If i remember correctly i read somewhere that the Mark III Beta in pre production testing had a HD video recording option...it certinaly has enough onboard processing to handle the task. Anyways it would be something I would love to have, doing wildlife photography sometimes you come across a moment that a photograph does not do justice, if i could use the same equipment to capture both quality stills and short clips of high quality video...i would be in heaven.
One of the reasons I do not own a camcorder is that all of them are crap. Absolute crap. You get auto WB that screws up all the time, you get AF that is either slow or focuses on the wrong parts of the frame, you get yanky sensors that bloom and wash out and anything else you like. And on top, you get some really crappy interfaces which make any manual control capabilities of the camera just too much of a pain. Unless you spend a ton of money to buy the good stuff. But that will never be justified for me as I never wanted to make a full movie, just 3 minutes here, 5 minutes there.
Plus, it is yet another thing to carry. I have lots of times though I could do with a bit of video when on holiday or out and about but never have any because I do not have a camcorder, simply because I cannot be bothered to carry it. If I am to carry something, it is the SLR first, then a second SLR, then anything else. Too bad I never carry anything more than two bits.
So if they make this right it will be fantastic. Sure the D90 is a bit crap at the moment, arm's length, you set your aperture and WB and then record at that while manually focusing.
By the way, the way this works is like live view. It basically switches to live view and instead of dumping the image on the LCD it records it as well.
But imagine the next camera that has this. Imagine having the capability on a $1000 SLR to record HD video with your fisheye. Then with your 85L. Then with a 300mm lens. All while you can adjust aperture, zoom, focusing. This will be far better than any of the little plastic and dinky camcorders you can buy for $1000.
Even the 5 minute limit is not bad. Think about it. How many times have you actually recorded more than 5 minutes? Just watch a few movies and see how many scenes you can find longer than 5 minutes shot with the same camera.
obviously there's a 1/30 minimum shutter speed (or capture time, no actual shutter in this case). The user is going to have to stop down for DOF in a lot of cases. How is this going to work - auto-ISO to keep the shutter speed up? Depend on downsampling to get rid of high ISO noise? Or is there on-the-fly noise reduction? how do camcorders handle this problem when shooting in low light?
Given the way the media is changing, video support on something like this to remain competitive as a photojournalist will be mandatory.
Simple. It's first-generation technology and I don't see myself using it for more than five minutes anyway, plus lack of AF will impede its success with the consumer market - although I'd probably be using manual focus anyway.
Content is already moving towards video. The slideshows we see on the web with audio are one step away from video. Small, 10-15 second clips will be where this feature will really give shooters the competitive edge. This is first-generation technology and we'll likely see this imrpove with higher framerates in the future.
Unfortunately I don't forsee Canon offering video capabilities like Nikon have due to Canon's video business unit. The DSLR with video won't replace camcorders for everyone but it certainly will go a long way - and if Nikon keep up their marketing, people will see that they are buying one camera, not two and new users will flock towards it.
If Canon can sort this out, that would be fantastic for everybody. But ultimately the benefit is that we now have put high quality videography in the hands of the consumer whhich will further improve the way we document our lives. This is a clear example of how innovation will help us better all-round.
And let's face it, you can always switch to Nikon. The choice is (hopefully) there.
Personally I've got no use for video, or I guess I'd have purchased a video camera by now, but my DSLR already has other features I've got no use for and video would just be another one tagging along for the ride. I wouldn't let it get in the way of making photographs.
EvilZardoz wrote:
Given the way the media is changing, video support on something like this to remain competitive as a photojournalist will be mandatory.
Simple. It's first-generation technology and I don't see myself using it for more than five minutes anyway, plus lack of AF will impede its success with the consumer market - although I'd probably be using manual focus anyway.
Content is already moving towards video. The slideshows we see on the web with audio are one step away from video. Small, 10-15 second clips will be where this feature will really give shooters the competitive edge. This is first-generation technology and we'll likely see this imrpove with higher framerates in the future.
Unfortunately I don't forsee Canon offering video capabilities like Nikon have due to Canon's video business unit. The DSLR with video won't replace camcorders for everyone but it certainly will go a long way - and if Nikon keep up their marketing, people will see that they are buying one camera, not two and new users will flock towards it.
If Canon can sort this out, that would be fantastic for everybody. But ultimately the benefit is that we now have put high quality videography in the hands of the consumer whhich will further improve the way we document our lives. This is a clear example of how innovation will help us better all-round.
And let's face it, you can always switch to Nikon. The choice is (hopefully) there....Show more →
Hard to argue with much of this. Enough people will like this that it will find its way into more and more future models. They should offer various compression rates etc. to keep the file sizes down, not limit it to five minutes, etc. I wonder if this will lead to a push for larger media sizes and types in DSLRs.
It's nothing BAD, at least. It's just a predictable phenomenon, of which we've already seen early signs: the convergence of still and video photography.
mfurman wrote:
The point, I am trying to make is that I want a simplicity of my camera. I started to hate all those redundancies of current crop of DSLRs. I do know how to operate complicated equipment (whatever it is) I just do not want this complication in my hobby. I repeat: I want simplicity and basic functions.
if it doesn't affect the camera's DSC (digital still image ...or smth) capabilities, sure, i'll take it, and have alot of fun with it.
It would be really great on a Canon FF, to use with a 35/1.4 or a 50/1.2 or a 24-70...
The video option is great and I would love to have that on my camera.
Both GPS and Video give you greater flexibility to enhance your memory about the shoot you are at.
When you get back to your base you can always refer to the clip to help remind you of where you were and what was going on. The older you get and the further away from the shoot, the more you appreciate the gentle reminders that you get from the movie clip.
It really didn't cost Nikon much to add the features and they are going to capture a larger market share just because of those two features. I may buy a used Nikon in the future just to have those options. Meanwhile, I'm still a Canon user.
chez wrote:
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.
Video is a very different art form from still photography and personally I'm not interested in it.
High frame rate is of course always useful for action photography but then it needs really good AF performance too, and a proper viewfinder rather than live view.
Regardless of what we like or don't like I'm sure there will be no choice in the matter, future cameras will have a video mode whether we want it or not.
Hows this....You take a video with a future 20mp 30fps D-VID-SLR, extract all the individual frames. Load them up into PS CS5 camera raw, do the exposure and all the neat tricks it offers, and apply the changes to all the frames in the video...
Fine Art Videography. The future is going to change alot.
chez wrote:
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"
As a matter of fact, I would make all these statements today
I hate this growing dependence of gadgets and computers. For some clarification, I have to repeat myself: I am a CS graduate.
I haven't had a chance to read all of the responses so far so this may have been covered but I'm attending a jazz festival this weekend. The only (current) restriction is no video recording devices.
So, no hassle for me carrying a camera in and getting some cool pics. I could see this leading to the banning of all cameras at these types of shows which would not be good...
I think dedicated devices for each medium are going to be the way to go for a while...
Mark
on edit, I see that David P beat me too it and shares my concerns
Edited by Mark Alexander on Aug 28, 2008 at 01:17 PM GMT
