Why are some of you opposed to video?

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).
I think you made an editorial mistake, the below is your comment isn't it?
So a $49 Cell phone should really only cost $5???
FYI, the Nokia N95 8GB is not $49 phone, at least not where I live. If you can get it for $49 brand new then I'd like you to ship a few to me, I am prepared to pay well over that for each one of them...

Yes, you can buy mobile phones here in Sweden for 10% of the price of my phone. Of course, then you will get the phone function only, and as it happens, I need some more for my work. Still, the other functions are strong compromises, an external GPS antenna works much better and faster, and the cheapest P&S takes better pictures, even if the phone has a real 5MP camera and a Carl Zeiss lens with real auto focus and many features, like a real camera.

[SNIP]
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.
The majority has no DSLR at all, so maybe if I ask the majority "Why don't you use the video function which is available in your camera?" they will answer, "Because it's a nice feature, but I don't need it, I just want to take still images."
Why not? A camcorder fits easily in the camera bag,
Not my camera bag.
OK, so because you don't want to use or buy a bag and have too small pockets or bags, I should pay for the development of function which are not used or needed by me? How come?
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?
Better look at what has happened in the last 5 years, extrapolate
that x2 or x4 before you wager.
Looking back five years, many have predicted EVF will replace OVF. I don't see it happening. Looking back five years many predicted miniaturisation in everything, cell phones, cameras and everything. I don't see that happening, in fact the opposite, phones are getting larger and cameras don’t get much smaller. Looking back five-ten years, many have predicted computer power will double every 4-6 months. Well, having worked with high tech computing the last 30 years, I tell you, I don't see that happening either.

Of course, neither you nor I know what is going to happen in five years, but your categorical statement that "in 5 years every digital camera will have them" is I am sure very wrong, regardless how that extrapolation is done. Maybe one day it will be true, but five years is just too near.

My guess is that the next two-three years will go away without other then cost saving developments, and huge marketing resources will be spent on selling and market positioning. Some companies will go down and disappear, as Minolta did a few years ago, others will go through a purification process. I think the recession within the photo industry is still ahead of us, so I don't expect any huge changes in technology. OVF will still be the main viewfinder of DSLRs and only a few DSLRs will offer video, which is worth having. How the storage will be solved in those cameras, I don't know, but my guess is it will be through external memory cards.

Of course, as usual, I can be wrong.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
 
I would want Oly to concentrate their R&D on features that would improve their cameras as still making machines first, and also to give us the lenses they have promised but not delivered.

But those are my priorities, yours obviously differ :-)

Nick
 
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
Thank you, I know how "moving pictures" and video are made, but I also know it is not that simple.

In parallel to what you wrote, the least we need for a good quality video is 25fps in full HD. Did you calculate the memory needed for that? Yes, I know, 4GB for about one hour, but even some real high speed buffers, none of which as cheap. A video function assumes EVF as well, unless the LCD panel is used, which may not be the very best solution. It also needs a shutter which means there must be an electronic shutter as well.

If it would be as simple and as much wanted as you and some others put it, it would be part of every DSLR camera today... Anyway, I am not saying it is not possible, I am just saying it needs technology change and someone must pay for that. I also don’t believe that in five years every DSLR will have it. I still think there will always be two different kinds of media, two camps, still images is one, and video is the other media, people who like and need dedicated equipment is one, and those who like the Swiss army knife is the other camp.

I don’t regard one camp being the “conservative old time thinkers” the others being the “new idea thinkers” or one is right the other is wrong, I think both have a place on the market. Combining similar media is not a new idea. Just look at hi-fi development, a good example. During the 70’s some “new idea thinkers” came up with combining amplifiers, speakers, record players, stereo radio tuners and cassette players, all in one. Did they replace every single speaker, amplifier, tuner, record player, and cassette player/recorder? No. Even today, it is possible to buy those individually if you want to build up your own system. Which is better? The all in one combo or the individual built system is something I let you decide for yourself, but as it seems, there is still a place for both types.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
 
a camera with a live view sensor is already video enabled, someone decided to allow that data to be captured as well as a single frame, why are people surprised at this lol
--
http://illy.smugmug.com
 
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
I used to do lots of video with pro eq., and still occasionally do but last two years I'm more into stills. Now my brother does vid most of the time.

The combination in presentations can be made very powerfull. But I don't want to be limited by my equippement.

Staging scenes and static camera positions don't necessarily mean a lot of focussing, I agree. So to start of with this as learning how to do video it might be nice. But with action I really do want the camera to follow the action. Imagine not being able to track and trace the cyclist that's ahead, or the car you would want to show only is in focus for a split second. Wide shots are not always the solution for the shortcomings in the focussing department.

Even MR doesn't seem to get it. But he'll probably have to defend his preference anyway, can't have negative PR about Canikon can we.

--
Digifan
 
I've read a lot of posts lately in which people state that they do
not want video to be offered as a feature on a camera, hope that
video won't be on such-and-such camera, and so on.

Why?

If you don't want video, that's fine. But what is the problem with
having it on a camera? If you don't want it, don't use it.

So - why all the objections to video? What are the reasons?

--
  • Andrew
As a long time shooter of both video and stills, Im NOT in favor of video in a still camera.

Even the very best HD video doesn't come close to using the resolution of the very LEAST of our DSLR cameras,,

Even the very BEST of our DSLRs force us to deal with trade offs (some cameras do High ISO well, some do not, some have great Dynamic range, Some do not ect. ect)

The R&D being put into bringing video to any given DSLR system would be much better spent as research into improving the sensors in ways that improve still imaging, instead of adding video, just because video CAN be added.

Since there is "No Free Ride" and "No Free Lunch".. any DSLR that has the ability to shoot video, doesnt have some other feature that would enhance the still images, because the time/effort/research/money got spent on developing video.

This is why I object to it, and this is why I dont find it as an attractive option. When its included in the camera, its included in the price..

I wouldnt think to buy an automobile that washes and dries my laundry either.

--
Larry

Larry LaPrise, the man who wrote 'The Hokey Pokey', died peacefully at age 93. The most traumatic part for his family was getting him into the coffin. They put his left leg in. And then the trouble started.
 
I've read a lot of posts lately in which people state that they do
not want video to be offered as a feature on a camera, hope that
video won't be on such-and-such camera, and so on.

Why?

If you don't want video, that's fine. But what is the problem with
having it on a camera? If you don't want it, don't use it.

So - why all the objections to video? What are the reasons?

--
  • Andrew
As a long time shooter of both video and stills, Im NOT in favor of
video in a still camera.

Even the very best HD video doesn't come close to using the
resolution of the very LEAST of our DSLR cameras,,

Even the very BEST of our DSLRs force us to deal with trade offs
(some cameras do High ISO well, some do not, some have great Dynamic
range, Some do not ect. ect)

The R&D being put into bringing video to any given DSLR system would
be much better spent as research into improving the sensors in ways
that improve still imaging, instead of adding video, just because
video CAN be added.

Since there is "No Free Ride" and "No Free Lunch".. any DSLR that has
the ability to shoot video, doesnt have some other feature that would
enhance the still images, because the time/effort/research/money got
spent on developing video.

This is why I object to it, and this is why I dont find it as an
attractive option. When its included in the camera, its included in
the price..

I wouldnt think to buy an automobile that washes and dries my laundry
either.

--
Larry

Larry LaPrise, the man who wrote 'The Hokey Pokey', died peacefully
at age 93. The most traumatic part for his family was getting him
into the coffin. They put his left leg in. And then the trouble
started.
live view cameras are video enabled all that changed was the ability to save that streaming video as data.
--
http://illy.smugmug.com
 
Because that's not all. If it would be that simple, who would care, but what resolution do you want in your video? 12MP? Surely you can't mean the lousy LV resolution is enough, that's just the toy cam I am talking about...

No, LV video stream is not a video quality any great number of people would be interested in.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
 
No Oly it isnt, but if we try to explain it to the people who WANT video, they turn a deaf ear to any part of the discussion they dont want to hear.. (sometimes this forum can be just like real life)..

If the video advocates were given just a recording of what "Live view" provides, they would be OUTRAGED! They would scream "How DARE Olympus try to pass this off as VIDEO!!!"

--
Larry

Larry LaPrise, the man who wrote 'The Hokey Pokey', died peacefully at age 93. The most traumatic part for his family was getting him into the coffin. They put his left leg in. And then the trouble started.
 
"Frame rate"
--
D620L -> D540 -> C750UZ -> E-500 -> E-510 -> E-3
 
Resources spent on adding video are resources that are not being spent on making the camera a better still camera.

Resources are finite.
--
 
No Oly it isnt, but if we try to explain it to the people who WANT
video, they turn a deaf ear to any part of the discussion they dont
want to hear.. (sometimes this forum can be just like real life)..

If the video advocates were given just a recording of what "Live
view" provides, they would be OUTRAGED! They would scream "How DARE
Olympus try to pass this off as VIDEO!!!"
I think they confuse video quality with video output of LV. Almost any lousy 20 year old VHS video camera makes better video then the video signal provided by the LV.

But just for fun, I'll connect my camera to an ordinary video recorder to see the quality on my TV for a fair comparison with a recording done from a TV channel...
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
 
No Oly it isnt, but if we try to explain it to the people who WANT
video, they turn a deaf ear to any part of the discussion they dont
want to hear.. (sometimes this forum can be just like real life)..

If the video advocates were given just a recording of what "Live
view" provides, they would be OUTRAGED! They would scream "How DARE
Olympus try to pass this off as VIDEO!!!"
I think they confuse video quality with video output of LV. Almost
any lousy 20 year old VHS video camera makes better video then the
video signal provided by the LV.


But just for fun, I'll connect my camera to an ordinary video
recorder to see the quality on my TV for a fair comparison with a
recording done from a TV channel...
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt... It wasnt useable for anything.... too "herky jerky"....
--
Larry

Larry LaPrise, the man who wrote 'The Hokey Pokey', died peacefully at age 93. The most traumatic part for his family was getting him into the coffin. They put his left leg in. And then the trouble started.
 
No Oly it isnt, but if we try to explain it to the people who WANT
video, they turn a deaf ear to any part of the discussion they dont
want to hear.. (sometimes this forum can be just like real life)..

If the video advocates were given just a recording of what "Live
view" provides, they would be OUTRAGED! They would scream "How DARE
Olympus try to pass this off as VIDEO!!!"

--
Larry

Larry LaPrise, the man who wrote 'The Hokey Pokey', died peacefully
at age 93. The most traumatic part for his family was getting him
into the coffin. They put his left leg in. And then the trouble
started.
no one suggested that it would be the same quality as posted to the lcd, i was merely pointing out that live view sensors are streaming video every time you use them for taking a still, could someone point out where the video recording capability has crippled such cameras as the D90 and 5DmkII, love it or hate it i think it's here to stay
--
http://illy.smugmug.com
 
could someone point
out where the video recording capability has crippled such cameras as
the D90 and 5DmkII, love it or hate it i think it's here to stay
--
http://illy.smugmug.com
No one (as far as Ive seen) has suggested that video "cripples" anything... It just wastes time and resources in the development of a DSLR, unless, of course that DSLR is already the "perfect camera" (which none of the DSLRs that can do video are).

--
Larry

Larry LaPrise, the man who wrote 'The Hokey Pokey', died peacefully at age 93. The most traumatic part for his family was getting him into the coffin. They put his left leg in. And then the trouble started.
 
because..

1. you end up paying more for features you woudnt need in a digital camera.

2. your camera manufacturer ends up spending more time researching how to improve video than improving the image (dynamic range etc..)

3. you now have to deal with more menus and buttons making cameras look like science friction gadgets.

its not that video in camera dosent hurt, but the idea should not be promoted. remember its just the competition that is making camera makers add this feature and not because they love to add it. that is just my opinion.
--
  • Arun
 
No Oly it isnt, but if we try to explain it to the people who WANT
video, they turn a deaf ear to any part of the discussion they dont
want to hear.. (sometimes this forum can be just like real life)..

If the video advocates were given just a recording of what "Live
view" provides, they would be OUTRAGED! They would scream "How DARE
Olympus try to pass this off as VIDEO!!!"
I think they confuse video quality with video output of LV. Almost
any lousy 20 year old VHS video camera makes better video then the
video signal provided by the LV.


But just for fun, I'll connect my camera to an ordinary video
recorder to see the quality on my TV for a fair comparison with a
recording done from a TV channel...
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt... It wasnt useable for
anything.... too "herky jerky"....
Thanks.

I'll save my time then. I was just looking for the video cable and I can't find it anyway, so it may save me a lot of time to skip this test.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
 
could someone point
out where the video recording capability has crippled such cameras as
the D90 and 5DmkII, love it or hate it i think it's here to stay
To start with they both have an electronic shutter for the purpose. I don't know all the details about what they can and can not do, and I honestly don't care, but I know it isn't that simple. For example, how is the AF? is it working without problems? How is the resolution? Is it full HD at 25fps or more? Is there any other limits compared with a camcorder? How about lenses? does it work with any lens? What about low light? Is it as good as any quality camcorder? Does the OVF working? I suppose not, unless they have a combo of OVF/EVF. A video cam with the LV LCD only as a viewfinder is a toycam and can not be used for any serious work IMHO. All those are just for starters. I suppose if you are so interested you should have a deeper look at the cameras and compile the missing link data yourself. I just know I don't want it. That's enough for me.

Anyway, I don't call my camera crippled for the lack of video function. I could list quite a few other stuff which more closely related to photography and could be said is crippling...
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top