as still imagery, dont get me wrong...one wont replace the other....YET.
By YET I mean pulling a high res frame from video and publishing it as a still with great image quality...only in the news industry though.
Now that is a compelling argument.
Perhaps this is an advantage... I'll have to re-think this. Thanks!
DavidP wrote:
My problem with it is simply this: it may make it even harder to get DSLRs into some music venues for the purpose of taking pictures.
