DO YOU REALLY WANT VIDEO ON YOUR DSLR?

[Matt. K]

I've been thinking about the latest crop of high tech DSLR cameras that offer a video mode. Do you really want video on you DSLR camera? What happens in this scenario where you come across a once in a lifetime incident with huge news potential? Do you switch to video mode so you can capture the entire event, thereby losing the possibility of making large high quality prints?...Or do you shoot stills, thereby losing the option of selling to the TV stations and making a big hit on Utube? And does the addition of video mode on your high qual camera make the camera more complex and liable to fail at a critical time? Could the camera makers be offering us something more useful than video mode?
I'd be curious to hear your comments.

[chrisk]

yes. i have yet to hear a single sensible and coherent argument against it. the typical arguments is "if i want video, i'd buy a video camera". which of course is utter nonsense and makes about as much sense as saying if you want to take pictures, buy an ixus.

does it make it more complex ? no i dont think it does; cos if you dont want to use it, then simply...don't use it.

in the scenario you gave, well, that would be up to the photographer. it is his/her choice of exactly what they do. similar sorts of decisions need to be made about FOV, lens used, metering, focal points etc etc etc. i for one, would prefer to have a choice as opposed to no choice. let the user decide what and how they are going to use their camera.

as long as video does not compromise a dslr as a photographic tool, (ie: degrade performance of the photography aspect to accommodate the video aspect), then i say bring it on.

[CraigVTR]

Do you switch to video mode so you can capture the entire event, thereby losing the possibility of making large high quality prints?...Or do you shoot stills, thereby losing the option of selling to the TV stations and making a big hit on Utube?

Easy. Carry two bodies with different lenses and at the time put one on video and the other on stills and shoot away, using both eyes of course.

[stubbsy]

Well I for one have no need for video. My DSLR is for photos and I'm not interested in shooting videos. If the camera I buy has video added it sure as hell isn't being added at zero cost so I'm paying for a fair bit of tech I'll never use. I'd rather see more of the manufacturer's R&D being spent on making better still cameras.

This whole DSLR + video concept is about as dumb as adding cameras to phones. Hey wait - there's an idea, a DSLR with a phone in it - that would be useful

[gstark]

Great question, Matt, but while you've mentioned the news potential of this technology, I think that's just a very small part of what's on offer. Besides, for news footage, the going thing these days is to just shoot with your mobile phone's camera. The mainstream media don't give a damn about image quality at all.

My initial reaction, when the first DSLRs with video capabilities were released, was why would anyone want this? I quickly changed my mind when I saw the capabilities that video mode on a DSLR offered.

First of all, it's optional: there's no compulsion upon you to use it. Do you use the PHD functions on your D300? I doubt it, but they're there, because they're there. The provision of video is no different: you may (or may not) choose to use it. No big deal.

So, from that perspective, the functionality is incidental.

But ... if you choose to use the functionality, you (now) have the option of shooting video movies in a relatively large format (compared with typical camcorders) and at a higher resolution, using potentially a variety of high quality glass.

If you choose to make video movies, the format plus glass gives you options that are not available in a traditional video/movie realm for less than a substantial sum of money; conceivably, for less than PP5K you could have a video kit that might, in the hands of a good operator, have capabilities well beyond PP20K worth of traditional style video kit.

[gstark]

If the camera I buy has video added it sure as hell isn't being added at zero cost so I'm paying for a fair bit of tech I'll never use.

I really don't think that the cost of video is all that much.

Do you use or like live view? The video capability has been around for a long time in PHD cams, as has live view.

Once LV has been added to a body, I suspect that expanding the LV concept to video is just a fairly minor upgrade. Consider that with LV, you potentially already have video, as you can feed your camera's lv feed to a monitor or video recorder, and there you go: video mode!

[Killakoala]

Stanley Kubrick would have loved being able to shoot a movie using Nikon glass at F1.4 He tried something similar when he shot 'Barry Lyndon' using Leica F0.70 lenses developed for NASA.

I'd love to try it myself. I just need some actors, a story and some scenery and a camera that actually lets me do it

[chrisk]

If the camera I buy has video added it sure as hell isn't being added at zero cost so I'm paying for a fair bit of tech I'll never use.

at times of release:
d80: $999USD
d90: $999USD

5d: $3299
MkII: $2699

in both cases, the cameras are not only immeasurably better photographic tools, but they also add video at the same or cheaper cost. so really the added cost argument doesn't stack up either.

This whole DSLR + video concept is about as dumb as adding cameras to phones.

why ?

[photohiker]

I would think that even if you don't use the video mode, you reap some benefits from the associated engineering when using the same DSLR for still shots, especially long exposures. I'm thinking: control of sensor heat; buffer size and speed; imaging processor speed; memory card write speed.

If video hadn't come along, these things may not have improved at the pace they have.

They can put what the heck they like on the camera as long as it doesn't get in the way of taking the photo.

Michael

[Reschsmooth]

What about all those in-camera processing functions like different saturation modes, B&W options, JPEG compression options when I almost always use RAW.

Perhaps manufacturers should offer a pure RAW camera option.

[sirhc55]

Peter has made his point and Rooz his.

My view, who gives a flying f*ck. I have a video camera and I have a DSLR. I use the DSLR often, the video, once in a blue moon.

Each to their own.

[the foto fanatic]

I don't shoot movies, so "No" is my answer.

What we're seeing is more of the "push marketing" that mobile phone manufacturers have so successfully mastered. Create a tool before there is a need for it, then create the need. I'd actually prefer a mobile phone that didn't have a camera too, but they seem to have gone the way of the dodo.

I've had a few P&S cameras that had a movie function, but I've never used it. Poor movies are much, much more boring than poor stills (IMHO).

All of that being said, I do think that the R&D will probably have some spin-off benefits for the still photographer in terms of auto focus, WB and resolution improvements.

It's a very interesting question.

[fozzie]

In two words, "Absolutely Not'.

[Mr Darcy]

Bring it on!
Then I MAY be able to afford to pick up one of those obsolete D700/300s at a price I can actually afford.

[DaveB]

Last year I thought "Nah, no need".
Then I got a 5DmkII, and now it's "Sure, why not?".

As noted, having video on the camera does not add to the complexity of the body in a way that would be likely to cause it to break (given that things like sensor heating are looked after already). The added development cost has been absorbed within the general price reductions over the years (and the manufacturers don't have to develop it from scratch for each model). If manufacturers charge more for a video-capable camera, I think that's mainly a marketing decision.

I have video on my G9, and I used that a bit last year in Laos. With the right functions even "P&S video" can be good (e.g. the G9's video craps all over the video from the Lumix LX1 we also had on that trip). The 5DmkII has video, and I use it a bit (hardly at all compared to the number of still frames I take, but still a bit). For instance in January I was on a beach in Patagonia with the camera on a tripod working with a group of ~300 Elephant Seals, and I'm very glad I decided to record a few video clips while I was there!

If the video function wasn't on my 5DmkII I don't think I'd be heartbroken, but I don't mind having the capability available. For instance, I'm investigating the use of a Lumix G1 (no video) and don't mind at all that it doesn't have video. Spending the extra $$ for a GH1 (has video) just isn't worth it. Maybe that's because I already have a G9 and a 5DmkII if I need video...

[Greg B]

My "travel camera" is a Canon S3, and like most cameras in the class, it has video capability (and surprisingly high quality video at that). The video capability is fantastic whan travelling - the odd bit of vid really adds atmosphere and tweaks memories when mixed in with the photos (and turned into a dvd using Pro Show for example). Really good when you have a guide telling you about something for example.

What about the DSLR? Well I say yes. Sure, you could take your video camera with you as well as your DSLR, assuming of course you are built like a pack horse. Sure, you may rarely use your video camera as it is - probably because your primary interest is photography so the vid camera rarely gets an outing.

"Why would I need it?" is a recurring question asked about new features or capabilities, but so many things we didn't think we needed or wanted actually turn out to be quite useful, or enjoyable.

If we open our minds to the possibilities, give things a try, see what might happen, the outcome can be surprising.

I wouldn't be dismissing this feature out of hand. Quite the opposite in fact.

[Matt. K]

Thanks for your comments all! It seems like the consensus is yes.....and no! I'd ruther in-built GPS but I guess that's next.

[chrisk]

I'd ruther in-built GPS but I guess that's next.

i say NO to GPS. if i wanted gps i'd buy a tomtom.

[radar]

Matt,

as some of the others, my initial reaction would have been no. After I have seen some of the work done by a videographer in WA with the 5D MkII, I would say why not? He was able to produce some amazing footage with the 5D MkII with some of the very nice Canon lenses.

Would I use it? Probably not that often as the skills of a videographer are different then the skills of a photographer, correct me if I'm wrong, it's been known to happen, often according to my better half

I was also under the impression that while using the video mode on the 5D MkII, you can still do some still photography by using the shutter release, so you sort have the best of both worlds.

Just my $0.02

Good question BTW,

André

[wazonthehill2]

I find that the video capture is great.
Where I have used it is where I am out with more knowledgeable friends and as we photograph something, ie an orchid, someone identifies it as Pterostylis baptistii, then I swich to video and give a 15 second spiel on the name and location of the shots. Easier and more "in sync" when reviewing the shots than that bit of paper I recorded stuff on!

[ozimax]

Besides, for news footage, the going thing these days is to just shoot with your mobile phone's camera.

I can't, I have last year's iphone.

As to the video question, I have never really had any interest in video so I would say no. However, if someone gave me a 5DmkII, maybe I would get into video. To be honest, still photography, for me, continually presents such great challenges that I don't think I would have the time to properly learn the art of videography. I'm still trying to learn the basics of off camera flash.

[Matt. K]

wazonthehill2
That's an interesting use for the video. Visual notebook with sound.

[Big Red]

i shoot video and stills at the same time [vid in right eye stills in left] and would love to have a DSLR that shoots video that gave me the option of taking vidcaps at the same resolution as my current DSLR.

can't see that happening for quite a while yet though as that would give me only 4 seconds of video on a 4Gb card

[gstark]

then I swich to video and give a 15 second spiel on the name and location of the shots. Easier and more "in sync" when reviewing the shots than that bit of paper I recorded stuff on!

I'd ruther in-built GPS

[ATJ]

I think video could be quite handy at times. I know that sometimes underwater a still shot wouldn't do the experience justice. For example, the quality of a still shot would be poor due to visibility or distance but a video shot would work. I can think of two such examples from the one dive.

On my dive trip last year to the Coral Sea we had to shark researchers on board. They had told us about some recent observations of grey reef whaler sharks being cleaned. It was a fairly new observation. The described how the sharks would swim vertically and then stop swimming and slowly sink while still vertical, being cleaned. The very next dive I was very lucky to actually see this happening. I was too far away to be able to get even a half decent still shot with the camera but had I'd been able to take video it would have made for a great behavioural sequence (even if the quality wasn't all that good). Around 10 minutes later, a school of 20-30 scalloped hammerheads swam past. Again, they were too far away for a decent still shot, but video would have shown it nicely.

I don't have a video camera and if I did, I doubt I'd be able to justify housing one. Having video in a housed SLR would mean I would automatically be able to shoot underwater video.

A slightly off topic comment about cameras in mobile 'phones. I've had two recent incidents where having a camera in my phone is of value - well, if only I used it. While driving home from the office on the M2, there was a NRMA vehicle driving erratically: tailgating, cutting people off, etc. He left the M2 at the same exit as me and further along Abbott Road suddenly changed lanes with no warning and ran me on to the wrong side of the road. I pulled up behind him at the next set of lights and called NRMA to report it. As I was behind him I was able to give them the number plate accurately. They took the report. A few days later they called back to say that they don't have an NRMA vehicle with that registration and asked me if there was an NRMA vehicle number on the car... well it was a bit late by then. In hindsight (and if something similar happens again) I should have simply taken a photograph of the vehicle with my phone. Then I could refer to that if there were issues.

A couple of weeks ago while training on my bike in the streets around home I was nearly run over by some mother in her SUV who went through a stop sign without giving way to me. I pointed out the stop sign to her and she started getting abusive, swearing at me with young kids in the car. I suggested it was no way to speak with young kids in the car and she got even more abusive. She then jumped out of the car, and started to threaten me, including saying she was going to follow me home and then send her husband around to kill me. I immediately looked at the license plate of her car, recited it and said I'd be filing a police report. I got home and wrote the license number down and later in the morning when to the local police station to file a report. Only problem was that somewhere between the incident and home (only 5 minutes) I had misremembered the license plate. Had I had my phone with me, I could have easily taken a shot of the car and the woman which would have been valuable in the police report. I now carry my mobile riding and walking and won't hesitate to use it to take photos.

[Critter]

I mounted my miniDV video camcorder to my handlebars for my last ride. Havent reviewed the footage yet, but should be interesting. I cant imagine putting a D300 type camera there though! I would love to have video on a full frame DSLR though.

[Onyx]

I would love to have video capability on my next DSLR purchase... I've seen the D90's video output - Nikon's first model to be released with video recording ability, and was very impressed. And it was "only" 720p. Shooting video with quality, high end Nikkor glass would be much more preferable to the cheap plastic molded lenses that come with consumer camcorders within the same price range of a video-capable DSLR.


Edit: ATJ - http://cgi.ebay.com.au/NIGHT-VISION-IN- ... 1|294%3A50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8h7GtEmKf8

better quality footage for road rage incidents than a mobile phone would provide.

[sirhc55]

I was using Nikon lenses on a JVC vidcam in 1984

[zafra52]

Personally, I like single purpose devices the more features; the more things go wrong. I would not consider taking video with a photographic camera because first the quality is generally poor and shaky and second because you need a rather expensive card with a large memory. My video camera takes great high definition videos, but the image quality for photos is equivalent to that of a mobile phone - in a word: pathetic. So there... that is my opinion for what is worth.

[Greg B]

.... I would not consider taking video with a photographic camera because first the quality is generally poor and shaky and second because you need a rather expensive card with a large memory....

I have to say that I have been massively surprised at the high quality of the video on my little Canon S3. It is anything
but poor and shaky, and amazingly even the audio is good. I guess the 30 fps helps, but still worthy of checking out
if you get a chance.

And it runs at about 95Mb per minute. Not bad given the low cost of cards these days. (And presumably most people
have a larger storage option available when they travel)

[Potoroo]

Let's assume the manufacturers fix the current crop of problems with video on DSLRs (no auto-focussing, etc). What then? Hard disks to store your umpteen hours of footage? Protruding mikes for decent sound? And so forth. We'll end up carrying our DSLRs on our shoulders.

Ack.

No thanks.

[stubbsy]

I'd ruther in-built GPS but I guess that's next.

i say NO to GPS. if i wanted gps i'd buy a tomtom.

ROTFLMAO

And to answer a question you posed to me way up this thread - my concern with cameras in phones is matched to my existing comments re video in cameras - my concerns are the result is either a pale imitation of the "real thing" (images from my iPhone are guaranteed to be crap) or extra cost for little benefit. I must say though that I've enjoyed reading the differing perspectives from the "yes please" people here.

[Photopotamus]

...my concerns are the result is either a pale imitation of the "real thing" (images from my iPhone are guaranteed to be crap) ...

I used to think that too! But I was recently shown the work of Chase Jarvis.
http://www.chasejarvis.com/#s=0&mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&p=5&a=0&at=0

He's does way better with a crappy iPhone than I and many others can do even with the world's most sophisticated equipment. It's those kinds of people that remind me that the camera is only a tool. Furthermore, it's only as sharp as the "tool" behind it...

And there I go,