if it is done well, meaning the lenses AF, and AF fast enough to track the subject. The way video is implemented in the Nikon and Canon today is near useless for action.
Digifan
--
Digifan
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why are some of you opposed to video?
- Thread starter Kritta
- Start date
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
This is just a general feeling. I have no objections to video..but I am a stills shooter, that is the most important aspect for me.
I would not care too much about video being honest, but I won't say no way..as long as..
Video being there does not compromise the camera in any aspect aka being a still camera, handling etc. The moment they start adding video buttons to make that better, I would get a bit upset over it.
It's called an E3
They're called the E420, E520, E620 and E30
If you have an Oly SLR you've already been saved the cost of video implementation. So buy a spare battery.
The point is, the cameras for those who don't want video already exist. For those that want to stick with Oly and want video there is no option.
Jan Chelminski
Senior Member
and I am do not want to trade a feature that supports better still photo
operation for video operation.
Jan
operation for video operation.
Jan
George Hsia
Senior Member
Joanna,
In the competitive landscape of today's day and age regardless of what we ourselves prefer I think we all see the writing on the wall that video is the next natural progression for DSLR's. You may disagree, but I think you recognize it too.
Don't worry I'm sure Oly will still sell video free DSLR's for those that think video will end life or photography as we know it. But I think it's a good bet that Oly does not intent to be left behind when it comes to video.
Anyways, I think it's going to happen sooner rather than later. Since it is why not embrace the possibilities?
George
--
http://geohsia.smugmug.com
I have never designed a camera or will I ever. My points were targeted at those who contend that adding video will somehow make cameras worse. While cost of development will certainly increase so will volume.
Oly will never stop developing good cameras and the E-630 is a great example. Adding video will hardly require the entire development team.
In the competitive landscape of today's day and age regardless of what we ourselves prefer I think we all see the writing on the wall that video is the next natural progression for DSLR's. You may disagree, but I think you recognize it too.
Well just the other day... Oh, sorry that was just pretend... Yes development cost must be covered, but if this results in an increase in volume then maybe the increase isn't as big as you would imagine. Plus you have to consider if they make money on lenses or bodies, and I'm pretty sure it's the lenses. That's another way to recoup cost.
Yes I'm sure there will be new design challenges and compromises with video, but I don't think we're asking for the perfect video camera. I'm sure Oly will work out a good solution.
Yes, its different and I don't mean to trivialize it as I'm sure there is a lot of work to support HD level video. All I meant to say is that video exists today even in a limited form. While additional development is required it isn't going to require a re-design of a DSLR.
I'm sure Oly will work hard to minimize duplication where possible.
My mistake. Maybe only the E-20 had electronic shutter. All I know is that without the mirror slap it was a joy to use so silent and quiet. I don't know for a fact that with video comes an electronic shutter but I think it would be an opportunity for them to develop a super silent DSLR.E-10 didn't definitely have electronic shutter, and if E-20 ever had
have video mode I didn't ever use it
The 5D Mark II seems to have done pretty well and it doesn't compromise it's DSLRness. Yes, it's a $3K+ camera but I don't think the majority of it is because of video though I'm sure a portion of the price increase is.
While I like your suggestions the fact of the matter is in todays market they will not make or break decisions. Video though I think is one where it will really make people re-consider Oly if they weren't already.
Don't worry I'm sure Oly will still sell video free DSLR's for those that think video will end life or photography as we know it. But I think it's a good bet that Oly does not intent to be left behind when it comes to video.
If you think it'll be that bad you think too little of Oly engineers. What I find interesting is that when people speak of video they speak of it in a way with such vehement disdain, as if somehow they're threatened by it.
Anyways, I think it's going to happen sooner rather than later. Since it is why not embrace the possibilities?
George
--
http://geohsia.smugmug.com
Glen Barrington
Forum Pro
You ask me, "Why am I opposed to video?". Meaning, "Why don't I want to pay for a video mode when you so clearly want one?" You assume that I and the people like me are preventing you from getting the camera you want.
An equally valid question is, "Why are you so intent on forcing me to accept something I don't want to pay for and would likely never use?"
You have choices along the lines you want. Why aren't you sending an economic message to the other manufacturers by buying one of THOSE cameras? If there are enough of you doing that,the other manufacturers will get the message and produce something for you.
--
Mayonnaise on white bread, mmmmm!
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://glenbarrington.smugmug.com/
An equally valid question is, "Why are you so intent on forcing me to accept something I don't want to pay for and would likely never use?"
You have choices along the lines you want. Why aren't you sending an economic message to the other manufacturers by buying one of THOSE cameras? If there are enough of you doing that,the other manufacturers will get the message and produce something for you.
--
Mayonnaise on white bread, mmmmm!
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://glenbarrington.smugmug.com/
Rob MacLennan
Senior Member
... so much as simply don't care. I'd never use it. If I wanted video, then I'd buy a dedicated video camera. I've never used the video function on any compact camera that I've owned, as it is. If it added additional cost to a camera, then it would give me a reason not to buy.
I put it in the category of negative billing for cable TV stations. If I don't want to watch NASCAR and never asked for it, then why should I have to pay for the additional station?
--
D620L -> D540 -> C750UZ -> E-500 -> E-510 -> E-3
I put it in the category of negative billing for cable TV stations. If I don't want to watch NASCAR and never asked for it, then why should I have to pay for the additional station?
--
D620L -> D540 -> C750UZ -> E-500 -> E-510 -> E-3
TrapperJohn
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 16,488
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 12,288
I do it for a living.
There is no free lunch. Add something, you always take something away. The question is - what will be taken away?
Sure, it's no problem to stick in a faster processor, but there goes battery life, and you have more heat to disperse. Power requirements rise exponentially with processor speed, the peripherals have to run faster as well. Add more ROM? Sure, but chip size increases. Add more RAM? More current required, more heat generated. I suspect that one prime reason the 620 doesn't do video is: it would have required a larger battery to power the extra processing load. There's a big difference in processing needs between low res LV video on the LCD, and HD video written to the card.
Image processing code in particular is involved. You wouldn't believe the lengths they go to to shave off a few milliseconds here, a few bytes there. Image processing routines are generally written as one long function, because they don't want the overhead of an extra function call when it's called 100k times per image, and the storage space to shove the vars onto the stack. Upset that code with a new requirement, and you start getting unintended consequences. That's how a single image processing unit is designed, such as in a camera, or in my case, a color printer.
So far, video hasn't cost you much, it's just piping the LV output to storage, and the quality shows: blurry movement, trouble with changing lighting, no AF, things that still shots don't have to deal with. The D90 and 5DII video exhibit those traits, unacceptable in even a basic camcorder. To bring a still camera up to camcorder standards, there will be compromises made: larger batteries, higher cost, reduced feature set, or all of the above. As picky as dslr owners have become about their output, it surprises me to see them getting all excited about video that wouldn't pass muster on a $500 camcorder.
Let's see what the price and the feature list on the video G1 is, before you start assuming that good video costs you nothing. In the resource limited world of embedded firmware, it always costs you something.
There is no free lunch. Add something, you always take something away. The question is - what will be taken away?
Sure, it's no problem to stick in a faster processor, but there goes battery life, and you have more heat to disperse. Power requirements rise exponentially with processor speed, the peripherals have to run faster as well. Add more ROM? Sure, but chip size increases. Add more RAM? More current required, more heat generated. I suspect that one prime reason the 620 doesn't do video is: it would have required a larger battery to power the extra processing load. There's a big difference in processing needs between low res LV video on the LCD, and HD video written to the card.
Image processing code in particular is involved. You wouldn't believe the lengths they go to to shave off a few milliseconds here, a few bytes there. Image processing routines are generally written as one long function, because they don't want the overhead of an extra function call when it's called 100k times per image, and the storage space to shove the vars onto the stack. Upset that code with a new requirement, and you start getting unintended consequences. That's how a single image processing unit is designed, such as in a camera, or in my case, a color printer.
So far, video hasn't cost you much, it's just piping the LV output to storage, and the quality shows: blurry movement, trouble with changing lighting, no AF, things that still shots don't have to deal with. The D90 and 5DII video exhibit those traits, unacceptable in even a basic camcorder. To bring a still camera up to camcorder standards, there will be compromises made: larger batteries, higher cost, reduced feature set, or all of the above. As picky as dslr owners have become about their output, it surprises me to see them getting all excited about video that wouldn't pass muster on a $500 camcorder.
Let's see what the price and the feature list on the video G1 is, before you start assuming that good video costs you nothing. In the resource limited world of embedded firmware, it always costs you something.
Bobby J
Veteran Member
Put that money to work on the camera in a way that might benefit the IQ. I don't need more gimmicks, I want a better camera. Not meaning I think the cameras today aren't great, just want the money I spend to make a better photographic tool for it's intended purpose...still photography.
--
BJM
--
BJM
papillon_65
Forum Pro
I have ever bought that promises to have more than one key function has left me disappointed. I'd rather have a DSLR that does one thing really well than a DSLR with flaky/crippled video. I'm not against it in principle but the reality is that compromises would have to be made in pricing and design. Maybe one day and even then I wouldn't be an early adopter.
--
667....Neighbour of the beast....Form is temporary, glass is permanent.
--
667....Neighbour of the beast....Form is temporary, glass is permanent.
You are comparing mechanics with electronics.
They don't optimize the same.
Upstate NY Waterfalls and Photography
http://www.nyfalls.com
They don't optimize the same.
--For some this is the kind of tool they would like to have
To me the tool starts to deform to not the best of any -
Upstate NY Waterfalls and Photography
http://www.nyfalls.com
_valera
Forum Enthusiast
daposaspo
Forum Enthusiast
Video is something I want, no opposition here. I never gave it much thought before until the D90 came out, but after reading that it can be implemented with just a software tweak, I see no reason not to have it. According to what I read in the Nikon forums its' very easy to do and the only question is why did it take so long before it was implemented. Olympus should have been the first of course, but why cry over spilt milk. Time to get on with it. If you don't want to use it don't use it, but don't hold it out for those of us who are clamoring for it. Never wanted a dedicated video cam, but a DSLR with video intrigues me.
olyflyer
Forum Pro
Nothing wrong, but...
Because development costs money and takes resources and demant technology adjustments and so on. Somebody must pay for those costs, who is paying? The customer. I am a customer and if I can help, I don't want to pay for it. For me they are two different media, I like to keep them separated.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
BenthicMan
Well-known member
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 0
1. it requires more internal real estate
2. The potential for over-heating the sensor increases over said camera without video and thereby decreasing the life of the sensor.
3. and it increases the size weight of the camera.
If it does not violate the above 3 factors then I can easily ignore it...otherwise, I will choose another body.
The questions is: Why do MFG's insist on installing poor implementations of a video tool in a high end slr? So far, I have seen none that deliver results worthy of the possible side effects.
2. The potential for over-heating the sensor increases over said camera without video and thereby decreasing the life of the sensor.
3. and it increases the size weight of the camera.
If it does not violate the above 3 factors then I can easily ignore it...otherwise, I will choose another body.
The questions is: Why do MFG's insist on installing poor implementations of a video tool in a high end slr? So far, I have seen none that deliver results worthy of the possible side effects.
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
I have to agree 100% with you
I don't mind it as a freebie, but I ain't paying for it!
I only speak for myself, but I am into photography..not video. Now I could have some fun with video, don't get me wrong, but it's a very secondary factor. If I had the choice, like you I would take the better stills camera, if it were offered
Some folks need to ask themselves if they are into video or photography, yes they are related to a point..but, maybe they should find videocamerareview.com, and let some of us worry about the photo side of things!
Boucha
New member
--
When you buy a box of cereal do you like the plastic bag?
When you buy a box of cereal do you like the plastic bag?
Glen Barrington
Forum Pro
It maintains freshness and acts as a protection during shipping. It provides me value that I can see and appreciate, at a cost that is minimal.
When video built into DSLRs can do that, let me know and I'll reconsider.
--
Mayonnaise on white bread, mmmmm!
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://glenbarrington.smugmug.com/
When video built into DSLRs can do that, let me know and I'll reconsider.
--
Mayonnaise on white bread, mmmmm!
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://glenbarrington.smugmug.com/
Brent Lossing
Forum Pro
You only have to add a microphone (better make it stereo for good quality) and a speaker.
Oh now you have a perfect voice recorder! You can use that quite handily for keeping notes.
Perhaps if we add wifi we can use it to accomodate incoming calls. But of course it would be nice to call them back if you missed them.
Perhaps a touch screen lcd so the input will not be so arduous?
Don't forget the answering machine.
Of course since we can playback video and it has wifi - why not give it internet access?
A MP3 player is a given - just need a little more firmware - of course it can play movies - who wouldn't want that?
Actually you might as well add in a calculator and email - because what simple piece of electronics doesn't have that?
You know what - a camera is like a scanner. And since we already have the emails - well it would make a dandy fax machine. Hmmmm. How do we receive faxes? Well it would not take much real estate to put in a dandy little printer.
Sorry darling I can't take pictures of the wedding right now - the priest says to turn off all cell phone type devices...
.... tongue in cheek of course - no harm meant .....
trooplewis
Senior Member
Clearly, by the responses to this thread, there is a fear that video would cost more or "detract from the quality of the camera"
Most people do not use the cameras on their cell phones, but it does not affect the conversations you have, right? And I can't imagine that cell phones would be much cheaper w/o cameras built in. It's just a bad argument in general.
I don't use half the stuff on my 520, but I would use video if it had it; it's just a nice feature to a LOT of people.
The answer "buy yourself a camcorder" does not work because the average photographer will not carry around both.
Doesn't really matter, in 5 years every digital camera will have them regardless (except maybe the newest 100MP ones) so say what you want, video is coming.
Most people do not use the cameras on their cell phones, but it does not affect the conversations you have, right? And I can't imagine that cell phones would be much cheaper w/o cameras built in. It's just a bad argument in general.
I don't use half the stuff on my 520, but I would use video if it had it; it's just a nice feature to a LOT of people.
The answer "buy yourself a camcorder" does not work because the average photographer will not carry around both.
Doesn't really matter, in 5 years every digital camera will have them regardless (except maybe the newest 100MP ones) so say what you want, video is coming.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum