Whatever the merits of video or stills the harsh reality has more to do with economics. You might be able to slap a Canon 600mm lens on a RED camera but that combination is just not economically feasible at this point.
The other issue which would apply more to sports shooters would be the limitations of shooting video with regard to licensing and distribution. Leagues such as the NFL and MLB will have to address the issue of photographers shooting video. Even though they may only be doing it in order to capture a few still frames, they are still technically shooting and redistributing video and there's no guarantee to the league that none of that footage will be redistributed as video. Companies pay these leagues a lot of money for the rights to shoot and redistribute video and you can bet that the idea of photographers running around shooting video is not something they are going to take lightly.
All that is happening is technology is merging; you can shoot high quality stills on a movie camera, you can shoot HD video on a stills camera. You still need photographers and cinematographers, but often you'll only need a cinephotographer.
You've always been able to produce a still frame from motion picture films or video tape. All that happens now is you hit a switch on the camera to change between shooting modes. In theory, this means one camera and one set of lenses, though in practice it still means two set-ups as they are different disciplines. Also, don't forget motion pictures are usually shot with a 1/48th or 1/60th shutter - way too slow for many action sports photographs.
I'm not sure why everyone is getting hot under the collar over this, particularly those that only came into photographer thanks to the digtal sensor. There's no doubt in my mind that the new technology will bring lots of opportunities for everyone, particularly photographers; iPad and a high speed internet will see to that.
liamh wrote:
People shouldn't be scared of change.
All that is happening is technology is merging; you can shoot high quality stills on a movie camera, you can shoot HD video on a stills camera. You still need photographers and cinematographers, but often you'll only need a cinephotographer.
You've always been able to produce a still frame from motion picture films or video tape. All that happens now is you hit a switch on the camera to change between shooting modes. In theory, this means one camera and one set of lenses, though in practice it still means two set-ups as they are different disciplines. Also, don't forget motion pictures are usually shot with a 1/48th or 1/60th shutter - way too slow for many action sports photographs.
I'm not sure why everyone is getting hot under the collar over this, particularly those that only came into photographer thanks to the digtal sensor. There's no doubt in my mind that the new technology will bring lots of opportunities for everyone, particularly photographers; iPad and a high speed internet will see to that....Show more →
Good post.
I share this POV. The technology changes, the photographers change with it, the profession progresses. It is called "evolution."
_____________
From my POV, this thread has turned into another tedious "Film is Dead" thread.
As I see it, those that want to use film should stick with it.
Those that want to use another type of gear should go for it.
The "image" is the thing.
_____________
As I see it, the inclusion of VIDEO into a DSLR is GREAT!!
It opens up a great opportunity and adds functionality and creative possibilities that should EXCITE the photographer (or at least some of them).
Move forward with technology as it moves forward... or accept you'll likely be left behind. If you're willing to sacrifice the "career" you have in order to not keep up, that's a personal decision. I've known programmers choose not to continue as they didn't like the way the industry was moving in terms of technology. It's not right or wrong - just a decision.
Technology constantly takes away "simple tasks"that it can - look at aperture priority for example. You can shoot a whole wedding with it and sometimes it'll mess up, but a lot of the time it'll look good. Look at what's likely to happen with DSLR technology in the next few years. Prosumer cameras will shoot ISO 256000 at very good quality. As a wedding photographer you'll have to have something more to give than just "I can shoot in the dark".
I suspect these kinds of moving image cameras will be in constant use within the next 10 years. There will be some things a "photograph director" will still be required for though. Who will get the lighting nice - not just what's there, but choose something attractive? Who will pose the groups? Who will choose the right depth of field? Who will compose the shot? Who will organise the day? Who will get the couple laughing?
Therefore I worry for the "snapshot" wedding photographers rather than the "professional artists"... I suspect they will have a harder and harder time justifying their prices compared to friends and family. I can't imagine anyone with just a "good camera" taking better shots than me though, so I hope to still have a job.
PhilDWedding wrote:
Move forward with technology as it moves forward... or accept you'll likely be left behind. If you're willing to sacrifice the "career" you have in order to not keep up, that's a personal decision. I've known programmers choose not to continue as they didn't like the way the industry was moving in terms of technology. It's not right or wrong - just a decision.
Technology constantly takes away "simple tasks"that it can - look at aperture priority for example. You can shoot a whole wedding with it and sometimes it'll mess up, but a lot of the time it'll look good. Look at what's likely to happen with DSLR technology in the next few years. Prosumer cameras will shoot ISO 256000 at very good quality. As a wedding photographer you'll have to have something more to give than just "I can shoot in the dark".
I suspect these kinds of moving image cameras will be in constant use within the next 10 years. There will be some things a "photograph director" will still be required for though. Who will get the lighting nice - not just what's there, but choose something attractive? Who will pose the groups? Who will choose the right depth of field? Who will compose the shot? Who will organise the day? Who will get the couple laughing?
Therefore I worry for the "snapshot" wedding photographers rather than the "professional artists"... I suspect they will have a harder and harder time justifying their prices compared to friends and family. I can't imagine anyone with just a "good camera" taking better shots than me though, so I hope to still have a job....Show more →
)