- This topic is empty.
Video on DSLRs…why?
-
Some things to me just defy logic. You spend a fortune on a still camera and one of the selling points is its video capabilities. It makes as much sense as the availability of shower radios and I’m still not buying this whole camera phone malarkey..a phone is used to make or receive phone calls. If I wanted a means of capturing video I’d get a video camera. Thankfully Sony haven’t succumbed to the race (possibly as it’d hurt their video camera division).
What do you think?
Alan.
PS – this is not a rant…it’s too short. :)
Sure, YouTube seems to be one of the web’s most popular sites
and I still can’t imagine anyone using it unless they wear a baseball
cap and have a tattoo. If you want vox pop don’t ask me.Apparently there is video on my 5D II …
As concerns phones, I used to disregard the phone capabilities. Now, however, I use the phone camera at the end of workshops and presentations to copy the hand-written flip charts (and sometimes circulate the jpegs – saves me typing them up) instead of keeping the large sheets. I find that a very handy feature.
So much on YouTube is of low video/audio quality that it’s hardly worth watching except for http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJi8wEyk-wo&NR=1
I don’t get video on a DSLR either. If I want to make a video I would by a Video camera. Camera phones are OK. I have a Samsung TOCCA and it take great images.
Sport Videos on YouTube? Hard to beat this even if you are not a cricket nut like me.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x72rFy1YmU&feature=related
I agree. Video cameras for video. I remember about 8 or 9 years ago I bought a nice small little digital camera. When I got it home and read the instruction sheet I discovered that it took photos, video, security camera motion activated, webcam, voice recorder and other stuff I can’t remember and I thought, what a load of crap. Still have it though :lol:
Video on DSLRs…why?
I’m guessing here, but I’d imagine that it’s a software enhancement of Live View,
which people switching from compact cameras were demanding.If you’re going to display a real time video on a camera’s monitor,
then it can’t be that much of a leap to actually capture it.This then becomes another element in the marketing mix.
I can’t see the problem with it,
I mean, show me the video camera that can shoot HD movies with the choice of optics available to DSLR’s…I don’t have the facility myself, and haven’t used one,
but I’m sure I’d find a use for it if I had it available.
Every now and then…It’s a marketing tool, plain and simple I say. I’m sure one day, in the not too distant future, all new (dSLR) models will have video capability as a standard feature in much the same way Live View is propagating today and we’ll not give the subject too much of a second thought.
I”m sure when Live View was first released, there were similar threads on forums like this one – “why have Live View, I bought an SLR not a compact snappy snapper !” “if I’d wanted Live View, I’d have bought a bridge / compact” etc. etc.
Personally I have a dSLR for taking pictures, a video camera for film and a mobile for phone calls (although the latter I do use as a compact snappy snapper time to time – also a Tocco)
I’m sure there’s be another feature in the future that will spark similar debate and end up part and parcel of a standard SLR’s spec sheet. It’s progress, and marketing guys love it, particular if it shifts more units !
I’ve seen some great videos shot on D-SLRs on the web, much better than the average You Tube submission. And to be honest I wouldn’t mind dabbling with a bit of video myself.
That said the price of most D-SLRs seem to be shooting up because they keep adding video in to models. I’m sure video will come as standard on all D-SLRs eventually as someone else said, and it would be rather annoying to think I had to pay an extra couple of hundred quid for the technology when primarily I want my camera for digital stills. Take the D300S, it doesn’t seem to have all that many more features than the D300 other than video and an extra FPS but commands an extra £400! Similar story between the 450D and the 500D from what I can see… thats why I’m in the market for a 40D before it goes and I end up with a video model :D
Personally my interests go beyond still images and sometimes I think it could be a good thing to have the option of recording motion. I’d be able to use my Macro, fisheye or telephoto lenses with it which would be quite cool.
I wouldn’t actually buy an SLR for it’s video capabilities but if a model with video suited my needs I certainly wouldn’t complain about it.
I think some of you guys are a little set in your ways. :) What’s wrong with having a camera on your phone? It’s nice always having a camera to hand. Technology is great.
Some videos from the Canon 5D are fantastic. I was looking to get a small video camera that could store the videos on flash cards, had good battery life, high dynamic range and a good lens… they cost a fortune. If I bought a D300s, I would get a brillint a camera and the video feature for free. I am still not buying it, but it’s undoubtedly a good combination in my opinion.
Now tetris on the camera. That I could go for. All this time waiting for the light or is it waiting
for the rain to stop, has to be filled with something :)I deal with $135,000.oo hidef camera packages. We shoot most of our productions with these packages. i have read where people try to say the dslr outcome is just as good………..looks good yes but to say it is as good………..i do not think so.
how much post have they done with the dslr footage…..alot more than they are saying i am sure. I have worked in television/moving pictures etc since 1978 I do not believe half the stuff i see on tv/magizines etc………….there are to many ways to alter the footage………..but i am sure there is a time and place for everything
off the soapbox
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
