Why are some of you opposed to video?

Barry Fitzgerald · Feb 25, 2009

trooplewis said:
The answer "buy yourself a camcorder" does not work because the
average photographer will not carry around both.

But does the average photographer really care about video a whole lot? Else they would be video shooters right??

trooplewis said:
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.

Who cares? I will celebrate when they just get back to making good cameras, we can leave the gimmicks to the tech nerds..and they will never be satisfied whatever you give em ;-)

JonathanF · Feb 25, 2009

Great post, Brent. Are you sure you are not describing the 2010 model of iPhone?

Right now, I probably cannot buy a cell phone without a camera. In a couple of year, I imaging you will still be able to get a dSLR without video, but only if you are willing to pay extra, into that little niche market.

A couple of years ago, I was in Yellowstone NP, and saw bundles of people pointing their cell phones at the wild life. I probably wasn't entirely successful in suppressing my feeling of disgust and contempt. I imagine that will be your expression when you see me chasing bisons with my dSLR videocam!

Anyway, thanks for the fun post. It's nice to have our disagreement in a light context.

Brent Lossing said:
nyfalls said:

You are comparing mechanics with electronics.
They don't optimize the same.

Click to expand...

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 .....

--
JonathanF
Oly E-510, 11-22, 14-54, 18-180, 35, TCON-17, FL-36
Canon S1IS, Casio QV-3000

photo101 · Feb 25, 2009

If Oly does not offer it, it is a "useless" feature.

Once, Oly offers video, and they eventually will. The fanboys will say that Oly will only release something after the technology has "matured".

I'm surprised that you have to even ask the question

Don't you know that Olympus caters to the Artiste. We privileged few who can hear the siren calls of a true Photographer's tool

burnymeister · Feb 25, 2009

Have you actually tried the video on those cams? With a small aperature and wide angle lens it's very easy to keep a complete scene (like my son playing hockey) in focus. With zoomed in shots it looks cool when the video starts slightly oof and then focuses in on the subject. Unlike photography, video doesn't necessarily look bad when it's not in 100% focus 100% of the time. I have been very impressed with the video on my D90 - much better than any camcorder I've ever owned!

That being said, the G1HD is going to be an interesting combo cam...

--
Vern Dewit
Calgary, Alberta Canada
http://www.fresh-oxygen.com
http://verndewit.com/

Brent Lossing · Feb 25, 2009

JonathanF said:
Great post, Brent. Are you sure you are not describing the 2010
model of iPhone?

Right now, I probably cannot buy a cell phone without a camera. In a
couple of year, I imaging you will still be able to get a dSLR
without video, but only if you are willing to pay extra, into that
little niche market.

A couple of years ago, I was in Yellowstone NP, and saw bundles of
people pointing their cell phones at the wild life. I probably
wasn't entirely successful in suppressing my feeling of disgust and
contempt. I imagine that will be your expression when you see me
chasing bisons with my dSLR videocam!

Of course you are correct. and of course all the technologies ending up working together to make each better ... and further of course I will probably feel somewhat embarrassed when my granddaughter is able to take better shots with her phone than I can wth my tripod and 20 pounds of camera gear

It is fun to be the bastion of unchange - us old farts have to be good for something!

JonathanF said:
Anyway, thanks for the fun post. It's nice to have our disagreement
in a light context.

I agree! and actually there is no disagreement. If you have a good tool it is worth every penny paid for it!

JonathanF said:
Brent Lossing said:

nyfalls said:

You are comparing mechanics with electronics.
They don't optimize the same.

Click to expand...

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 .....

Click to expand...

--
JonathanF
Oly E-510, 11-22, 14-54, 18-180, 35, TCON-17, FL-36
Canon S1IS, Casio QV-3000

--
Thanks,
Brent

http://www.pbase.com/brent

tko · Feb 25, 2009

I mean, why not, you don't have to use them : )

Seriously, the other poster's have given perfectly good reasons. Still cameras do lousy video for many reasons, just like video cameras do lousy still photos. Pick one, and do the best job possible, that's the purpose of a high end instrument. Of course, for low end cameras anything is fine.

I for one don't see video as having anything to do with still photography, and vice versa. They are different media.

tko · Feb 25, 2009

You carry more than one lens? How about a external flash? A tripod? You can get an nice HD hard disk video camera for about the size of one lens or flash.

A video cameras can fit in your palm right now, and they work better than what you get in a camera, plus you can do two things at once, like leave the video camera filming on a tripod while shooting, or give it to your wife or kids to use

Shocks me the number of photographer's who will carry an entire kit and not have a video camera 'cause it's just waaay tooo big.

trooplewis said:
The answer "buy yourself a camcorder" does not work because the
average photographer will not carry around both.

olyflyer · Feb 25, 2009

trooplewis said:
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.

Well, you are wrong. A cell phone like mine, (N95) costs more because it has more than the phone function. A lot more (like 10x or something). In other words, if you'd get a video function it would cost a lot more in the end if it is anything to have at all. Apart from that, to be able to record say one hour in full HD quality and at least 25fps you would need a huge memory as well, and a completely different technology. For which purpose? The video. So, indeed, we who are not interested must pay for functions not connected to photography.

trooplewis said:
I don't use half the stuff on my 520,

I don't use every feature of the E-3, but every one of them are connected to photography, so I don't mind paying for it.

trooplewis said:
but I would use video if it had it

Now, that is possible, but you should have thought of that before...

trooplewis said:
it's just a nice feature to a LOT of people.

This you have no idea about. How many is a LOT? Honestly, I doubt this is the reality. Yes, it would be fun to test it, play with it and then it would end up unused for most, because I really believe if you are deeply interested in video you buy a dedicated quality camcorder. Mixing the two will result in compromises or prices too high for most people to make it an interesting alternative.

trooplewis said:
The answer "buy yourself a camcorder" does not work because the
average photographer will not carry around both.

Why not? A camcorder fits easily in the camera bag, it is smaller and lighter then many lenses and you don't usually switch between the two all the time, because even if you would like to do it occasionally, and even if it was built in the E-520 it would take a while to switch functions and by the time you are done the moment is gone...

trooplewis said:
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.

You wanna bet? How much?
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/

olyflyer · Feb 25, 2009

And cell phones take lousy pictures and videos, even if they have a 5MP camera. They also have very slow GPS:es built in, so by the time the thing finds three sattelites to lock on, you found your paper map or called somebody who explained the way to your destination...
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/

ajcgn · Feb 25, 2009

olyflyer said:
trooplewis said:

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.

Click to expand...

You wanna bet? How much?
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/

A hundred bucks!
--
Andrew
(laziness, not necessity, is the mother of invention)
http://flickr.com/photos/ajcgn/collections

Kritta · Feb 25, 2009

For those who may not have read all the posts, here's a quick summary of the main reasons why some people do not want video in a 'stills' camera. Oh, and of course my quick reactions are noted below each argument.

Jack of all trades, master of none / a tool should do one thing only and do it well

A logical argument, but not as applicabl to computers and electronics than it is to mechanical devices. If you follow the one-device-for-one-task philosophy, you'd have a calculator, a typewriter, diary, notepad, and separate photo-viewing device instead of a computer.

Cost of an additional feature / paying for something I don't want

Dpends on the cost. If live view is in place, there is already video. I really don't thik adding video adds much cost. I'm no expert on this, but my sense is that the 'additional cost for something I don't want' argument is as applicable to live view or art filters as it is to video. Audio is possibly the thing that would add cost. I think an external mic input would be essential.

Compromises made to accommodate video

Again, most of the video stuff is already present. I agree that compromises to the still photography abilities to accommodate video would be unacceptable - but I also think they are unnecessary.

To show off that we are Pros
Purist reasons - art of photography may be lost

No comment.

Something more to go wrong

A good argument - for a clockwork camera.

They haven't got it right yet.

And they never will. I would expect a still camera with a video function to be first and foremost a still camera, and secondly a video camera. I don't expect the video to be perfect. But it's something I'd like to have as a option.

A video camera should have a different physical format.

See above.

For me, the one thing that makes video a must is that it will be the first time we've been able to get moving images from our great lenses. Those who have argued that we should pop a for-purpose video camera in our kit bag forget that those little camera don't have interchangable lenses.

To me, the best thing about the 4/3 system is that it has great lenses - and video is just another way to use those great lenses.

--

Andrew

Jan Welke · Feb 25, 2009

--I agree that a video enabled SLR is an important creative tool. I plan to get one as my next video camera. As previously mentioned, the ability to use great lenses for video is quite attractive. How many video enthusiasts, or low budget film makers can spring for a Canon XL2 or better, and if they could, would it fit in a small kit? No. Just think, a short film shot with a Leica Noctilux...

Or think about this. With my video enabled SLR, before a photo shoot of a particular theme or place, I would take a small video clip, with audio, and motion to document the shoot, kind of like living exif data for the photos. I have many photos from trips that I look at and forget some of the details surrounding the event. Perhaps a little video would bring it all back. I won't necessarily edit or disrtibute the videos, but they'll be right there in my photo browser with all of the great pictures from the same place.

Either way, obviously there is a demand for this so that where it sits. There will always be a lot of great dSLR's out there without video, so if you don't want it, don't buy one with it. In the meantime, many artists will find wonderful uses for this emerging technology.

Jan

RRJackson · Feb 25, 2009

Jimbob111 said:
I'm not opposed to video but I buy my gadgets for a specific
function.

I know it's a tired term, but convergence is inevitable.

I used to carry around an Olympus voice recorder until I owned a cell phone that had one built in. The one in my cell phone isn't as nice as the Olympus, but I never pick it up and discover that the batteries are dead, so it's actually more useful. My cell phone is also my travel alarm. It also has an MP3 player, but I never use it for that. It has games, but I never play them. Convergence is inevitably going to see us all with gadgets that do a lot of things we don't use as well as several things that we do. As long as the things my gadgets are useful for doing work well I don't mind the other stuff that they do.

AussieAndo · Feb 25, 2009

I have had a similar experience when we bought a new puppy for a relative.

I used my E420 to take at least a hundred photos of the pup and everyone playing with it. I am not a great photographer, but I think I am a fairly competent.

Despite all this my wife took a 20 second video of it with her (Oly of course) point n shoot.

On reviewing everything later on, her short clip captured the fun and playfulness of the puppy much better than any of my photos. That could be a lack of skill on my part but I honestly think some things just go better on video.

Think about why most people now use Ken Burns style motion panning for their photo slideshows.

It is always nice to have the option of motion whether you ever use it or not.

RRJackson · Feb 25, 2009

Barry Fitzgerald said:
But does the average photographer really care about video a whole
lot? Else they would be video shooters right??

Some of us shoot both. ;-)

I was a television cameraman at a local TV station (video...I came in just as film was going out) for years. I shot still photos for newspapers for years (on film). I've shot 16mm footage for documentaries and television commercials.

I'd like a big-sensor video rig, personally. 4/3 is a really cool sized sensor for video. Not as hard to pull focus as 24x36 sensors, but not tiny like 1/3", 1/2" and 2/3" cameras.

RRJackson · Feb 25, 2009

tko said:
A video cameras can fit in your palm right now, and they work better
than what you get in a camera, plus you can do two things at once,
like leave the video camera filming on a tripod while shooting, or
give it to your wife or kids to use

A video camera that fits in the palm of your hand is probably going to be the equivalent of a point-and-shoot still camera. Tiny sensor. Integrated lens. Not something on par with a 4/3 sensor and Zuiko optics. And if you leave it in a static shot on a tripod you probably didn't need to bother shooting video in the first place.

tko said:
Shocks me the number of photographer's who will carry an entire kit
and not have a video camera 'cause it's just waaay tooo big.

Uh...

trooplewis · Feb 25, 2009

tko said:
A video cameras can fit in your palm right now, and they work better
than what you get in a camera, plus you can do two things at once,
like leave the video camera filming on a tripod while shooting, or
give it to your wife or kids to use

Shocks me the number of photographer's who will carry an entire kit
and not have a video camera 'cause it's just waaay tooo big.

tko said:

The answer "buy yourself a camcorder" does not work because the
average photographer will not carry around both.

Click to expand...

No, I don't carry any of those things. No tripod, no external flash, no backpack with extra lenses in it. And about 90% of the folks who buy smaller DSLR's also think like that. We are not professional photographers, just people who like to take good pictures wherever we go. You have to realize that the folks on this forum are true hobbyists or pros, but they do not make up even close to a majority of sales in cameras like the x20 series. No way would I have both a camera and a camcorder on my person simultaneously.

trooplewis · Feb 25, 2009

olyflyer said:
Well, you are wrong. A cell phone like mine, (N95) costs more because
it has more than the phone function. A lot more (like 10x or
something).
So a $49 Cell phone should really only cost $5???

olyflyer said:
olyflyer said:

it's just a nice feature to a LOT of people.

Click to expand...

This you have no idea about. How many is a LOT? Honestly, I doubt
this is the reality.

That is because you think the average buyer of a x20 camera is just like the people on this forum; hobbyists and pros. But the average buyer of entry-level DSLR's is the family that wants NICER pictures of their kids, their family vacations, etc. Members of this forum are not a microcosm of x20 customers, rather they are the more advanced users in this arena. Probably 80-90% of the market is not like the folks contributing this thread, carrying around tripods and backpacks with extra equipment in it.

Next time you are at Disneyland, check the folks you see with a sub $1000 DSLR around their neck, and ask them where their other equipment is.

olyflyer said:
olyflyer said:

The answer "buy yourself a camcorder" does not work because the
average photographer will not carry around both.

Click to expand...

Why not? A camcorder fits easily in the camera bag,

Not my camera bag.

olyflyer said:
olyflyer said:

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.

Click to expand...

You wanna bet? How much?

Better look at what has happened in the last 5 years, extrapolate that x2 or x4 before you wager.

olyflyer said:
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/

olyflyer · Feb 26, 2009

ajcgn said:
olyflyer said:

trooplewis said:

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.

Click to expand...

You wanna bet? How much?

Click to expand...

ajcgn said:
A hundred bucks!

The bet is on. You give me a $100 if not EVERY digital camera below 100MP has video on the 26th of February 2014. I'll send you a $100 if EVERY digital camera has video on the 26th of February 2014.

Of course, if I still have my E-3 that camera is not part of the bet unless it is still under production, only cameras which are in production and sold at the end of the betting period are part of this.

PS. Start saving money...
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/

illy · Feb 26, 2009

video capture is just a logical progression from live view implementation, just think of video as lost of still images running to give he illusion of motion
--
http://illy.smugmug.com

Why are some of you opposed to video?

Barry Fitzgerald

Guest

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

illy

Guest

Keyboard shortcuts