Is video still needed in DSLRs?

[Tinky]

How delicate and amazing.

They really do live life in fast motion, to beat predators I guess.

Motion rendered beautifully, bud.

 

[unfocused]

That's one of the best things I've seen on this site. So many questions: how do you get them to eat out your hand? How was this shot? Etc. etc.

I love how they pick up one seed. Reject it. Then sample another. I've watched birds at the feeder flinging seed out of the tray but assumed they were looking for preferred types. Those guys seem to be choosing particular sunflower seeds.

 

[dolina]

I think the better question would be.

Is threads doubting the need for video in SLRs really needed to be repeated on a nearly annual basis?

 

[Tinky]

what is really needed in life if you think about it?

 

[asmundma]

Maybe not.. shooting video is much easier with a mirrorless camera with a decent electronic view finder. Using a DSLR and no autofocus, you rely on focus pulling and some kind of monitor. I have moved shooting video from 5D3 to A7s and it amazing quality. Still better still pictures on 5D3.
And, I find autofocus useful for one man rigs - of course dependant on what you shoot. Filming sports you may use autofocus to follow a guy running against you (on Sony A7s with native lenses). You need a lot more rigging to do proper focus pulling.
We all know the professional films is done with manual focus - but why are Canon putting in auto focus on C100, etc.
So I do not agree fully that video and auto focus does not match. If works for me on A7s, however I also use manual depending on the situation.
The need to both taking pictures and video is very useful on travels, as it keep your equipment weight low, I guess A7R ii can be a killer there.
I agree that is difficult to both take picture and do video on an busy event, easy to miss out the best shoot.

 

[LonelyBoy]

I think the better question would be.

Is threads doubting the need for video in SLRs really needed to be repeated on a nearly annual basis?

Are threads complaining about the level of video capability in SLRs really needed on a weekly basis?

I really don't understand it; I have several friends with SLRs and, to my knowledge, they all shoot stills exclusively. All the bleating about 4k and bitrate and blah blah blah gets old in a hurry, but, to some people, apparently it's crucial for some unfathomable reason.

 

[Tugela]

I think the better question would be.

Is threads doubting the need for video in SLRs really needed to be repeated on a nearly annual basis?

Are threads complaining about the level of video capability in SLRs really needed on a weekly basis?

I really don't understand it; I have several friends with SLRs and, to my knowledge, they all shoot stills exclusively. All the bleating about 4k and bitrate and blah blah blah gets old in a hurry, but, to some people, apparently it's crucial for some unfathomable reason.

Because many people want state of the art cameras that shoot state of the art video as well as stills. Why should they have to do without because it isn't something you want?

A modern camera should be able to do both things equally well. If it can't, then it isn't a modern camera. Therein lies the problem - a substantial number of users want and demand that the manufacturer of the system they are using provide such a state of the art camera, and it is painfully evident that at some manufacturers are dropping the ball in this respect. So, yes, these people DO have the right to be pissed about it.

Having a feature you don't use doesn't hurt you - just don't use it if you don't want to. But having a feature you do use absent or otherwise deficient does hurt you.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Because many people want state of the art cameras that shoot state of the art video as well as stills. Why should they have to do without because it isn't something you want?

A modern camera should be able to do both things equally well. If it can't, then it isn't a modern camera. Therein lies the problem - a substantial number of users want and demand that the manufacturer of the system they are using provide such a state of the art camera, and it is painfully evident that at some manufacturers are dropping the ball in this respect. So, yes, these people DO have the right to be pissed about it.

Having a feature you don't use doesn't hurt you - just don't use it if you don't want to. But having a feature you do use absent or otherwise deficient does hurt you.

I don't agree with your premise that anything else isn't a modern camera - it might not be a camera that checks all your boxes, but "modern" has nothing to do with it. You're assuming that adding it doesn't hurt me - I've seen the claim, over and over, that it's "free", but I haven't seen any evidence that the validation, encoding, etc adds nothing to the bottom line.

That, and the constant bleating about it is as annoying as the DR chants You want video. We get it. Whining on the web won't make it happen.