Why video?? Mirror less future on EVIL and DSLR

Not to beat the dead horse but for a better understanding of the need.

I purchase a video camera when my son was born along with a new 4 MP point and shoot, than purchased an A100 when the P/S failed due to LV and EVF lag.

Some years later I see myself pulling up photos much more than I do the video. Photos are far more special IMHO like the saying a photo is worth a thousand words. How much do those who have video actual use it and those that do how often do you go back to the video versus the still shots???

Now LV is much better than it's inception but the are many who prefer the OVF because of coverage, will the EVF ever be clear enough and fast enough to replace the OVF?

If video is that important why not just enhance the video camera to take better still shots?? That seems to fit what most people who want video versus the still photographer.

I will embrace new technologies like I did digital cameras versus film... but I have my reservations.

Next time you go out and do some nature photography take some HD video also and you will understand. The audio especially adds to the ability to actually place you back in that environment.

Video has a special ability, along with photos, to give you strong impressions and return old feelings.

Accessibility seems to be the issue you might want to address. Once you make your videos just as accessible as your digital photos, I bet you'd view them about the same.

That seems to be my family's experience, anyway. I setup the home server with DLNA and use the various Xbox360's and PS3's in the house as music, photo and video viewers. No matter where someone is in the house (assuming a console is available there), they have immediate access to our multi-year library of photos and video. They seem to review both relatively often and about evenly.

IchiroCameraGuy said:

Next time you go out and do some nature photography take some HD video also and you will understand. The audio especially adds to the ability to actually place you back in that environment.

Video has a special ability, along with photos, to give you strong impressions and return old feelings.

Click to expand...

Again if video is that important, why not just enhance the new HD video camera to take better still images for the times you just want a still image and thus you get the best of both rather than turning a still camera into a video camera. I have no desire to take HD video of the winds blowing through the grassy hills. However I do want to capture a look on my sons face to latter ponder what was going through his little mind, where video loses that in an instant.

Go back to the famous image of JFK looking out the oval office window during the cuba missle crissis and tell me that if that was a 1 minute video that would have the same effect?

Beckman said:

Go back to the famous image of JFK looking out the oval office window during the cuba missle crissis and tell me that if that was a 1 minute video that would have the same effect?

Click to expand...

I have a video of my wife I took when I was 17 and she was 15 years old brushing her hair (that was back in '82, I believe). It lasts for about three minutes and...

is the most beautiful thing I've ever photographed or recorded. If that had been a snapshot, it would have completely lost its emotional resonance. I'm not saying photos can't have that too... of course they can - and most certainly do.

But both video and photos can capture moments that the other cannot.

I'd rather not do without either. Having one device that is more than capable for both is perfect for me.

MichaelKW said:

But both video and photos can capture moments that the other cannot.

I'd rather not do without either. Having one device that is more than capable for both is perfect for me.

Click to expand...

Well it looks as if we are about the same age I was 13 going on 14. But what medium would it be best fitted?? Why must it be on everything? From DSLR's to Cell phones???

IchiroCameraGuy said:

Next time you go out and do some nature photography take some HD video also and you will understand. The audio especially adds to the ability to actually place you back in that environment.

Click to expand...

I'm a nature recordist using high end pro audio equipment. Such as the video cameras to be offered could not use or come close to. If you want good nature recording, commit to that. It's a quite separate hobby. You will find that most places you do still or video photography will be far too filled with unwanted man made noise to be successful.

The amount of effort in doing quality combined video and audio of nature is considerable.

Walt

Beckman said:

Well it looks as if we are about the same age I was 13 going on 14. But what medium would it be best fitted?? Why must it be on everything? From DSLR's to Cell phones???

Click to expand...

Well, being about the same age, I'm sure you remember what video cameras were like back then. Heavy, bulky (had to cart it on your shoulder when shooting video) and most decidedly: not very good quality - compared to today. And I think thats the point. Video I took of my wife so many years ago is far, far less quality than I can now quickly take of my kids with my always-in-my-pocket 720p Android phone.

That principal also applies to my cameras. When I want higher quality with something like the NEX or future Sony or Canikon systems, I'll no longer have to cart around a high quality HD camcorder in addition to my DSLR (which I'll have better glass for anyway).

So in direct response to your question, I think both of those mediums fit my needs perfectly. I want an immediately accessible cell phone with quick and decent quality photo and camera abilities, as well as the choice to pull out my (hopefully light-weight) interchangeable lens camera that can take both stunning photos - and video. We're not quite to nirvana on either front yet, but its getting pretty darn close, imo. I hope that clarifies where I, personally, am coming from.

...YouTube.

Video is the pocket technology of our age - viewing was step one and making step two. At it's inception, YouTube was a very big (and very grainy) joke. Now it and it's progeny are some of the hottest properties on the internet.

Why all one device?
Others have answered.
1) great glass makes great video
2) one less EXTRA gadget to carry

3) you CAN have both and still have the best of both worlds (ask the Canon users about that)

On my last vacation I took so much gear it makes me blush to think about it. It included - a Lumix P&S waterproof that does HD video. It was my underwater workhorse but mainly for video. With the right lighting, the video is gorgeous and, under most conditions is better than my $1k Sony and JVC handicams. It's not perfect by a long shot but I've been taking it everywhere and even sitting it on top of my tripod mounted a850 to capture a scene that I had been grabbing stills of.

Yes, I know, video is not for everyone and, most of the time, I'd rather stick a hot poker through my nose than watch a grainy jumbled mess on YouTube.

Still, I believe that many of those that spend a lot of time capturing beautiful still scenes will, in time, discover that occasions will occur when having a brief movie clip of what is in front of them very valuable indeed.

--
joel*

http://photography.CREATiVENESS.com
http://www.CREATiVENESS.com

I think what the OP was trying to get across is that a photograph captures a moment and freezes it in time as well as etching it in our minds. When you watch say a video documenting the Horror the Nazis did in the concentration camps and the mass grave they put the people in, that is a fleeting moment.

Now take the same moment but in a photograph such as in Time Magazine, and it is permanently locked in our minds. For myself and I am sure others, a photograph will have more of lasting effect than a video, because it brings back a precious or other moment and freezes it at that exact point in time.

While video has its place, I feel a photograph carries more weight to it as far as memories go.
Just my take on it.
Gene

Gene Tenold said:

While video has its place, I feel a photograph carries more weight to it as far as memories go.

Click to expand...

Gene - I think I agree with most of your sentiment. As an art there is significant power in still images.

However there is an entire generation that is now raising an entire new generation that have proven that 3 minutes of video (plus some music) can be very memorable indeed. Even before these quick clips evolved most people remember a striking scene (or two or three) from Hitchcock, Coppola, Lucas or Spielberg that has lasted for various reasons.

The quality that is available now is significant - over the next decade video quality and affordability will take another leap and those that have learned to use it well (and those in the masses that have gotten lucky!) will be showing us new sights that are hard to ignore.

I imagine that, had there been online forums in the late 1930's there would've been many posts like this as artists considered the validity of this new fangled multi-layered color film - Kodachrome!

--
joel*

http://photography.CREATiVENESS.com
http://www.CREATiVENESS.com

I view a lot of the videos I take. My biggest issue is that photos and video are always treated differently. On Facebook, you can have galleries of photos. But you can't mix video in there. It's the same on my AppleTV. I have to go through different menus to see my photos and movies. This is a real pain if you have photos and movies from an event and want to look at them together, or send them to friends and family as one package.

In iPhoto, things work pretty well. Slideshows can seamlessly blend photos and videos.

As others have said, each medium has its advantages. I just wish they weren't treated so differently.

MichaelKW said:

Beckman said:

Go back to the famous image of JFK looking out the oval office window during the cuba missle crissis and tell me that if that was a 1 minute video that would have the same effect?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

So don't video that, video something that is better illustrated with video. Like, dance. Or something with the spoken word. Or a piano recital. Yeah, a photograph of a dancer might be beautiful, and I'd do that too, but you can hardly argue with seeing the actual motion of the dance.

MichaelKW said:

I have a video of my wife I took when I was 17 and she was 15 years old

Click to expand...

...

I know what you mean. Sometimes you capture something on video and you realize that you have something special that you just couldn't convey any other way. I have at least one thing that strikes me very strongly as you describe. Other things, less so, but still worthwhile.

MichaelKW said:

...been a snapshot, it would have completely lost its emotional resonance. I'm not saying photos can't have that too... of course they can - and most certainly do.

But both video and photos can capture moments that the other cannot.

I'd rather not do without either. Having one device that is more than capable for both is perfect for me.

Click to expand...

I agree. Occasionally you find moments which require video. And sometimes, audio is as important as the picture. It doesn't need to always be the pro audio solution that Walt needs, just good clear audio. If it is high quality, though, all the better.

These days, I can always fall back on the iPhone if necessary, and it does OK (surprisingly, perhaps!), but of course the Nex is better and would be preferable, should I feel a need for video. There was a period of time where I often only had the A100 at hand, and just did without video or made do with whatever else I may have brought along. I suppose I could go back to that, but to have quality video in the same device that I'm taking photos with is very convenient.

Most of my interest is with still photography, though.
--
Gary W.

MtnGoatJoe said:

I just wish they weren't treated so differently.

Click to expand...

Good point Joe. There does need to be better integration. I've heard (but haven't tested) that Lightroom 3 can recognize and import video. That's a positive step. Some of the "photographer" slideshow programs have become good at integration of the two. Not quite seamless but better than it was.

It will come in time.

--
joel*

http://photography.CREATiVENESS.com
http://www.CREATiVENESS.com

WaltKnapp said:

IchiroCameraGuy said:

Next time you go out and do some nature photography take some HD video also and you will understand. The audio especially adds to the ability to actually place you back in that environment.

Click to expand...

I'm a nature recordist using high end pro audio equipment. Such as the video cameras to be offered could not use or come close to. If you want good nature recording, commit to that. It's a quite separate hobby. You will find that most places you do still or video photography will be far too filled with unwanted man made noise to be successful.

The amount of effort in doing quality combined video and audio of nature is considerable.

Walt

Click to expand...

You are right Walt, it is a nice thing to have built in though. NEX cameras have better audio than any camera I have tried, which includes most of the other mirrorless cameras and all the video capable Canon and Nikon DSLR cameras. Having a short video with the sound of birds or the ocean tide is very nice to go along with the photographs.

So it's very good if you are packing light. Some things, like a waterfall, are much better with a video than they could ever be in a photograph.

because it is now easy and cheap to implement ,overall costs will not be much higher than without.

and I agree with you that video will not replace still photography,you are right to say that photos are far more special, a special instant in life.

Beckman said:

If video is that important why not just enhance the video camera to take better still shots?? That seems to fit what most people who want video versus the still photographer.

Click to expand...

Video is important because until DSLR cameras get video capability, the only interchangeable lens video cameras costed thousands of dollars, and that is not counting the cost of extra lenses. As you can see, even a Canon 5DMKII is a cheap alternative to interchangeable lens video cameras.

You may be arguing that still shots are more important, therefore it would be nice if manufacturers substitute better camera functions for video. THat is not going to happen. If they take away the video, they would still restrict the capabilities of the cameras. Take the A850 for example. It is cheaper than the A900, so it is a less capable camera. That is a marketing decision. It has nothing to do with whether video is included in a camera or not.

LF is not only for video . my pana G1 has lf and no video . Evil is already very good on this G1 and will improve to a level as good as optical view .

LF is great for macro , product photography , portrait ... using both the lcd(articulated) and the evil. The lcd alone is not enough for me :that is why i prefer the panna .

do i regret i have no video in the camera ? YES , i do , for reasons already explained here .

is mirorless the future : yes , also for full frame ( in the more far future : more electronics and less mechanics).
guido