December 21, 2014, 09:29:56 AM

Author Topic: Baffles the mind  (Read 10500 times)

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2620
    • View Profile
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #60 on: October 11, 2013, 11:43:56 AM »
DSLRs are dedicated stills image cameras, which have been "tricked" into also being able to capture moving images (video) by bypassing the defining elements of any SLR: mirror and optical viewfinder. To get there has caused massive R&D cost. I would prefer if this additional, video-related cost [sensors + electronics to handle video in addition to stills capture] would be unloaded on those people who absolutely want cameras that can capture both video and stills rather than making people pay for it who only want one functionality from their camera. Capturing excellent stills images and having an ergonomical interface that is 100% dedicated to getting those images.

Sorry.  You are plain wrong.

The underlying technology came in with the 40D and the 450D.  It was called live view.  It was an innovation for stills users. And one which folk seem to have quite liked, especially the tethering with preview.  Somewhere along the way somebody thought it would be quite an easy firmware ammend to let folks record the live view output.

Blame live view.  I don't recall an attendant rise in price when live view came out.

Video guys reluctantly adopted the 5D2 and then canon gave it decent firmware (after about a year into it's life as I recall) and it's success was assured.  The first out the box usuable at launch video DSLR was the 7D (for serious users, or those in PAL regions) but again that camera had so many new features, both at the price point, and for DSLRs in general, that it would be impossible to isolate the cost for the video features.

As I said, you are plain wrong.  The R&D stage would have been prior to live view.  Bump your gums about that.

 as one who primarily focuses on stills, I  love live view plus manual  focusing.   it is quite literally my favorite  provided I have the time to setup  and my subject isn't squirming around. 
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #60 on: October 11, 2013, 11:43:56 AM »

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #61 on: October 11, 2013, 11:47:39 AM »
DSLRs are dedicated stills image cameras, which have been "tricked" into also being able to capture moving images (video) by bypassing the defining elements of any SLR: mirror and optical viewfinder. To get there has caused massive R&D cost. I would prefer if this additional, video-related cost [sensors + electronics to handle video in addition to stills capture] would be unloaded on those people who absolutely want cameras that can capture both video and stills rather than making people pay for it who only want one functionality from their camera. Capturing excellent stills images and having an ergonomical interface that is 100% dedicated to getting those images.

Let's play a game of 'replace 'video' with...'

Ok 1st up... replace video with 'digital'

DSLRs are dedicated stills image cameras, which have been "tricked" into also being able to capture digital images by bypassing the defining elements of any SLR: mirror and optical viewfinder. To get there has caused massive R&D cost. I would prefer if this additional, digital-related cost [sensors + electronics] would be unloaded on those people who absolutely want cameras that can capture digital

What about 'electronic interface'?

What about 'autofocus'?

What about 'TTL metered flash'?

What about 'TTL metering'?

I guess AvTvM just doesn't like video.  And thats cool.  I loved ECF.  I've never used Spot Average metering.

Apart from the mechanics of the reflex, the CCD or CMOS image processed and recorded onto an electronic storage facilty (i.e. non-film) has been the main business of camcorder manufacturers for many years before DSLRs became remotely affordable or even available to the average consumer.

Damn Ikegami, Sony, Panasonic, Philips, Canon, damn them for compromising their camcorder research, AS THEY MUST HAVE DONE in order for todays DSLRS.

Damn those DSLRs with their sensors that have been compromised by video to the point where the video moire these days is only moderately awful and the Jello Shutter merely quite bad.  Damn them.

We get it AVTVM, but you are like a dog with a bone.  You don't like video.  Well in todays market place that really is kind of tough now isn't it. 

As you feel so strongly, can you post an image you've taken that you feel was compromised by canon's video R&D? 

cayenne

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1226
    • View Profile
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #62 on: October 11, 2013, 01:40:41 PM »
Well, like an earlier poster said...todays Digital Camera really isn't so much a stills camera at heart..it IS a video camera at heart, that is specialized to take good stills.

This may apply to MIRRORLESS digital cameras, but like all SLRS, DSLRs are dedicated stills image cameras, which have been "tricked" into also being able to capture moving images (video) by bypassing the defining elements of any SLR: mirror and optical viewfinder. To get there has caused massive R&D cost. I would prefer if this additional, video-related cost [sensors + electronics to handle video in addition to stills capture] would be unloaded on those people who absolutely want cameras that can capture both video and stills rather than making people pay for it who only want one functionality from their camera. Capturing excellent stills images and having an ergonomical interface that is 100% dedicated to getting those images.

This is why it would be fully justified and perfectly fair, if "dual use, video-enabled" versions of a DSLR were sold 10-20% more expensive than single-use stills-only versions of teh same DSLRs.

And once the clients would be given this choice, it would become very clear that only a very small minority of customers really need the dual functionality and are willing to pay for it (since it is still a lot cheaper than purchasing a dedicated stills and a dedicated video camera) but many more are just clamoring for video in stills cameras, because right now they are getting it "free of charge" [as stills photographers pay for it] and "might need it once in a blue moon".   

Hmm...now, another way to read what you said was...that DSLR's are basically video cameras, that had a lot of R&D money put into them, to figure how to put in the mirror and other mechanisms to enable stills pics in the same way that older SLR film cameras operated...that the R&D money went into basically taking a digital video recording sensor paradigm, and adapting it to emulate old SLR functionality film cameras had?
:)

Seriously, depending on where you stand...it could be read that way.

Still, I stick by my thoughts that today's DSLR...if you "took the video out of it"...at the manufacturers side, they'd save maybe $1 per unit not putting on a couple of jacks, and they might cut the cost to the consumers by maybe $100-$200, and basically it would be the exact same camera, sans jacks and having some of the software there disabled (not gone mind you, just disabled).

It would be similar to things like video cards or even versions of MS Windows...where they sell different versions of the things and different prices.

The thing they're selling often is the exact same product, but artificially making some versions inferior by disabling features that are there, but disabled and sold at a lower price.

People get pissy about it when that happens....so, I guess that means you can please everyone.

Heck...if you wanted to look at say the 5D3....it actually is somewhat disabled. Look how Magic Lantern is in some respects "unlocking" functionality in the camera and system to get things like RAW video out of it...that Canon didn't fully use or purposely disabled.

One could complain that Canon isn't fully utilizing or allowing utilization of the hardware we have already bought.

C

johnf3f

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 346
  • Canon 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #63 on: October 12, 2013, 08:11:42 PM »
6 months after buying my 1D4 I found out that I didn't know how to use the video function. I couldn't be bothered to look in the manual, couldn't be bothered to ask, couldn't care less. My only regret is that I paid for the R&D to make it video capable!

AcutancePhotography

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1202
    • View Profile
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #64 on: October 14, 2013, 12:09:29 PM »
I don't know why it would be hard to understand why one person may choose still photography as their interest over video.

Photography and video are different art forms. They require different techniques.

That is almost like claiming that any photographer that shoots in colour must also be interested in shooting in B/W.  Many photographers do, but many don't.  Some only like to shoot in B/W.

Artists will always have areas of interest and areas of non-interest. It is not reasonable to think that all artists are interested in all art forms.

I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3048
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #65 on: October 14, 2013, 12:44:04 PM »
6 months after buying my 1D4 I found out that I didn't know how to use the video function. I couldn't be bothered to look in the manual, couldn't be bothered to ask, couldn't care less. My only regret is that I paid for the R&D to make it video capable!
LOL, I know how to use it, but the only video I've shot was by accident.  Live View / Video, oops.  That being said, it was of some macro stuff and I couldn't believe how good it looked on my 60" plasma. 

Like I said before, the biggest reason I avoid it has to do with it being yet another financial well and a deep one at that.  It's kind of like street bikes - I would love a Ducati or other fast bike, but I KNOW I would kill myself within a week if I bought one.  I love going really fast WAY too much.  I think video would be financial suicide for me ;)

Albi86

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #66 on: October 14, 2013, 01:53:55 PM »
I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?

I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?

In my opinion these cameras are set when it comes to photo features. They don't need to get any better than they already are. With maybe one exception, AF speed/accuracy during liveview. It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.

How do you print a video?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #66 on: October 14, 2013, 01:53:55 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15227
    • View Profile
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #67 on: October 14, 2013, 01:56:24 PM »
How do you print a video?

One frame at a time.  Ba dum tssshhh.   ;)
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

ahab1372

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 327
    • View Profile
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #68 on: October 14, 2013, 02:31:19 PM »
How do you print a video?

One frame at a time.  Ba dum tssshhh.   ;)
unless you recorded interlaced. Then you can print half a frame at a time, if you want

winglet

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #69 on: October 14, 2013, 03:19:27 PM »
I've never used my 5DII (or the I that preceded it) or my 1DX for video. Ever. It's not that I don't like video, not at all. One of my brothers is a filmmaker, he's made several films using all kinds of things from DSLR's to production TV rigs.

And what that taught me is this. It takes a lot to make quality videos. The cost of video in a DSLR is nothing - compared to the cost of a set of rails, a steadicam, a jib, LIGHTING, the outboard gear you need to properly capture audio, an editing station that's as powerful as you can afford, and exponentially larger storage for the files (with full backups, of course). Don't forget to have at least an A and B rig. Plus perhaps some Go-Pros to get the crazy angles that everyone expects these days. The manpower to operate the gear. And then, oh yeah, the time and mastery of an offline editing suite. Because quality videos are made in the editing more than the shooting.

Given that I wouldn't do video unless I could do it justice, and it takes a fair bit, I'm not sure why the original poster is "baffled" that many people only shoot stills with their, uh, still camera.

btw, that DSLR rig is obscene. Is it serious? Get a purpose-built camera already!
« Last Edit: October 14, 2013, 03:22:25 PM by winglet »
Canon 1DX, 5DII | 50 f/1.2 | 85 f/1.2II | 100 f/2.8 Macro | 135 f/2 | 16-35 f/2.8 | 24-70 f/2.8II | 70-200 f/2.8II | 200-400 f/4 1.4X | 8-15 f/4 Fisheye | 24 f/3.5TS | 4X 600EX-RT, ST-E3-RT | Fuji X100s

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #70 on: October 15, 2013, 02:57:19 PM »
Thank you all for the replies. I do understand your position better now. I also understand that motion and stills are different disiplines to a certain degree.

I do both professionally and have been for the last seven years. For me DSLR's with video have been a great tool for the type of work I do. Corporate work that often includes web based videos, portraits, office/factory photography, etc.
The ability to carry one camera that I know well and one set of lenses, just makes the transition from video to photography work a little easier when going back and forth.

As for cost. I would guess that having video on DSLRs probably balances out. Whatever R&D cost that goes into these cameras for video functionality is probably paid for by the increased sales of people now buying these cameras primarily for video work, whereas before they would not have bought them but instead gone with a more traditional style video camera. But the market has now shifted and consumers aren't buying $1000+ dollar dedicated video cameras unless they are professionals or indie filmmakers.

There is also the benefit that someone like myself would be willing to pay more for a camera that can do both, than have to buy two different cameras, the other of which maybe not from the same manufacturer. I can use the same lenses and accessories. It saves me money overall.

Maybe I came off too strong in saying that the photography side is good enough and they need to just focus on video. Obviously there is no end to what can be improved for photography. That said, some of you pointed out dynamic range and better ISO sensitivity for low light. Something that is not just beneficial to photography but video as well. Good images are desired in both camps. That we can all agree on.

But at least one of you pointed out that you can shoot raw photos on a DSLR however the video quality isn't that great. That's really where I was coming from. When we can buy digital rebels that shoot raw video at 1080p or 4K in variable frame rates and 13+ stops of dynamic range,  there wont be a lot of complaints on the video side.

The difference between video and photography is that Canon now has a higher end product to protect on the video side. So a lot of video people feel that they are artificially crippling the video functionality on their DSLRs as a result. Whereas these are their high end stills cameras, so there is nothing to cripple to protect something higher up the chain. Unless they bring out a medium format system at $10K+.

For example, if Canon decided that you can only shoot raw photos on a 5D3 and above, a lot of screaming and yelling would be going on from the APS-C and 6D crowd. Yet that is exactly what they seem to be doing with the video functionality on these cameras. Leaving out little things like headphone jacks, better recording codecs, clean HDMI outputs, higher frame rates, etc. That is primarily why I say that video functionality needs to be their top priority right now. Not because they should stop work on improving stills functionality, but because they are starting to lag behind Panasonic and even Nikon in the video realm.

Why even include video?
I think the answer is simple. Both industries right now (Photography and Video) are struggling against cheaper alternatives like smartphones. By binding the two functions together on their top end cameras they can sell the same camera to both markets. Plus it does sound better to say "this camera can do both."
I would also think that would actually save them some money.

Someone above used a car analogy. I've often wondered if car companies could be more profitable by getting rid of all the by-to-order options and just including all the available features on every vehicle. It would certainly simplify inventory when the only difference is the exterior color of the car. I would think that it would streamline the whole process from design to manufacturing when you cut out all that extra time and work keeping the same model with different features on the lot. This process seemed to work for Apple in the late 90's when they streamlined their product line to just four models. I assume it works for camera manfuacturers as well. I can only imagine the headache of having to make and stock the same camera model in three types; video only, photo only and video+photo.   

   

You make good points, but I still fall back to one simple observation and question.  Why should one body need to do it all?  You say you're a professional videographer and stills photographer.  So you should be able to afford the right gear for the job, and should be able to carry more than one type of camera to the shoot.  Dedicated cinema cameras are getting better and cheaper all the time.  What's wrong with spending in the $1k to $2k range for the stills camera and the $3k to $6k range for the cinema camera?  The lighting and other equipment you will be using, surely costs a similar amount...and is much more difficult to transport to the shoot, than an extra camera body is.  Black Magic (for example) seems to have good ideas on how to design an affordable cinema camera.  It is the main competition for the 5D3 with its RAW video hack via ML...

As for a "rebel" series camera which is enabled for RAW video...how is it going to be able to store or transmit such large amounts of data, quickly enough?  I guess it's not impossible...but what it is, is a compromise.

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #71 on: October 15, 2013, 02:58:41 PM »
6 months after buying my 1D4 I found out that I didn't know how to use the video function. I couldn't be bothered to look in the manual, couldn't be bothered to ask, couldn't care less. My only regret is that I paid for the R&D to make it video capable!

You should have other regrets, like why it can't AF as well as its successor.  If you only bought it 6 months ago, I assume you bought a used or reconditioned unit?

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #72 on: October 15, 2013, 03:01:13 PM »
I've never used my 5DII (or the I that preceded it) or my 1DX for video. Ever. It's not that I don't like video, not at all. One of my brothers is a filmmaker, he's made several films using all kinds of things from DSLR's to production TV rigs.

And what that taught me is this. It takes a lot to make quality videos. The cost of video in a DSLR is nothing - compared to the cost of a set of rails, a steadicam, a jib, LIGHTING, the outboard gear you need to properly capture audio, an editing station that's as powerful as you can afford, and exponentially larger storage for the files (with full backups, of course). Don't forget to have at least an A and B rig. Plus perhaps some Go-Pros to get the crazy angles that everyone expects these days. The manpower to operate the gear. And then, oh yeah, the time and mastery of an offline editing suite. Because quality videos are made in the editing more than the shooting.

Given that I wouldn't do video unless I could do it justice, and it takes a fair bit, I'm not sure why the original poster is "baffled" that many people only shoot stills with their, uh, still camera.

btw, that DSLR rig is obscene. Is it serious? Get a purpose-built camera already!

+1, very excellent points!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #72 on: October 15, 2013, 03:01:13 PM »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3543
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #73 on: October 15, 2013, 03:56:25 PM »
I don't mind having a video function but its not my bread and butter. I would prefer more innovation on the stills side first and video second.

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #74 on: October 15, 2013, 04:00:04 PM »
I don't mind having a video function but its not my bread and butter. I would prefer more innovation on the stills side first and video second.

Me too.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #74 on: October 15, 2013, 04:00:04 PM »