Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?

[Beautor]

I've been reading on this and other forums for quite a while, and I see a lot of hate coming from photographers who are upset that Canon and other manufacturers are including video capabilities in their DSLR's. I don't get how a camera being capable of recording still images AND video is a bad thing? Does it make you take worse pictures? I own a 40D and a 60D. We have used the video capability of the 60D exactly twice. I'm not a videographer, and I'm not really interested in shooting video. I have no interest in buying a video camera when I almost never shoot video, but I'm glad that I have a camera that's capable of it when I want it.

I'm not an engineer or an expert, but my basic understanding is that the capability to record video is primarily a software thing, and the only extra piece required is a mic or mic input. Magic Lantern software has enabled video on a 50D (albeit without a mic), which supports my understanding that it doesn't require any major changes or extras in the camera. I'm pretty sure that there's thousands of people capturing fantastic images on the 5Dii and other DSLRs that can shoot video. So unless there's something about video capable DSLRs that I'm completely missing, why the hate?

 

[Dianoda]

I don't think there is much hate for video that can be justified (not that there's really much hate for it to begin with). The biggest thing that sticks out to me is that some don't like seeing the influence that the evolution of video features has had on DSLRs (which is arguably pretty minimal, as DSLRs are still very much focused on stills first, video second).

I've never felt that my 7D was in any compromised as a camera due to the inclusion of video. I mean, look - LiveView is convenient to the point that I wouldn't want a DSLR without the feature, and so if adding a few lines of code to the camera firmware allows for the camera to record that output as video, why not? Who does it hurt?

 

[torger]

I have never used the video option on either my 7D or the 5Dmk2. But video is great to have since it broadens the use of the camera so it can sell in larger numbers, thus lower cost camera for me. My beloved "live view", which I consider a must-have for manual focusing from a tripod, is also a side-effect of the video function.

My hope now is that the "4K cinema dslr" that is under development actually is ~40 megapixels that is binned 4:1 for cinema, that way the 4K videographers and high res photographers both get their needs satisfied.

I have no problem with having "too many" software features, I just don't use them. I can't say the video functions have cluttered the interface for normal photography.

 

[KeithR]

There was some (legitimate?) concern when all this video DSLR stuff started, that R&D resources better expended (in some people's opinion - mine included, originally) elsewhere on improving noise/AF/DR/[insert improvement of choice], were being "wasted" on video.

But now that video is established and the research pretty much done and dusted, that concern no longer applies: I still have no interest in video myself, so I simply ignore it on my 7D...

 

[Beautor]

Perhaps hate is too strong a word, but I keep coming across people posting wish lists and they all say they want a dedicated DSLR without video.

Personally I agree that having the capability broadens the appeal of the camera, which hopefully boosts sales and furthers R&D for future upgrades. Its a feature that Canon was able to add that only added a minimal cost to the Camera. I think the more cameras that Canon (or any camera company) sells, the more likely that prices will creep down, or rebates will be offered. And the more people who buy cameras and lenses the more likely that someone will be selling a good quality used lens or body that I can actually afford.

I think its cool to hear about videos that are shot with Canon DSLRs. I love when people push the limits and come up with new and creative ways to use their equipment.

 

[avian]

we film people want clean high iso capability because when shooting video we have to keep our shutter speed at 1/50th,1/60th in 25p,30p or 1/100th,1/120th in 50p,60p.
so the cleaner the image (after in camera procesing) the better for us.

The High Mega pixel adicts are woried because high mp and high iso seems counterintuitive.
However for lowlight shooters high iso is very welcome.

 

[RuneL]

I'm really happy with the video capabilities. It's cheaper to get versatile gear like lenses because I had them all to begin with, all you need is really audio and lights to make something truly awesome. For a photojournalist this is great, you carry less gear and you are able to diversify your material, eventhough it's a bitch getting both good video and photos at the same time.

I thought it was a gimmick to begin with at first (which I guess it was, I doubt anyone expected how popular it would actually become, not even Canon) but I'm happy to have it.

 

[MikeC]

I love video DSLRs!

I was happy taking pictures with my Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c. 14 MP on a full frame sensor was enough for me. I like taking pictures and do it a lot. Yet I am not a good photographer. Among the thousands of pictures I have taken are three quite good ones and one really good one. So much for talent, my good-picture-output is less than chance. But it is still fun. I had a 24mm, a 50mm and a 100mm prime and that was it.

I am much better shooting video. But all I could do was shooting video - because there were only video cameras available. Everything was in focus and the resolution was poor. Up to a point that was okay, but then HD became affordable and I sold my Canon XL-1 when I still could get money for it. I wanted to leave the old times behind: no more interlace, no more 25 fps, no more SD resolution. So I went without a video camera for several years, happy with my Kodak.

Then I wanted to buy the Canon HDV Something-30 when its price went low enough to start experimenting with HD. I wanted the NTSC version because I wanted 30p, but I wasn't allowed because of trade agreements. No europen must buy american cameras. So Canon got no money from me and I went a couple of more years without a video camera, happy with my Kodak.

Then the 5D Mk2 appeared and I was thrilled! Not because of the megapixels. I wouldn't have bought it because of that. I even wouldn't have bought it because of its low-ligh capacities. I didn't (and still don't) need that. But it could shoot video! With a full(!) frame(!) sensor(!). And it was getting rid of dropframe timecode, too ;D

I was appalled when I heard that it was full-auto only. I was angry. Really, really angry, because I thought it would take them years to change that. Then they announced the full manual update and I ordered mine the they they did that. It was back to drop-frame timecode, but what can you do? :

Long story short, I have bought gear for about 35000 Euros in the last two years: crane, steadicam, dolly, lenses, ...stuff. People meanwhile pay me money to do what I like. Even amateurs technically praise my results: "oh that looks all so good, how did you do that?" because I myself would never have imagined what incredible images and perspectives you can shoot with a TS-E 17 on a full frame sensor. Could I have done that with a RED? No. With a C300? No. With any other film or video camera on the market? No. But with my 5D I could.

Are there cameras with better quality? Yes, a lot. Are they more expensive? I'd say all of them and all of them an awful lot. And they are heavier! Have you ever bought a Steadicam for a 20kg camera setup? Try buy a crane and a remote head that can handle such a weight. Do I need more quality. Mmmh... I want more quality but I don't need it. It would also up my price which clients wouldn't pay because none of them would notice the increase in quality. None of them would even need it. Heck, I produce 1080p material and they make thumbnail-sized internet video or a DVD from it.

Maybe moiree and aliasing don't bother me as much because having used a Kodak DCS Pro SLR (without a lowpass filter) I know my way around them quite instinctively.

The 5D2 has given my creativity such a boost, how could it be a bad thing?

 

[FyreStorm]

Just would prefer that rather than put all the video stuff in there, they just give us better cameras...more megapixels, better AF, faster frame rates...you can't do it all well, I would just prefer, as a photographer that they give me a better camera and stop feeing features I don't want...

I got flamed for my last such post, but while I understand some people want these features I think Canon should do three things.

Have a line of pro video cameras, have pro level dslrs and maybe a few hybrid options...

Let the flaming begin.

 

[EYEONE]

Just would prefer that rather than put all the video stuff in there, they just give us better cameras...more megapixels, better AF, faster frame rates...you can't do it all well, I would just prefer, as a photographer that they give me a better camera and stop feeing features I don't want...

I got flamed for my last such post, but while I understand some people want these features I think Canon should do three things.

Have a line of pro video cameras, have pro level dslrs and maybe a few hybrid options...

Let the flaming begin.

I think you got flamed because of the threat to switch to Nikon. A brand who does the exact same thing regarding video as Canon. We are alllll tired of "switching brand threats"

The ability to record video in a DSLR has yet to reduce the ability to shoot stills. The two functions are not in conflict. As far as I can tell the inclusion of video hasn't even affected the price of DSLRs. I shoot stills on my 7D and very very very rarely shoot video. It's not like Canon has to balance stills and video ability in one body. Both can exist, fully featured, in one body. Is the 50D a better still camera than the 7D? :

 

[forgetmenot]

i've used cameras from 10d, a while back. and has owned several others since then. the photo function definitely has improved, and introducing videos don't mean reducing these improvement. it only adds its capabilities.
these new cameras has lots to offer since what i used to have!

you don't need fancy functions to shoot good picture, the cameras is only a tool, and these cameras have more to offer now than it used to. So people who are wanting more functions... seriously? you should understand its not only the tool, its the person behind the camera.

 

[wickidwombat]

I have never used the video option on either my 7D or the 5Dmk2. But video is great to have since it broadens the use of the camera so it can sell in larger numbers, thus lower cost camera for me. My beloved "live view", which I consider a must-have for manual focusing from a tripod, is also a side-effect of the video function.

My hope now is that the "4K cinema dslr" that is under development actually is ~40 megapixels that is binned 4:1 for cinema, that way the 4K videographers and high res photographers both get their needs satisfied.

I have no problem with having "too many" software features, I just don't use them. I can't say the video functions have cluttered the interface for normal photography.

got your maths wrong there. assuming 4k will be 4000x3000 just as an example this is 12MP a 4:1 binning will require a 192MP sensor 16000 x 12000

 

[Fandongo]

"A photograph has much more meaning, I'm just not interested in video."
- Every artsy person, wearing an artsy hoodie and artsy glasses

uhh, but now video is the same picture, plus it moves.
There's an incredible amount of skill required to effectively edit sequences of images.
Edits make no sense without continuity, and require music/effects (or the lack of), as well as a constant understanding of the emotion of motion.

Photography is a magnificent skill to master.
And all of that knowledge can be channeled toward video... It's the same thing, the only "constraint" is 16:9.

Not putting down pro photographers at all, their attention to detail is generally magnitudes greater than "video folk", and they deserve the right to remain photo-only people.

But DSLRs have boosted to level of amateur photographers by 1,000,000%

Mastering video, music, effects, and continuity is beyond the grasp of 999,999% of those...

So they consider it an abomination.

The sheer number of beautiful wedding videos littering the internet now (anyone can shoot emotion to Jason Mraz), as well as the plethora of short films now shot on the 5d/t2i/t3i/60d/gh2, only make their utter inability to do something similar that much more obvious.

Now light/low light is now the norm, and the high iso performance in video looks far prettier than equivalently flashless stills (since they generally need to boost shutter speed beyond 50 to remove motion blur, a favorable trait for video, and the noise nearly disappears when not frozen in time).

It's an unfair advantage, one that everyone should use to their benefit.

They aren't perfect for video. Yes they are, they just haven't updated the unintentionally mind-blowing world changing accidental technology in over 3 years.

But...

Hatters Gonna Hate.

Let them not advance with the rest of humans.

 

[benperrin]

I love both video and photography. It is fantastic that I can use the same body for both. I want both technologies to improve and so far it looks as if all the major companies are doing just that. The silly thing is when people start bashing a camera that hasn't even been announced or tested. Just ignore the people who blast Canon for including video in their cameras. Clearly it has been a very, very smart decision.

 

[wickidwombat]

I'm a still photographer, And every time i try to make a video it looks like an epileptic with parkinsons got hold of the camera. so I have alot of respect for the skill it take to make good video. Its something i cant do and right now dont have the time to get a handle on. I dont mind either way having the video on DSLRs I think its mostly a software thing, as long as they dont go re-arranging buttons and controls to suit video and cause problems for still shooting its all good.

 

[Astro]

i don´t care about video.. but as a pro you might have too:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9982656990/no-future-in-photojournalism-interview-dan-chung

 

[D.Sim]

Is the 50D a better still camera than the 7D? :

Yes ;D :

I'm a still photographer, And every time i try to make a video it looks like an epileptic with parkinsons got hold of the camera. so I have alot of respect for the skill it take to make good video. Its something i cant do and right now dont have the time to get a handle on. I dont mind either way having the video on DSLRs I think its mostly a software thing, as long as they dont go re-arranging buttons and controls to suit video and cause problems for still shooting its all good.

I think wickidwombat has it right... its not impacting the camera itself (specifically anyway), and shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Where some people get the hate from is that some people think the resources put into it takes away from the stills - probably not true, it'll actually increase the importance of ISO performance IMO, and theres also the issue of having (maybe in the future) to design the said dSLR around video capabilities.

Do I shoot video myself? hardly - I'm probably worse off than wickidwombat in that my weak point is fine motor movement, I cant eat with chopsticks without it rattling away. does that stop me from shooting video once in a while on borrowed equipment? Nope - theres a place for video - just as there is a place for stills.

by all means - go video - just not at the cost of stills

 

[Jedifarce]

I think you got flamed because of the threat to switch to Nikon. A brand who does the exact same thing regarding video as Canon. We are alllll tired of "switching brand threats"

I never understood the Canon-Nikon conflict mentality especially seeing how I use Nikon primes with my 5D.

 

[EYEONE]

Is the 50D a better still camera than the 7D? :

Yes ;D :

Ha, ok man. :

 

[KeithR]

"A photograph has much more meaning, I'm just not interested in video."
- Every artsy person, wearing an artsy hoodie and artsy glasses

Don't do that, sunshine - you're just showing your ignorance.

I'm not remotely "as described" - I'm a bird photographer who also does a bit of action photography - stuff like mountain biking, kite jumping/kite surfing, jet-skiing, some rugby, some martial arts, and I'll tell you why I photograph, rather than video these things.

Because - depending on the subject matter, but in general - video is boring.

People can appreciate an image of a bird caught in flight, but a video of the same birds tracking across the screen? Boring.

A mountain bike caught in mid jump is good subject matter: a video of the same thing? Boring.

Someone at the top of a big air kite jump is a cool image: the ten minutes of standing round under the kite waiting for just the right minute to "pop"? Boring.

And so on. Yes, it's eminently possible to edit sequences into something more useful, but - frankly - I'm not really interested in Youtube, thanks. Let's be honest: 99.9% of the stuff on Youtube et al is crap. By all means contribute to that figure if you feel the need, but I don't.

So - just for the avoidance of any doubt - there are perfectly valid use-cases for photographs over videos that don't involve "artsy". Just because you don't understand that, it doesn't give you the right to be a smartarse about people who don't think your way.