I hope 60D and successors have no video

If you do not like the idea of video... Think of it as a hi-FPS low-res mode.

In some situations 30FPS@2Mpix might be better than 6.4@15Mpix or whatever the numbers will be.

Mi first digital camera was a 2Mpix Oly - what a camera it would have been if it had 30FPS!

--
Marek
http://galerie.kolas.cz/

Indeed, I have been shooting video on the Canon SX1, getting great results from frame captures, 30fps 2mb.

Nigel

Optical said:

That's one of the best additions for dSLR's
I like it for manual focus with tele and, even more important to me, macro.

Click to expand...

Video in an SLR is just recorded liveview.

I'm not against innovation - but do you see where all this is going? Original cell phones were just phones, now we have cameras, wifi, and internet capabilities.

As the technology is more available, there will be those who attempt to exploit it.
There have been rumors about cell phone virii lately.

Now I see wifi for cameras for flash, etc. How long before someone demands internet so they can post of facebook or other social networking sites immediately?

Then these groups will become help forums for getting the malware out of the camera!
Weezy

I recall reading somewhere, it may even have been here on DPR that Newspapers are possibly moving towards video capture so they can use it on Subscription online versions, and have stills extraction from that.

It will be interesting to see whether Video capture makes it into the "Professional" bodies. It's in the 5DMKII, so I see no reason why it won't be in the next 1 Series bodies.

I've always seen Stills and Video as two entirely individual media, doubtless due to my film background in both. Stills from film just didn't cut it. Video was always at Betacam and above.

However, if one device can capture both at high quality, why not? It opens up new possibilities, as the Newspapers have obviously recognised.

--
KenC

there a big difference between 2mp and 15mp... you cant really do any editing on a 2mp picture and its only good for a web sized one (like facebook...)

My 20D and 40D probably take good enough pictures and have enough other features to keep me happy for my still-photo shooting in the near future.

I can't really see a 60D having enough better image quality to make me want to step up on IQ alone. I figure I'd spend that money on other hobbies or maybe look at another lens instead.

But a body with video mode, which would accept my current lens collection, would allow me to use those existing lenses, including macro equipment, to make interesting (at least to me) videos. To me, that would be a fun new toy, and might entice me to upgrade to a new body.

I suppose I'd need to buy or build some kind of extremely bright macro lighting to allow me to shoot macro video, but that would be an extra challenge to add to the fun.

And I also think that I'd shoot the occasional video while at family events and such as well. All in all, having video would add to the utility of the camera. It won't add much if any weight, size, or cost, and it won't interfere with the traditional uses of the camera, so I can't see any reason NOT to want it available.

I think Canon would be foolish not to add video to their next XXD body.

--
Jim H.

I'm "afraid"that they will put a lot of effort in capturing it in HD with all kinds of bells and whistles you can find on real videocams.

The thing is, a lot of people like to have all-in-one's for really everything, like in cell phones and they expect all functions to be as good as in dedicated equipment.

I'm convinced that getting good video in a slr will go at the expence of other nice things. TANTAAFL!

Chris

Don't hold your breath. Canon seems to be into the "one camera filts all" mode. I love to see no video. How about better noise reduction, and no more than 12mp
--
Jim from Cambridge Canada

Canon EOS 30D Canon EFS 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM

--

The body will be obsolete in a few years and the lens you can use with your new bodies. There is something about the sensor moving around to compensate shake that doesn't sit well with me for some reason.

Optical said:

I'm "afraid"that they will put a lot of effort in capturing it in HD
with all kinds of bells and whistles you can find on real videocams.

I'm convinced that getting good video in a slr will go at the expence
of other nice things. TANTAAFL!

Click to expand...

I do understand your fear, but relax - in my view these "slippery slope" visions don't usually come to pass. In this case, still photo and video quality do not have conflicting needs - what is good for one (lower noise, larger pixels, faster processing, larger buffer space, greater dynamic range, etc.) is also good for the other, so I see them as being synergistic rather than antagonistic. That's my 2 cents.

Optical said:

I'm "afraid"that they will put a lot of effort in capturing it in HD
with all kinds of bells and whistles you can find on real videocams.

The thing is, a lot of people like to have all-in-one's for really
everything, like in cell phones and they expect all functions to be
as good as in dedicated equipment.

Click to expand...

I'm still happy with my Motorola RAZR that doesn't have a lot of extras. I'm in the process of replacing my Palm OS PDA with an iPod Touch; can't bear the thought of how much extra the phone company wants just for the privelage of having a smartphone. So I'll gladly carry 2 devices.

Mark

off course we can benefit from the experience with processing and writing speed etc, coming from HD video development (however Canon can use this knowledge from their videocam division).

For the SLR market I like the idea that memory will become cheaper and faster and yes, frame rate will increase.
So maybe at the end of the day we will benefit all "-)

Oh, I had never the idea this thread would change what is obviously coming. It's a bit about making a statement and I was very curious if other people felt the same about photography and video being completely different approaches to record important moments.

Your input is one of common sense and much appreciated.

Chris

If Canon puts 1080p video at 24 and 25 fps with full manual control over the ISO speed, shutter speed, aperture and focus at any time of the video capture they can consider the camera sold to me. I have a 30D and the 40D nor 50D had enough bells and whisles for me to upgrade. I have a camcorder, standard PAL @ 25 fps. Poor resolution, no exchangeable lenses, no real wideangle, no manual control over anything... Think... Why did I choose a DSLR over a compact camera? For the good feeling? No, to have exaclty what I want in video too. Full manual control, good and fast lenses. No camcorder can offer that.
--
Erik
http://jalbum.net/users/eziak

--

....they will. I don't understand it at all, but is seems that the great majority of people who post to these forums really want a still camera which takes videos - and not just simple, shoot-from-the-hip videos for convenience. They're willing to sacrifice camera design and still image quality to get HD video into their still cameras.

To me, it's an idiotic choice. But I guess it can't really be idiotic, because so many people want it. We live in a democracy, etc etc.....

I hope I'm wrong!!

Bill

I don’t need it but it’s not idiotic. Many sees the advantage of ability to use the vast selection of dslr lenses, many of them do not have equivalent video camera counterparts. Others just think it’s nice to have the video capability for free. Anyway there will be many more people who will buy the camera because it has HD video than not to buy the camera because of it. It will be there and you're likely be wrong.

bill hansen said:

--
....they will. I don't understand it at all, but is seems that the
great majority of people who post to these forums really want a still
camera which takes videos - and not just simple, shoot-from-the-hip
videos for convenience. They're willing to sacrifice camera design
and still image quality to get HD video into their still cameras.

To me, it's an idiotic choice. But I guess it can't really be
idiotic, because so many people want it. We live in a democracy, etc
etc.....

I hope I'm wrong!!

Bill

Click to expand...

I can totally understand your point, but I think that if you look at the weight of history, you can probably see it is inevitable.

Look at all of the developments in camera features over the history of the technology-
on-board flash
Auto Exposure/Metering
Auto Focus
Film-> Digital
Just to mention a few

I'm sure at their respective times, each of these features was both highly anticipated and/or reviled due to the fact that the "took away" from the "old ways" (I'm too young in age and taking pictures to remember

If you think about your comment for pro/semi-pro vs. P&S, that's like saying that because I only do projects around my house occasionally, I should go to Home Depot and buy a Ryobi miter saw instead of a contractor grade DeWalt or Rigid. I have the skill/budget/inclination, why not buy up? I certainly wouldn't hold a laser cutting guide against the DeWalt because less experienced or casual woodworkers use it on a Ryobi (I love it on my Rigid).

I think that we are looking at a path of convergence, not divergence in the functions our equipment. Didn't one of the cellphone makers release an 8MP cellphone? I, for one, foresee that we will have "imaging devices", not still cameras or video cameras. Since there is no consumer or semi-pro video camera with a sensor the size of the Rebel/xxD/xD cameras, I would consider it quite a coup to get that kind of sensor to shoot video AND great stills for not much more than the price of a high-end consumer video camera (not including lenses, obviously).

I'm also really glad to see that this thread has remained a very friendly discussion, and not deteriorated into senseless arguing

Adam

bill hansen wrote:
There

bill hansen said:

can be no doubt that it takes time, money, and expertise to
incorporate these advanced video functions. I would much prefer to
see all that spent on better camera design, specifically for still
images.

Bill

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more with Bill. I'm looking at buying a new 50D coming from a 10D and think products remain more useful when the features are "focused" if that makes any sense.

But there seems to be many opinions on this as with anything.

Monty

This notion that you have to "sacrifice camera design and still image quality to get HD video..." is just plain wrong. As many have stated, it's for all intents and purposes already there. Totally fallacious assumption, IMHO.

Also, there's nothing at all idiotic about it. Having the opportunity to shoot a little high quality video for those occasional times where it might be a better medium to use would be awesome. I'd happily pay to get that capability, but like others, am NOT willing to compromise the still image capabilities of the camera to get it.

J.

bill hansen said:

--
....they will. I don't understand it at all, but is seems that the
great majority of people who post to these forums really want a still
camera which takes videos - and not just simple, shoot-from-the-hip
videos for convenience. They're willing to sacrifice camera design
and still image quality to get HD video into their still cameras.

To me, it's an idiotic choice. But I guess it can't really be
idiotic, because so many people want it. We live in a democracy, etc
etc.....

I hope I'm wrong!!

Bill

Click to expand...

all the input.

I really enjoyed it because of the well founded arguments and for sharing your opinons.

Most of all I liked the friendly tone in this thread (as mentioned also by Adam) which is a refreshing experience compared to some other discussions seen on this forum

Chris

NB. I just heard about a new phone with OLED touchscreen, build in GPS, High speed Internet, 21MP FF cam, HD video and the rumor goes that you can actually use it to speak with other owners without a wire! Think I'll buy it