Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?

[Orangutan]

If the 50D, a stills only, non-video optimized camera, can be retrofitted with video using only a firmware extension ...

means the 50D was already a fully video enabled camera, rather than a stills camera. Canon just chose - for whatever reasons - to not unlock the video capabilities designed into the sensor and processing pipeline. Hardware is obviously already a compromised design.

Classic "No true Scotsman" fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

AvTvM: I respect your desire for a stills camera that is uncompromised by extraneous features. You have given plausible arguments that video *could* compromise stills; however, this is not sufficient to show that it *has* compromised video. To do so, you would need to know enough about sensor design to make verifiable assertions about those trade-offs. I.e., you would need to be an engineer with specialty in this area. Others, including me, have also made plausible arguments that video could improve stills photography. I don't claim, however, that I have proved my case either. In short, we just don't know: aside from ergonomics / body design (which are subjective anyway) we simply don't have enough technical detail to resolve this debate.

In direct response to your post, it is at least as plausible that video is precisely the "freebie" that many of us claim. How far back would we need to go in the EOS line before you would concede that model xxD was *not* designed with video in mind and, therefore, if video can be enabled by Magic Lantern then it's a "freebie?"

 

[Neeneko]

May sound silly - but as PC DIYers have done with their systems, haven't photogs looked at creating cooling systems? It'd involve consideration from the starting design of the camera, but a cooling system would be pretty feasible? Bit of liquid cooling for those astro long exposure videos?

Actually, you can get cooling kits/conversions. They are used by people into astrophotography.

 

[Neeneko]

Sounds like all you video haters should have bought a Kodak.... oh right they all but went out of business, why? They hung on too hard to film and I think Im right on this they never did an HDDSLR.
Come on folks this is where the market is - Embrace technology

Ugh, I am starting to really hate the mythology around Kodak...

Kodak did not die because it failed to embrace technology or innovate. They died because their CEO was a corporate raider who kept selling off profitable divisions in order to get record quarterly 'profits' and drive stock prices up, then had to keep doing it till there was nothing left.

One of the problems with consumers (and all the blogs talking about Kodak) is they tend to forget that they are not the world, and that companies have markets that are NOT consumer product. Kodak's consumer division really was not it's biggest nor its most important, and its failure was not grounded in what was happening there.

But of course every analysis and blog tends to focus on that element because that is the only part the average person saw and, well, people are egotistical and like believing that their narrow demographic is THE important one.

 

[Cinnamon]

This is a great forum topic. Since some people dismissed video on DSLRs as a gimmick without much practical use, I thought I would never use the video features on my video capable DSLRs. I figured for the situations I'll want or need video, I'll use my video camera. A few years later, I have over 1 TB worth of video shot with SLRs!

I can understand why people don't use the video feature - without a rig, or stabilization equipment of some sort, the video can be a bit shaky unless you really dedicate time to improving handholding techniques to get useable video. Once you do that though, it's completely worth it. The quality of the footage you can capture is remarkable...and in some unexpected moments, I've been able to capture priceless moments that still pictures wouldn't be able to truly do justice for.

In retrospect, I think it's great that video is on new DSLRs, because I think it opened up a new world to many photographers who wouldn't have considered shooting video before. In the same way getting a macro lens makes you pay attention to all the small things that might previously have gone unnoticed, trying to master video techniques undoubtedly has given even seasoned photographers something new to strive for.

 

[Neeneko]

In retrospect, I think it's great that video is on new DSLRs, because I think it opened up a new world to many photographers who wouldn't have considered shooting video before. In the same way getting a macro lens makes you pay attention to all the small things that might previously have gone unnoticed, trying to master video techniques undoubtedly has given even seasoned photographers something new to strive for.

While I can see your point, I think this is actually part of what annoys so many people.. this attitude of 'you will like video and agree with us if you just try it'. Some people simply have no interest or use for it.... and find 'this feature should be on all cameras, you just haven't tried it enough' to be kinda obnoxious and condescending.

Personally, I have done video. I did not enjoy it, I have no use for it. No amount of 'trying it more' is going to change this.

 

[kubelik]

In retrospect, I think it's great that video is on new DSLRs, because I think it opened up a new world to many photographers who wouldn't have considered shooting video before. In the same way getting a macro lens makes you pay attention to all the small things that might previously have gone unnoticed, trying to master video techniques undoubtedly has given even seasoned photographers something new to strive for.

While I can see your point, I think this is actually part of what annoys so many people.. this attitude of 'you will like video and agree with us if you just try it'. Some people simply have no interest or use for it.... and find 'this feature should be on all cameras, you just haven't tried it enough' to be kinda obnoxious and condescending.

Personally, I have done video. I did not enjoy it, I have no use for it. No amount of 'trying it more' is going to change this.

I think Cinnamon was trying to put the video aspect in a good light. the colder, harder truth for those people who don't want it in their DSLR's is ... it has now become a standard function of all digital DSLR's. get used to it. I have never used the airbags on *any* of my cars before. I do not use the FM radio on my current car anymore. I don't have a need for 18" wheels, because I remember driving quite well on 14" wheels about a decade ago. I don't need 200 hp out of my engine, because 135 hp really cut it fine. I don't need TPMS because really how hard is it to stick the meter into your tire valve and read what the PSI is?

you know what though, all those pieces of the modern car are here to stay. it's a simple fact of developing goods for a market- and marketing-driven society and industry. I'm not saying you can't voice your opinions on the matter, you're certainly free to do so ... but it's realistically a waste of breath at this point.

 

[SPG]

If we ignore the emotional parts of the purist's argument, the only real concern is that stills functionality or quality might suffer from video functions. Since there is no proof of this there isn't really much to argue.
I think we all need to remember that Canon's camera division is staffed by people who've dedicated their careers to producing the best stills cameras they can. I don't think it's too likely that these people would be interested in compromising the performance of their cameras to cater to a much smaller segment of their customers.
They even spun off a new division to deal with video directly with their Cinema EOS line. I could see some cameras coming out of that lineup that might favor video over stills, but I just don't see how the regular photography division would let it happen.

 

[Neeneko]

you know what though, all those pieces of the modern car are here to stay. it's a simple fact of developing goods for a market- and marketing-driven society and industry. I'm not saying you can't voice your opinions on the matter, you're certainly free to do so ... but it's realistically a waste of breath at this point.

The thing is, market driven and marketing are not really the same thing. Marketing tends to suffer from serious group-think. Every time an industry gets some runaway success (which the 5D2 was) everyone clamors to emulate it since it is the 'obvious future'. Often in a few years though things settle and and we see splits again as analysts figure out which market segments actually want something vs do not. Right now we are in that initial hysteria where it is simply accepted that all cameras must have video in order to compete. 3-5 years from now it is hard to say what the landscape will look like.

As for a waste of breath, true, in a forum it really is, but as a consumer in general not so much. If people talk enough about their wants in a product, eventually the right person might hear, and all it takes is one well placed executive to change the 'common knowledge'.

 

[Cinnamon]

In retrospect, I think it's great that video is on new DSLRs, because I think it opened up a new world to many photographers who wouldn't have considered shooting video before. In the same way getting a macro lens makes you pay attention to all the small things that might previously have gone unnoticed, trying to master video techniques undoubtedly has given even seasoned photographers something new to strive for.

While I can see your point, I think this is actually part of what annoys so many people.. this attitude of 'you will like video and agree with us if you just try it'. Some people simply have no interest or use for it.... and find 'this feature should be on all cameras, you just haven't tried it enough' to be kinda obnoxious and condescending.

Personally, I have done video. I did not enjoy it, I have no use for it. No amount of 'trying it more' is going to change this.

I think Cinnamon was trying to put the video aspect in a good light. the colder, harder truth for those people who don't want it in their DSLR's is ... it has now become a standard function of all digital DSLR's. get used to it. I have never used the airbags on *any* of my cars before. I do not use the FM radio on my current car anymore. I don't have a need for 18" wheels, because I remember driving quite well on 14" wheels about a decade ago. I don't need 200 hp out of my engine, because 135 hp really cut it fine. I don't need TPMS because really how hard is it to stick the meter into your tire valve and read what the PSI is?

you know what though, all those pieces of the modern car are here to stay. it's a simple fact of developing goods for a market- and marketing-driven society and industry. I'm not saying you can't voice your opinions on the matter, you're certainly free to do so ... but it's realistically a waste of breath at this point.

Thanks for defending me, Kubelik! Great analogies, too.

Neeneko, I think you misunderstood my point. I'm not saying "once you use it you'll have to love it"...I'm saying that for many people, video is an interesting feature that they might not have even considered before. I fail to see how it's 'arrogant' to say something is a good feature that'll probably have some use for people.

I'm too young to remember this debate, but from what I've heard and read people slammed AF when it first came out, arguing that it's an unnecessary feature that 'real' photographers don't use or need. The vast majority of professional photographers in the field use AF because it's become incredibly helpful in capturing shots that they could otherwise miss (thus jeopardizing a potential sale). Similarly, while video isn't viewed as necessary by many people today, it's a useful thing to learn because as Kubelik points out, it's probably here to stay. More and more of my colleagues are incorporating video into their workflow - and the fact they even have the option to do so, I believe, is a good thing.

 

[Neeneko]

Neeneko, I think you misunderstood my point. I'm not saying "once you use it you'll have to love it"...I'm saying that for many people, video is an interesting feature that they might not have even considered before. I fail to see how it's 'arrogant' to say something is a good feature that'll probably have some use for people.

*nods* fair enough, I apologize for kinda going off on a tangent and attributing it to your post. And I can agree, giving people access to features they might not otherwise play with is generally good thing. Who knows, apparently the NEX7 UV performance is good enough that it can take video in in UVA and maybe I will explore that.

I'm too young to remember this debate, but from what I've heard and read people slammed AF when it first came out, arguing that it's an unnecessary feature that 'real' photographers don't use or need. The vast majority of professional photographers in the field use AF because it's become incredibly helpful in capturing shots that they could otherwise miss (thus jeopardizing a potential sale). Similarly, while video isn't viewed as necessary by many people today, it's a useful thing to learn because as Kubelik points out, it's probably here to stay. More and more of my colleagues are incorporating video into their workflow - and the fact they even have the option to do so, I believe, is a good thing.

I was not around for it either, but heard a bit at least, and for a while Canon did produce a MF only EF camera. I think that was clearly a case where the market for AF was so large the engineering costs were swamped by the increase in market. Which I fully acknowledge as a possibility for video, I am simply not convinced it is a given.

(edited to add)

I think one of the big reasons this bothers me though, I really think we, as a field, really loose something when products become so formulaic. When every major manufacturer is basically building the same device for sale to all markets, with very little variation between their own products and each other we all loose.. they stop taking chances, they stop discovering if there even IS a market for things off the current trend. It reminds me of the old marketing vs engineering gag of 'people don't want something new an unexpected, just take an existing product and add a clock to it!'.

So this isn't anti-change, it is anti-monoculture. I like a vibrant market where things are tried and there is more variation between devices then where they score on a dozen stats or so.

 

[sjprg]

If I wanted a movie camera I would buy one. I have one that sits on the shelf and is gathering dust.

 

[daveswan]

If I wanted a movie camera I would buy one. I have one that sits on the shelf and is gathering dust.

Then sell it on to someone who can make use of it

 

[AvTvM]

from the 5D III press release:
".. the EOS 5D Mark III offers improved performance in virtually every area. A new 22.3 Megapixel (MP) full-frame sensor offers the ideal balance of resolution for stills and HD movies ..."

this is exactly one of the design compromises stills photographers get stuffed down their throats: just because 22MP offers some advantage for video capture (3x HD resolution), stills photographers have to forego an even better 28, 32 or 36 MP sensor and put up with a 1 Megapixel "upgrade" over the previous model.

 

[NormanBates]

I came to this thread to post exactly that: maximum stills resolution is exactly (1920x3)x(1280x3), so the sensor was definitely designed with video in mind
if it ends up being sub par (i.e. worse than the D800), blame video-in-my-DSLR
if it ends up being better, please come back and thank us video shooters for forcing this reduced megapixels count

btw, one way in which this could be great is the following: it may mean a modified Bayer pattern with a 3x3 basic module, maybe with RGBW or even RGBWK - I think we would have heard about that already if it was the case, but anyway: it could be a very nice thing
http://www.similaar.com/foto/bayer/rgbwk.html

 

[Neeneko]

btw, one way in which this could be great is the following: it may mean a modified Bayer pattern with a 3x3 basic module, maybe with RGBW or even RGBWK - I think we would have heard about that already if it was the case, but anyway: it could be a very nice thing
http://www.similaar.com/foto/bayer/rgbwk.html

(fixed broken editing).

That would indeed be very cool. I keep hoping that eventually someone will produce a body with a configurable bayer filter. I know that making a swappable one would be impracticable (lining it back up would be unfeasible) but something LCD like could potentially be done. Imagine the cool stuff you could do with that, including getting something similar to triple-shots again.. now there would be a solution to the MP war.... or just shut it off completely and mix your own wavelengths.

 

[Rocky]

Canon should have make it as 39.32 MP. It will make most of the people from both still only camp and video camp happy. This will definitely trump Nikon D800. Highest Mp, 4X HD video. just hope Canon can give us low noise at low ISO and High ISO performance plus low price at the same time. We want everything plus the kitchen sink.

 

[daveswan]

If it were *only* for video then 2(1930x1080) would be more sensible, but the resolution would have *all* the photographers (Rightly) up in arms in protest, so the fact that the resolution is where it is, shows that Canon have tried to find the best balance of resolution for both camps.