Is video still needed in DSLRs?

[jeffa4444]

The Nikon Df is one example of a high end camera without video...

An example which doesn't really help your argument...

I don't shoot video with my dSLR, but as a feature it's here to stay.

Its not my arguement its Future Source

 

[jeffa4444]

Everything from ASOS fasion catalogue walk to camera video clips to "In the Heart of Sea" now basically use dedicated video cameras we hardly ever rent a DSLR for video. We supply hundreds of commercials annually, hundreds of TV dramas and numerous Features Indie & Major. These shows have had 4K GoPros, C300s, BM pocket cameras, Codex action cam very rarely DSLRs since the demise of the 5D MKII. Now Arri have the Alexa Mini, Canon the C300 MKII I see even less reason for mainstream Features, TV or commercials to use DSLRs. Preston (focus, iris & zoom controls & motors) are constantly on back-order, auto-focus tools exist but are rarely if ever used and Red push into fasion photographers to combine the two disaplines has met a mixed reaction.

 

[DomTomLondon]

I work as a photographer and videographer in an international publishing company and have been using two 60D canon cameras for the last 4 years to shoot still and video for web and print. Apart from the lousy compressed MP4 video that comes out of the cameras, it is still a very good option. I now also use a BMCC to shoot video, but not a fan of the crop factor, and larger body size.

I love the fact that my 5D3 can shoot video, especially RAW 14bit video at 1080p on a FF sensor. And I can use all my Canon glass with it. How many other cameras can do that for just over £2K?

Yes you will need to manually focus your lenses, but I wouldn't want it any other way. Just like I wouldn't put my 5D3 on Auto mode to shoot stills. I want to be in full control.

If you want to video a child's birthday party use an iPhone, it auto focuses in video mode.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The Nikon Df is one example of a high end camera without video...

An example which doesn't really help your argument...

I don't shoot video with my dSLR, but as a feature it's here to stay.

Its not my arguement its Future Source

Did they provide the poorly chosen example of the Df, too?

 

[gary samples]

I can't say I haven't used video on my camera before I have hit the button by accident ! :

 

[Zeidora]

I can buy the argument that consumer cameras are used by consumers for do-it-all.

However, I am still surprised that Hi-end-SLRs have video function. The people who go high end either way, will be happy to have two systems; high end photographers even have multiple cameras for specialized purposes. Re not everybody uses every function, true. But there may be some more germane functions that could be swapped for video in high-end SLR, such as GPS.

Re quality canon glass on SLR, even as a non-video person I can appreciated the f-stop/T-stop difference. But putting pricey Canon/Zeiss cinema lenses on a dSLR is like putting a Ferrari engine into a beetle/2CV. Makes no sense.

Cameras are tools. Multifunction tools are not as good as dedicated ones. e.g., spork

 

[jeffa4444]

The Nikon Df is one example of a high end camera without video...

An example which doesn't really help your argument...

I don't shoot video with my dSLR, but as a feature it's here to stay.

Its not my arguement its Future Source

Did they provide the poorly chosen example of the Df, too?

No I did clearly your superior to everyone else who posts the key was in the word "example". Can I suggest a good anger management school?

 

[jdramirez]

I use video... Here and there. When I bought my Canon xs, I was disappointed that video capabilities weren't included... But I do use video in my mkiii. I shoot at 60 fps and make slow mo video for sports...

 

[Orangutan]

I am still surprised that Hi-end-SLRs have video function.

<snip>

there may be some more germane functions that could be swapped for video in high-end SLR, such as GPS.

I'm surprised that you're surprised: once you have "Live View," video is free: you just record your live view image. Video is also a driving force in some body improvements, e.g. heat management and power consumption.

Multifunction tools are not as good as dedicated ones. e.g., spork

The fact that I can use a screwdriver to dig out weeds in no way diminishes its utility as a screwdriver. I have yet to year a compelling argument (though some good speculation) as to how inclusion of video could negatively affect stills.

Summary: video is, as far as end-users can determine, a free add-on to stills. (I reject the idea that an extra button is a big deal)

 

[veng]

Video is a zero (or nearly zero) cost add for DSLRs. It's not going anywhere, even if no one uses it. Am I going to buy a DSLR for the primary use of video recording? Of course not. However, always having a video camera on me when I bring my DSLR means I'll take some videos that I wouldn't have taken otherwise.

 

[gsealy]

The DSLR, in particular the 5DIII, offers a cost effective and light weight means to capture great HD video. We use them as part of multi-camera shoot that includes camcorders and DSLRs. The 5DIIIs allow us to use various lens to create variety and interest into the overall program. Most of our work is documentary style shooting, that is, there are no do-overs. We have to capture as much as possible the first and only time. So we need at least 3, and sometimes as many as 5, cameras shooting. We want overall views to establish context and we also want closeups with isolation on individual subjects so that we get their expressions and reactions. Then we put it all together in post to produce the program.

So yeah, I am very interested in DSLR video capability.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I wonder, as the technologies for both still and video imaging improves, will there be a point when trying to make one body do both will result in a less than optimal system for either?

 

[Orangutan]

I wonder, as the technologies for both still and video imaging improves, will there be a point when trying to make one body do both will result in a less than optimal system for either?

When we can shoot stills at video framerates we'll just shoot video, then pick out the still frames later. Also, "less than optimal" does not mean "mutually exclusive." As long as neither appreciably impairs the other there's no reason they can't co-exist.

 

[unfocused]

When we can shoot stills at video framerates we'll just shoot video, then pick out the still frames later.

This is a common misconception. The optimal shutter speed for shooting video is double the frame rate (1/60th second for 30 frames per second). This might be fine for some purposes, but for anything moving you won't get a sharp image. In fact, the slight blurring that occurs when shooting at the slower shutter speed is desirable for video as the eye fills in the gap. Doesn't work for stills.

 

[neuroanatomist]

No I did clearly your superior to everyone else who posts the key was in the word "example". Can I suggest a good anger management school?

1) Perhaps if you'd linked to your (future) source, it would have been more clear. Your statement, " I know personally Ive never used any of my Canon DSLRs for video, I would much sooner use the GoPro or my Sony video camera ergonomically both are easier," certainly suggested your support for the argument.

2) As others pointed out, the Df was a poor example. It was a marketing gambit by Nikon, we've seen how well it turned out. Of course, there are many reasons for that, but excluding video was likely part of it. 'Pure photography'...phthth.

3) Superior? No, although I can usually at least manage to use you're vs. your properly.

4) I'll pass on your offer of a recommendation, although your offer to recommend a good one (as opposed to a poor one) implies personal experience with such institutions.

 

[Orangutan]

When we can shoot stills at video framerates we'll just shoot video, then pick out the still frames later.

This is a common misconception. The optimal shutter speed for shooting video is double the frame rate (1/60th second for 30 frames per second). This might be fine for some purposes, but for anything moving you won't get a sharp image. In fact, the slight blurring that occurs when shooting at the slower shutter speed is desirable for video as the eye fills in the gap. Doesn't work for stills.

You assume we'd shoot video-for-stills the same way we shoot video-for-video; in fact, what I describe is nearly true now for sports, especially for some of the new mirrorless offerings. Also, there's no reason to believe it won't be possible to shoot stills-quality at 60-90 fps, then use software to simulate the slower shutter appearance of 30fps video: it's already possible to create videos that morph between two still images, so why not do that for every frame?

You may be right, but I think it's safe to assume that new technologies will lead to new techniques.

 

[jeffa4444]

No I did clearly your superior to everyone else who posts the key was in the word "example". Can I suggest a good anger management school?

1) Perhaps if you'd linked to your (future) source, it would have been more clear. Your statement, " I know personally Ive never used any of my Canon DSLRs for video, I would much sooner use the GoPro or my Sony video camera ergonomically both are easier," certainly suggested your support for the argument.

2) As others pointed out, the Df was a poor example. It was a marketing gambit by Nikon, we've seen how well it turned out. Of course, there are many reasons for that, but excluding video was likely part of it. 'Pure photography'...phthth.

3) Superior? No, although I can usually at least manage to use you're vs. your properly.

4) I'll pass on your offer of a recommendation, although your offer to recommend a good one (as opposed to a poor one) implies personal experience with such institutions.

Thankfully not and I see no point in carrying on this conversation you clearly like belittling people and being holier than thou.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Thankfully not and I see no point in carrying on this conversation

Yet you felt the need to carry it on anyway... Or maybe you mean you wanted to have the last word? Or maybe this means you're ready to stop posting personal insults to me, when this started out as a criticism of your chosen example, and not the level of personal attack to which you brought the thread.

 

[Don Haines]

Everything from ASOS fasion catalogue walk to camera video clips to "In the Heart of Sea" now basically use dedicated video cameras we hardly ever rent a DSLR for video. We supply hundreds of commercials annually, hundreds of TV dramas and numerous Features Indie & Major. These shows have had 4K GoPros, C300s, BM pocket cameras, Codex action cam very rarely DSLRs since the demise of the 5D MKII. Now Arri have the Alexa Mini, Canon the C300 MKII I see even less reason for mainstream Features, TV or commercials to use DSLRs. Preston (focus, iris & zoom controls & motors) are constantly on back-order, auto-focus tools exist but are rarely if ever used and Red push into fasion photographers to combine the two disaplines has met a mixed reaction.

I tend to agree with you here....

Also, when you look at ergonomics, DSLRs really don't cut it. They are designed to be best held while looking through the viewfinder... not at the rear screen. To shoot video, you really need a tripod as it is almost impossible to hold them anywhere close to steady and look at the rear screen.... and operating any control (even on a tripod) produces noise and shake.... very unlike those ancient Beta ENG cameras which were so easy to handhold steady....

However, we have to remember that it is the masses who determine features of a camera.... not the photographic and videography elite. Most want a single tool that does everything and their answer is a DSLR with video mode. As long as they don't screw around with the form factor and there is only one or two extra buttons we photographers shouldn't complain.... the increased sales due to this feature helps keep the prices down and Canon profitable..... a small price to pay.

The masses leave everything set as the default "auto" and press record. They use the built in microphone. Sometimes (rarely) they use a tripod. When they take stills, the camera is in "green box" mode.... As a professional, or enthusiast, you move beyond that. You realize that the sound alone is a production and add external mics and then remote mics.... You move into studio lighting and discover that colour balancing your lights is another job just on it's own. You realize that AF is your enemy..... it isn't just realizing you should turn it off, it's the realization that almost all DSLR lenses were designed for AF and that the 1/4 or less turn on the AF ring to go from near to far is much too finicky to do the job and you wish that it was a full turn (or more)... and then you realize that keeping focus on a moving subject is a full time job.... and with LOTS of practice you can do those three or four jobs at the same time... and this holds true for whatever box you are using... you learn and grow.

Ergonomics? With the exception of a GoPro.... darn near everything has a better user interface for video than a DSLR... but there is some great video being shot on GoPros.... often it is the right tool for the job and it's strengths (size, cost, portability, remote control) make up for the lousy ergonomics.... and the same hold true with a DSLR.

So should it stay as a feature on DSLRs? Yes! As mentioned above, it helps with sales and keeps costs down. It can also provide some good quality video IF you learn to use it well. If you REALLY want to get into video, it is a great starting point.... but be prepared to leave it behind.

 

[benperrin]

I am still surprised that Hi-end-SLRs have video function.

<snip>

there may be some more germane functions that could be swapped for video in high-end SLR, such as GPS.

I'm surprised that you're surprised: once you have "Live View," video is free: you just record your live view image. Video is also a driving force in some body improvements, e.g. heat management and power consumption.

Multifunction tools are not as good as dedicated ones. e.g., spork

The fact that I can use a screwdriver to dig out weeds in no way diminishes its utility as a screwdriver. I have yet to year a compelling argument (though some good speculation) as to how inclusion of video could negatively affect stills.

Summary: video is, as far as end-users can determine, a free add-on to stills. (I reject the idea that an extra button is a big deal)

Yes, the only extra resources for the video is the firmware/software side of things. I don't understand why people want it to be excluded when it is just an option that you can use if you wish. It would be like saying I don't want live view magnification for focus purposes as I only ever use autofocus. Sure some might only use autofocus but wouldn't you prefer to have the option if you needed it?