Poll suggests most people don't shoot video with DSLR afterall

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Why are so many people opposed to video to the point of irrationality?

Click to expand...

Could be the "fear of the new/unknown" that has pervaded photography since its beginning, from the letters people write to photo magazines and now websites. "Please stop running articles about color photography. I subscribe because this is a serious photography magazine and the new color photography is garish and adds nothing." "Please stop running articles about Photoshop. I subscribe because this is a serious photography magazine." "Please stop running articles about digital cameras."

Now I am reading articles like this one, and once again, whoever the "old guard" are today are scared out of their pants because they don't know how they're going to cope.

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2010/11/thing-no-one-wants-to-talk-aboutvideo.html

So they react by wanting to banish this new unknown from their "serious camera." As usual.

It was photojournalists who lobbied SLR makers to add video because it was part of their assignments. Video appeared for practical reasons, for a pro niche. I wonder if the camera makers were shocked at how much good PR it got them.

graybalanced said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Why are so many people opposed to video to the point of irrationality?

Click to expand...

Could be the "fear of the new/unknown" that has pervaded photography since its beginning, from the letters people write to photo magazines and now websites. "Please stop running articles about color photography. I subscribe because this is a serious photography magazine and the new color photography is garish and adds nothing." "Please stop running articles about Photoshop. I subscribe because this is a serious photography magazine." "Please stop running articles about digital cameras."

Now I am reading articles like this one, and once again, whoever the "old guard" are today are scared out of their pants because they don't know how they're going to cope.

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2010/11/thing-no-one-wants-to-talk-aboutvideo.html

So they react by wanting to banish this new unknown from their "serious camera." As usual.

It was photojournalists who lobbied SLR makers to add video because it was part of their assignments. Video appeared for practical reasons, for a pro niche. I wonder if the camera makers were shocked at how much good PR it got them.

Click to expand...

Anyone convinced that not including video on a SLR makes it much better should check out the older Sony models introduced when the competition were all doing video. The Sonys were all horrible, sold miserably and some of the models perfected the art of making an object no human can comfortably hold (seriously, try holding an A380).

--
My Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36164047@N06/

I hope you photography skills exceed your math skills.

The poll indicates that 65.72% of those respondants who own a DSLR with a video feature have at least used the video feature.

Yes almost 38% say rarely, and that would include me, but most have tried it and I highly supect the 34% who say never have actually used it.

It will never be used by most on a regular basis as most people buying DSLR are not into video. Not sure why you need a poll to learn that.

--
Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44

Video features on DSLR's improve with each generation because manufacturers are dedicating resources to work on it. I would rather see these resources and their associated costs allocated elsewhere on still cameras.

Looking at it another way, if my DSLR was offered in two models, (one with video and one without), I'd take the one without if it offered a somewhat reasonable cost saving.

bazz.
--
Zooms? pfffft!

jazza said:

Poll suggests most people don't shoot video with DSLR afterall, I hope the manufacturers are getting the message.

Click to expand...

Yes, and they may as well remove Program mode while they are there- since no-one uses that much either..

Entering a vote does not necessarily mean that you end up with viable statistics- the poll did not ask "Do you have a DSLR that shoots video" as part of the question.

--
http://www.AshMills.com

sir_bazz said:

Video features on DSLR's improve with each generation because manufacturers are dedicating resources to work on it. I would rather see these resources and their associated costs allocated elsewhere on still cameras.

Click to expand...

It's hardly a zero-sum game like that. For one thing, companies like Canon, Sony, and Panasonic already have huge video divisions already with their own R&D, it's not like they have to lose a significant number of still frame engineers to work on video features.

Also, another major reason video got in was Live View, which is definitely used for still images. Especially useful on a tripod. But once you have a live video pipeline to the back LCD with exposure simulation and data overlay capability, adding a video feature is in part a matter of piping that existing live video stream to the card too. In other words, video is somewhat integrated and intertwined with the still image functions.

Member said:

Looking at it another way, if my DSLR was offered in two models, (one with video and one without), I'd take the one without if it offered a somewhat reasonable cost saving.

Click to expand...

You'll probably never see a significant cost saving simply because video is now highly integrated into the chipsets, displays, and data pipelines. It's practically a core feature now in that it appears on nearly all cameras at all price points. It's going to be like ordering a car with a manual transmission or non-powered door locks...since the more-featured version is the standard, it may be harder and more expensive for them to manufacture the product without one particular feature than with the feature.

If they were to offer a model without video, it wouldn't make the camera any lighter or smaller, and you are probably going to get what people already complain about: A lower end model that is simply crippled by having some features turned off that are otherwise fully present, and the features they turn off won't just be video, but a set of omissions just annoying enough to tempt you to for the upsell.

sir_bazz said:

Video features on DSLR's improve with each generation because manufacturers are dedicating resources to work on it. I would rather see these resources and their associated costs allocated elsewhere on still cameras.

Click to expand...

You're not in product development or product planning.

Management doesn't just go "here's $2 million, design a camera". They look at the expected sales from each feature, and decide how much to budget for developing that feature. So, if they decide not to do video, $100,000 isn't magically freed up to be "allocated elsewhere", the lack of expected sales to pay for the feature means the money doesn't get allocated, at all.

Member said:

Looking at it another way, if my DSLR was offered in two models, (one with video and one without), I'd take the one without if it offered a somewhat reasonable cost saving.

Click to expand...

Video is a near zero "variable cost" feature. It doesn't require extra processors, memory, motors, or other expensive components. At most, a $0.20 microphone and mic jack. It's not like higher frame rate versions of a camera, where the added processors and bigger motors run the cost up.

If the camera was offered in two models, splitting the sales between a video and non-video version, the lower quantities of each model would cause the price of both versions to go up. Apparently, the camera makers did their market research, and found that there wasn't a big group of people who wanted to pay hundreds of dollars more to have a non-video version.

Hope this helps.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

jazza said:

Poll suggests most people don't shoot video with DSLR afterall

Click to expand...

That's not what the poll "suggests", at all. But we'll bypass that little detail.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

I hope the manufacturers are getting the message.

Click to expand...

Yes, they are getting "the message".

The message is that it's a feature that is valuable to some people, but not used by all people, just like...

Click to expand...

• The "continuous high" speed shooting mode
• Mirror lockup
• Bracketing
• Multiple zone flash commanders
• DOF preview

(I expanded the list slightly)

Click to expand...

Most DSLR owners don't use an external flash. Ever. By "external" I mean a SB600 sitting in the hotshoe. Most will use the internal flash, or none at all. Of those that do use an external flash, most will never (or hardly ever) use it off camera, even though their DSLR supports "commander mode" and SB600 does as well. Nikon is not coming up with a hotshoe-less DSLR.

Many (perhaps most) will never use a mode other than Auto or Program. Still, it costs so little to add it, that Nikon always puts these modes on all cameras.

I've never used continuous shooting, except when I tested my camera when I bought it. But I don't expect Nikon to make a single-only camera without the (software only) feature of continuous shooting (OK. I did use bracketing. Twice)

Point is, Except for basic automatic shooting, most features are used by only a minority of users.

synp said:

Point is, Except for basic automatic shooting, most features are used by only a minority of users.

Click to expand...

In fact one of the things that sets apart a "pro" camera is ability to handle edge cases, special situations. Those semi-obscure, seldom-used features are there precisely so that when we reach for them, they are there, while on a consumer body they will not be there.

So the logic of using a frequency-of-use poll to determine pro/serious SLR features could be considered backwards in some respects.

And while many photographers may have no interest in video, it's telling that, if the buzz is correct, more and more clients do want video with their stills. And serving the client is certainly a high priority for any pro.

godfrog said:

Try asking the same question on a video forum and you'd get another answer, just like you would if you asked film students, or small scale video producers. You'd also get another answer from people with no deep interest in photography or video, just using the camera as a glorified P&S and recording the odd video (which is probably closer to the average camera consumer than the gearheads who come here).

Click to expand...

Well, but the right questions to ask to people talking in video/movies forums is how many and how frequently they are using a still camera or whether they are preferring a dedicated video/movie camera !

It would be interesting to compare the results of the two groups.

The real question is whether it makes sense to have both things on the same body : if you only want to shoot stills (because you don't masterthe technique of producing movies), then why should you pay for both facilities ? For me the only interesting point of the video implementation is the possibility to get a fully articulated lcd on a still body and perhaps the introduction of mirrorless professional bodies able to offer fast focusing in liveview mode. But that is just me : I like to compose on the lcd and the new angle of views the articulated lcd can offer.

I think that the real target of the high end bodies offering video are both the wedding/event photographers and the photojournalists. It would be interesting to ask these questions to that crowd of pro-photographers. It could change those professions if they were able to produce both stills and movies from the same highend body. However, usually new technologies take time before changing the way professions are organized. Nowadays there are two different kinds of jobs involved. This would also put a strain on the shoulders of those professionals : they would have to learn two professions : how to postprocess still photography and how to mount movies clips. For the moment they are really two separate things.

Another market target would be young people using compacts.. My nephews like it to shoot video on their compacts; once they got that option they begun to shoot mostly little clips rather than stills. This may be a generation thing : once people are accustomed to have both, they will be using both and learn both.

--
rrr_hhh

Leonard Migliore said:

jazza said:

I hope the manufacturers are getting the message.

Click to expand...

Why would I specifically want a camera without video capability? The feature itself is completely benign to the photographer; if you don't want to shoot video, just keep on shooting stills. How hard is that?

Are you looking to save money? I think that features like live view and video are relatively inexpensive to implement once the sensor has that capability. It would probably cost more to make DSLR's without video now since it would involve building 2 distinct products and crippling one of them.

I suspect that most people don't use depth of field preview, flash sync terminals, AC adapters, HDMI outputs or mirror lockup, all of which probably cost more than adding video.

Click to expand...

We don't want to pay for a service we don't need, I don't think that as you say it doesn't cost to add video. The sensors have to be adapted to the high speed needed for the video, as well as the transfer rates. The picture size is different etc. etc..

Then there are the developping costs : we have paid high price for the developping of the first high end still cameras .. and now that the first developping costs are more or less paid, we don't want to pay for the developping costs of a new feature we don't need.

--
rrr_hhh

They wouldn't add video if it would hurt revenue. Thus, it stands to gather that the marginal benefit of adding video is higher than the marginal cost. This can mean that video leads to more buyers, which leads to fix costs being distributed across more units, lowering average costs. As a end effect, you would pay less for a a DSLR with video than one with.

As someone already said, as cameras already support live-view it stands to reason that the marginal costs of adding video aren't big. They also do no need to add to the pipeline, as continuous RAW shooting taxes it more than compressed HD video.

rrr_hhh said:

We don't want to pay for a service we don't need, I don't think that as you say it doesn't cost to add video. The sensors have to be adapted to the high speed needed for the video, as well as the transfer rates. The picture size is different etc. etc..

Then there are the developping costs : we have paid high price for the developping of the first high end still cameras .. and now that the first developping costs are more or less paid, we don't want to pay for the developping costs of a new feature we don't need.

--
rrr_hhh

Click to expand...

RedFox88 said:

And remember that video in dSLRs for the masses basically started just 2 years ago with the 5D2 and d90. And I'm sure many that replied to that poll do not have a video capable dSLR. It would have been a different result if only those with video capable dSLRs took the poll.

For instance, my dSLR came on the market 5 years ago which when even before live vie was a standard feature. If my dSLR had video, I would probably use it a few times a year but not every month.

Click to expand...

Yes, but if that feature was so critical, why did those people not upgrade to the video capable cameras ? In the early days of digital dslrs, people would update almost with each year or each two years. So the feature was probably not judged that important.

Using that feature once a month, that is only casually, doesn't really count.. it means you are using it because it is there. Not that you really care for it; and they amount to less than 20% (17.7% right now). Those who use it very often (aka more than once a week) are only 7.5%.

It is not easy to learn how to postprocess your still pictures, but it is even more difficult to learn video.. Personnally I've tried once or twice and gave up. There were two problems : 1) you can't hold the camera steady without using a tripod, which I don't want/like 2) Mounting a good movie clip is difficult, requires pro softwares which I don't have. so I really don't care. At the beginning I thought that I might use the feature to document busy streets better than with stills, but I gave up, because it was too difficult. Nowadays I don't even use it twice a year. So I don't want to pay for it. Neither do I want to aquire expensive software and hardware to deal with it.

--
rrr_hhh

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=37027059

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=37027007

rrr_hhh said:

Yes, but if that feature was so critical, why did those people not upgrade to the video capable cameras ? In the early days of digital dslrs, people would update almost with each year or each two years. So the feature was probably not judged that important.

It is not easy to learn how to postprocess your still pictures, but it is even more difficult to learn video.. Personnally I've tried once or twice and gave up. There were two problems : 1) you can't hold the camera steady without using a tripod, which I don't want/like 2) Mounting a good movie clip is difficult, requires pro softwares which I don't have. so I really don't care. At the beginning I thought that I might use the feature to document busy streets better than with stills, but I gave up, because it was too difficult. Nowadays I don't even use it twice a year. So I don't want to pay for it. Neither do I want to aquire expensive software and hardware to deal with it.

--
rrr_hhh

Click to expand...

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

jazza said:

Poll suggests most people don't shoot video with DSLR afterall

Click to expand...

That's not what the poll "suggests", at all. But we'll bypass that little detail.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

I hope the manufacturers are getting the message.

Click to expand...

Yes, they are getting "the message".

The message is that it's a feature that is valuable to some people, but not used by all people, just like...

Click to expand...

• The "continuous high" speed shooting mode
• Mirror lockup
• Bracketing
• Multiple zone flash commanders
• DOF preview

(I expanded the list slightly)

Click to expand...

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Canon 5D was a marketing failure. It sold below Canon's target volumes, so Canon initiated a record (for the whole DSLR field, not just Canon) number of price reductions and rebates.

Click to expand...

Where did you get this idea that the Canon 5D was a marketing failure ? It was the first affordable full frame digital camera and got success as such. Prices begun to decline because digital SLRs were few and few replacing film slrs and the first developping costs were paid. When you can sell enough of a product, you can lower the prices, because your benefits grows more with quantity than with expensive prices. As new technologies becomes standard, the diminishing prices doesn't have anything to do with marketing flops, on the contrary, with marketing successes, you sell more and are able to lower your prices, so you sell even more and can lower your prices even more.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

The only substantial difference between 5D and 5D II was video. Not only did sales increase by over four times (based on serial numbers for the first year of both cameras) but an entire industry sprung up around Canon 5D video, with over 30 companies (last count) making specialized video brackets, follow focus rigs, etc. for the video DSLRs, and with sites like Cinema5D.com catering to the growing video DSLR community.

Click to expand...

Video wasn't the only difference between 5D and 5DII the main differences was a higher IQ, especially in low light.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Hope this makes things more clear for you.

Click to expand...

Not at all. You have it wrong on several issues.
--
rrr_hhh

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

The message is that it's a feature that is valuable to some people, but not used by all people, just like...

• The "continuous high" speed shooting mode
• Mirror lockup
• Bracketing

In other words, it's a feature that's used by enough people to make it worthwhile to put it on a camera.

So, now that I've helped you "get the message", maybe you can help me with something.

Why are so many people opposed to video to the point of irrationality?

Click to expand...

I think that you are comparing apples and oranges there. Adding video is not like adding a new specialized feature which will perhaps improve your photography possibilities. Adding video means a change of paradigm. If you want to benefit from this feature, you have to acquire new skills, to buy new software and to lean a new profession, aka that of a film maker. It is something entirely different.

I'm still not sure whether the implementation of video in still cameras does imply higher developping costs or whether the cost is only marginal. Those who say that the cost is marginal can't prove it, neither those who say it isn't. Truth is that we don't know, unless Canon/Nikon etc.. unveil more about their strategy.

I'm still not sure either concerning the ergonomical aspect (which is the most interesting question imo) : DSLRs ergonomy has not changed much since the introduction of digital cameras and there is surely much room to improve things and draw more benefits from the new digital bodies. May be that mirrorless cameras will allow more ergonomical freedom. But what are the ergonomical constraints of both video and still photography ? how much of their differences are only due to old inherited habits ? How much do they have something to do with their different characteristics ? In video, you have to avoid jumping when moving the camera, but in still photography, you have to be much more steady at lower speeds, because any movement blurr will be detected by the viewer. Does that mean that the ergonomy has to be different ?

It would be interesting to analyse the ergonomical needs of both video and still photography separately and then compare and see whether there are really different or whether the needs are converging.

--
rrr_hhh

graybalanced said:

In my case, I shoot little enough video that I don't want to pay for an entire second HD video camera. So when I do want video, the fact that my DSLR does stunning 1080p for little incremental cost or hassle is a fantastic money-saver in my eyes. For the 95% of the time I am shooting stills, I love that the video feature changes nothing about my still shooting, doesn't get in the way.

Click to expand...

Very well said, this applies to me, too. In addition, it does not only save costs, but also weight and space in the backpack - no second device to lug around.
--
Chris
-----
http://christopher363.redbubble.com
http://www.whitewall.com/christopher

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=37029950

Marginal cost/benefit as in the economic term describing the cost/benefit of the addition of something, not marginal as in insignificant.

rrr_hhh said:

I'm still not sure whether the implementation of video in still cameras does imply higher developping costs or whether the cost is only marginal. Those who say that the cost is marginal can't prove it, neither those who say it isn't. Truth is that we don't know, unless Canon/Nikon etc.. unveil more about their strategy.

Click to expand...

Christoph Stephan said:

graybalanced said:

In my case, I shoot little enough video that I don't want to pay for an entire second HD video camera. So when I do want video, the fact that my DSLR does stunning 1080p for little incremental cost or hassle is a fantastic money-saver in my eyes. For the 95% of the time I am shooting stills, I love that the video feature changes nothing about my still shooting, doesn't get in the way.

Click to expand...

Very well said, this applies to me, too. In addition, it does not only save costs, but also weight and space in the backpack - no second device to lug around.

Click to expand...

Yes, very good point. 10 years ago I traveled with a still film camera, a film P&S, and a video camera. Now I only need to carry an SLR and a pocket P&S, and both take HD video when needed. No need to also carry a video camera, its media, its batteries, and its charger. One less set of batteries needing to be charged, one less charger competing for the few outlets in a hotel room. In this age of tighter baggage restrictions, the more compact profile of current digital still/video capture devices is quite welcome. (I am much happier transporting wafer-thin memory cards instead of a big lead bag full of film rolls, too!)

I have read all the messages of this thread, no need to send me back to this thread. I stay with what I wrote : neither the ones nor the other are proving how much the video implementation is increasing the costs of cameras uselessly for those (numerous) who don't use it or only use it rarely.

Jon Rty said:

Marginal cost/benefit as in the economic term describing the cost/benefit of the addition of something, not marginal as in insignificant.

rrr_hhh said:

I'm still not sure whether the implementation of video in still cameras does imply higher developping costs or whether the cost is only marginal. Those who say that the cost is marginal can't prove it, neither those who say it isn't. Truth is that we don't know, unless Canon/Nikon etc.. unveil more about their strategy.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
rrr_hhh