I DO want video!

[Scott Larson]

The news, entertainment, and industrial markets sure seem to have
managed for decades with cameras like that, or even larger.

You are not talking to ENG people.
You are not talking to entertainment camera operators.
You are not talking to industrial videographers.

I don't care what those people have been using. All I know is that even a huge $5,000-$7,000 video camera has tiny sensors, mediocre lenses and the results reflect that. Just look at any stills from one of these things, especially in low light. They could have been taken by a $200 P&S camera. The video is barely good enough for your 11PM local newscast. Until the video market gets some pressure, they'll always be overpriced just like DSLRs were before Nikon released the D1.

People on
these forums seem to miss it over and over again, but there are
actually reasons video cameras look like that, and most of them are
because they help you shoot better video.

Better than what? Explain how the 1/3" sensors help us shoot video? Is it because you don't have to worry about focusing?

 

[BNV]

Yes I do... I sure do! Yep, ahh huh.. Mmm hmm.. Yep!

I want to be able to record both sound a video for when I do
Photojournalism work where I need to obtain infos for slug lines.

I want video to record my hassles with over zealous security guards &
or bad cops who believe they can make up laws that obstruct my work,
or pleasure of photography on the spot, and or assault me, or attempt
to intimidate me.

I want video in my DSLR camera so I don't have to screw around with
handling a delicate tinker-toy palm sized video camera that requires
activation, and lugging something else besides another lens on my
person, or in my bag.

I want video in my next DSLR so that I can scout a location that
shows various positions of certain elements within a scene easier
than having to photograph them.

I want video in my DSLR camera in case I find myself in a situation
where video more easily and more understandably records news, or
legal matters, like a fender bender, or a speeding trap. Near where
I live, the police have set up an illegal speed trap where they park
less than 200 ft from a posted speed limit that is 10mps less than
the one before it with no warning of the speed change, although the
law requires 500 ft before they can legally issue me a ticket for
speeding, although they know that, they do it anyways, and taking a
series of still shots is a lot more work and not as understandable in
court as a simple video showing the distance between the parked cop
shooting radar, & the speed limit sign.

I want video in my DSLR to use for my blog, where I can combine video
with still images for better context of the situation.

I am willing to drop the pop-up flash for video.

I am willing to drop the direct print button for video.
'
I am willing to drain the battery a little more, for I have / will
have extras.

I am willing to burn up more CF card space for I have 60gigs of CF
cards in my card wallet, and several new 2tb hard drives waiting to
be filled. In 2000, memory storage was much more of an issue with the
Lexar 8x 160mb card I used for sports, because it was faster than the
cheap ones, cost me 399.99. These days, 8gig cards cost 59.00 after
the rebates, and 2tb Western Digital hard drives cost less than my
cruddy little 256mb Lexar cards that corrupted files left & right!

I am willing to pay a little more in order to have this convenient
feature. Maybe even several hundred bucks more it it was released as
an option,...much like adding on fog lights to your new car.

Maybe some don't want it because they might want to use their direct
print feature, or a pop-up flash for their "lighting", and that is
fine for them, because they do not speak for me, just as I don't
speak for them.

JP
--
http://www.Myspace.com/JPphotographer

well said!!!
I am for one; and i am wedding photographer.

 

[Rootbeer]

If you have so many uses for video, and find video so much easier
than photography, then why don't you buy a video camera that can grab
still images, instead of demanding they add video to a still camera?

--
The goal is to overcome the deliberate nature of the process.

My goodness..

I am a still photographer by trade. As a matter of fact, I recently bought a video camera, and it has its uses. It doesn't do everything I want it to do, and I prefer my still shots, and so do my clients.

Demanding..?? Where did you get that I was "demanding" ..?? I was simply stating that I DO want video contained in my DSLR camera, understandably limited in its features, but much more advance than simple audio recording that is found in 1-series bodies, which I provided my reasons for.

What is your issue with me welcoming video in my next DSLR camera, if that is going to be the case..? I know full well that it shoots short clips on the D90, and that it doesn't have the capability for using an external microphone. Yes, I know full well that those types of cameras with that capability are suited for professionals who shoot video as their main gig.

Furthermore, how many palm sized video cameras lack external microphone jacks, but offer the exposure controls, & lens selections, that the rumored 5D replacement would have..?

I say for what it costs, and for the uses I would get from it, I would be very happy with that feature..

You can stick with your video camera.. I'll be happy with my duo capture DSLR.

JP

--
http://www.Myspace.com/JPphotographer

 

[Rootbeer]

Yes I do... I sure do! Yep, ahh huh.. Mmm hmm.. Yep!

I want to be able to record both sound a video for when I do
Photojournalism work where I need to obtain infos for slug lines.

I want video to record my hassles with over zealous security guards &
or bad cops who believe they can make up laws that obstruct my work,
or pleasure of photography on the spot, and or assault me, or attempt
to intimidate me.

I want video in my DSLR camera so I don't have to screw around with
handling a delicate tinker-toy palm sized video camera that requires
activation, and lugging something else besides another lens on my
person, or in my bag.

I want video in my next DSLR so that I can scout a location that
shows various positions of certain elements within a scene easier
than having to photograph them.

I want video in my DSLR camera in case I find myself in a situation
where video more easily and more understandably records news, or
legal matters, like a fender bender, or a speeding trap. Near where
I live, the police have set up an illegal speed trap where they park
less than 200 ft from a posted speed limit that is 10mps less than
the one before it with no warning of the speed change, although the
law requires 500 ft before they can legally issue me a ticket for
speeding, although they know that, they do it anyways, and taking a
series of still shots is a lot more work and not as understandable in
court as a simple video showing the distance between the parked cop
shooting radar, & the speed limit sign.

I want video in my DSLR to use for my blog, where I can combine video
with still images for better context of the situation.

I am willing to drop the pop-up flash for video.

I am willing to drop the direct print button for video.
'
I am willing to drain the battery a little more, for I have / will
have extras.

I am willing to burn up more CF card space for I have 60gigs of CF
cards in my card wallet, and several new 2tb hard drives waiting to
be filled. In 2000, memory storage was much more of an issue with the
Lexar 8x 160mb card I used for sports, because it was faster than the
cheap ones, cost me 399.99. These days, 8gig cards cost 59.00 after
the rebates, and 2tb Western Digital hard drives cost less than my
cruddy little 256mb Lexar cards that corrupted files left & right!

I am willing to pay a little more in order to have this convenient
feature. Maybe even several hundred bucks more it it was released as
an option,...much like adding on fog lights to your new car.

Maybe some don't want it because they might want to use their direct
print feature, or a pop-up flash for their "lighting", and that is
fine for them, because they do not speak for me, just as I don't
speak for them.

JP
--
http://www.Myspace.com/JPphotographer

well said!!!
I am for one; and i am wedding photographer.

Me too.. I shoot weddings from time to time too, and I can think of a few scenes that would work a little better for video w/ audio, rather than just a static image..

For what it's worth, this is about the only "motion imaging" I am able to do right now with the current camera type I am using..(these are from 2002 that I shot with my D30):
http://www.pbase.com/john_paul/image/102875403

....3fps, no audio, just isn't the same as what video could do..

JP

--
http://www.Myspace.com/JPphotographer

 

[Michael Todd]

The 1100 IS will fit in a pocket of my vest.

My editor is talking about using more short videos for the web site and that's what I'm thinking about doing.

--
peace

-MTM

http://www.muskopf.org
http://www.muskopf.blogspot.com/

 

[boffster]

Guys if you are shooting HD movies - this option may not be for you - stick with the mega expensive and have another setup....

BUT I watch news and see them using camera phone quality stuff on there, and you watch home videos and they are taken with lumps of plastic with elcheapo lenses

This is kind of like utopia - I use my camera for work AND at home, many of the good reasons have been outlined on here - I'll not repeat those....

But I have a large investment in high quality low light glass, great ROI canon smart move, and I do underwater photography, yet again - this will RULE the sea.

I've pre-ordered one today, simple

 

[Rootbeer]

...so I'll have the pleasure of seeing scumbag paparazzi getting a
well-deserved thrashing. Not for "evidence," just for my own
pleasure.
--

Little do you know,....that what you wish to see happen to a paparazzi photographer can also happen to a hobbyist, or a photojournalist, or a tourist, or a freelancer who is just trying to snap shots for stock.

I've experienced some of them in my 20 years of photography,

JP

--
http://www.Myspace.com/JPphotographer

 

[65tigershark]

Good for you. You know what you want.

What don't you want?
--

 

[Rootbeer]

Good for you. You know what you want.

What don't you want?
--

I'm glad you asked..

I don't want 3fps.. I want as many more as possible..

I don't want 12MP any more.. I want as many as they can fit in there that can allow as many fps as possible......with a decent buffer that is... Yep, a small sink can drain even faster than a really big sink if it has a bigger drain pipe.. Bigger isn't always better..

I want that nifty new rear LCD screen that the 50D has.. Maybe others here would still want the same old 2.5" screen just to keep them happy that Canon cut corners to reduce the cost of the camera, but since it is offered in the lesser camera, I sure don't want to go without it..

I want live view.. I have found that feature to be helpful when setting up remote cameras in difficult positions for focusing, or for overhead shooting..

I want the lens adjustment ability to FF / BF with lenses that do that for me..

I want the tripod socket.. the self timer, the hot shoe, the video output, back button AF activation, rubber on the corners of the body.. so that I don't have to buy camera armor, for I don't want my camera to look like "Batman".. ;-)

Hmmm....those focusing screens are pretty nice too.. a PC outlet, and some more AF sensors would make me a happy camper..

JP
--
http://www.Myspace.com/JPphotographer

 

[Rootbeer]

I wouldn't mind video, my only concern is if it can affect the life
of the CMOS.

I remember reading somewhere that we should use liveview in a limited
matter due to heat issues.

--

http://www.amazestudios.com

Hmmm.... I haven't heard about that..

I do however know that the heat causes more noise.. So far, I haven't heard of anyone having issues with their sensors burning out on them..Then again, live view is only 1.5 years old in Canon cameras..

JP

--
http://www.Myspace.com/JPphotographer

 

[L M Lloyd]

The video is barely good enough for your 11PM
local newscast. Until the video market gets some pressure, they'll
always be overpriced just like DSLRs were before Nikon released the
D1.

This is total BS. There are plenty of indy films and good quality TV shows being shot on cameras like the XL H1.

Better than what? Explain how the 1/3" sensors help us shoot video?
Is it because you don't have to worry about focusing?

Because the quality of video is not a straight factor of how big the sensor is. Most people who have experience with both will attest to the fact that the actual output of a top of the line Sony HD camera is every bit as good as the output (some would even argue better) than the output of a Red One, despite vast differences in sensor sizes. You are arbitrarily choosing one metric and saying that it is an absolute measure of quality. I could just as well ask you how you ever expect a single chip camera to do anywhere near as well as a three chip camera? It is an arbitrary metric based on a spec sheet, that has very little to do with final video quality.

And who said anything about not having to focus? Once again you seem to be confusing the cheap P&S handycams that you get at Best Buy, with real video cameras.

What I find so funny about this, is you seem to grasp that video cameras make horrible still cameras, but then all reason flys out the window, and you seem to think is impossible that there could be any reciprocity, and that still cameras might just be as bad a design for doing video as video cameras are for doing stills.

--
The goal is to overcome the deliberate nature of the process.

 

[Michael Ma]

I get it now. What he wants is what he wants. Who are we to say his needs or desires should be any different?

What he wants is based on personal needs, and the people arguing against him are talking as if they were designing a dSLR based on needs of the average dSLR user. You can make the same argument he's making about any feature you can imagine.

The argument: Any empty space should be made into something useful. The LCD on top should have a digital clock in there when its not being used. Why not tell time? Why should it be blank? Some people will use it. Some have better devices to tell time. But what is the harm? Heck, I'd look there if I need to know what the time is if I have a camera in my hand.

Same argument could be made for nativation GPS, video player, cell phone, or ipod like device for games, video, music, applications, or a video recorder. I like electronics, the problem is I don't like carrying them all the time. If they were always there however, I'd probably use it, despite its limitations.

Nevermind the fact that the body is built for snapping a still image for that one split second that the camera is not shaking. All the electronics is all there. It will have limitations, but that is the trade off. Some people can and will use it.

The best device you have is the device you have with you. Although, I'm guessing that people who are buying a dSLR with a plan to regularly shoot video and/or replace their video equipment are in for a disappointment. The Nikon D90 videos exposure control and choppyness due to fast shutter speeds (limited to processing power) are no different than limitations that has existed ever since video has made it to digitcal cameras. Don't thinkt that Canon is gonna magically improve it. The Nikon's limitations are there because there are limitations on current technology. As technology improves, and the processing power of the digic chips improve, the video will improve. But it is reasonable to assume that if Canon were to put video on a dSLR, it won't be much better.

Why don't people want it? Its sacrilegous. A dSLR has been, until the D90, a photography tool of the highest sophistication. Every curve, every knob, every microinch of every surface has been relentlessly pondered about how to improve it for one purpose and one purpose only. To take photographs. Just incase adding a feature no one is going to use may have a chance of negatively affecting the ability to shoot a the best photograph possible, some people are not willing to chance that for a feature they don't have any interest in.

 

[Per Zangenberg]

You are talking about the sensor getting warmer when using liveview. This can cause an increase in noise. However I would expect such issues to be solved if the incoporate video.

I wouldn't mind video, my only concern is if it can affect the life
of the CMOS.

I remember reading somewhere that we should use liveview in a limited
matter due to heat issues.

--

http://www.amazestudios.com

--
----------------------------------------
http://www.zangenberg.net

 

[mpxxxxx12345]

Stupid question, maybe...

With a still photo on a DSLR the shutter snaps open and closed. In shooting a movie with a still camera, how is this done? You can't have the shutter snapping up and down 24 times a second, for every second you shoot, can you? The noise alone would be insane. There'd have to be some fake shutter installed for movie mode, I suspect, with the sensor left open the entire time.

Also, there's the whole issue/can of worms of codec to be discussed.

 

[matphotos]

Who doesn't want video when they could use it?

BUT...is a dSLR the right equipment to do it with?

If you need video, why not actually invest in equipment specifically
made for video?

The idea is that those who need both won't have to carry both.

Looking at the D90 samples, its not for professional
work. Abrupt changes in exposure (exposure lock won't work in harsh
lighting situations), choppy 24fps (not like real film slow shutter
motion blurred 24fps)

This isn't the camera we are talking about, so lets not judge quality
based on a different camera that isnt even out yet either, thats just
ridiculous.

But you're assuming that the Canon video if it ever comes out will be
better. Equally ridiculous. What is not ridiculous is the raw
processing power to do long shutter exposures at 24 frames per
second.

Where did I assume it would be better??? All I said was lets not judge quality!

Its like saying you want to buy a cell phone, because it can take
pictures too.

No it isn't, still and moving images are similar in a way phone calls and photos are > not. Besides, whats wrong with buying a cell phone that can also take pictures?

Who said there was anything wrong with a free feature that comes with
anything you buy whether you use it or not?

er, well, below you say it 'almost never makes the cut'...

True, that's an added incentive to buy, but really, if
you wanted some pictures you actually wanted to do anything with, a
cell phone picture almost never makes the cut.

Im willing to bet more money and publications have been made from
cell phone pics/footage than all of the pictures you have made on pro
dslrs put together.

And that proves what exactly? Pointless.

No, it proves the images often 'make the cut' and are useable and sellable if you have the right footage, it dissproves your theory that you can't do anything with them.

If you need video that doesn't look like it came off a digicam (dSLR
or P&S you can easily tell).

WHAT?? This camera hasnt been announced yet and you are making these
assumptions?

I'm talking about the D90, the only one that has video so far. dSLRs
rely on similar technologies, and what the limitations of one DSLR
can be assumed for another manufacturer, especially since the same
problems (exposure short shutter time) are witnessed in virtually any
video shot with any kind of digital camera.

I'm not making those assumptions on a Canon camera. But YOU are
making the assumption that I'm making the assumption on a video
feature on a Canon.

WHAT? You say firstly the "limitations of one DSLR can be assumed for another manufacturer"...followed by "I'm not making those assumptions on a Canon camera". So which is it? You are making two arguments. Anyway, my point is that video in the new canon would be very useful for many working pro's. We have to hold judgement on the quality as we havnt seen it in action. Though just because you are not capable of seeing the usefulness of this technology doesn't mean others aren't eager to make the most of it. If you don't need the feature don't use it, I don't use the 'P' mode, but I don't shout all day that it should be taken off the camera because I don't need it.

, you need better video equipment. Even
the P&S is more capable at higher fps (30 and 60fps, and you can
resample this to real film like 24fps). What you are left with on
the D90 is a feature you can only use in specific conditions (slow
moving objects, low light, or controlled lighting situations) which
has its uses, but is limited. Just like the camera in the cell phone.

We arent talking about the D90!!!!

Finally.................. you figure it out. Congratulations.

Some will have more uses for it than others.

-so why are you complaining about it?

Me complain? You're complaining. I'm making an obvservation.

OK, well, what exactly is your observation? Is it that the D90 is not good enough at shooting video? If so you are in the wrong forum. If its about the canon's quality then, as we have agreed, its rediculous to make that judgement when the camera hasn't been seen yet.

Some will always
require higher quality of video, so it'll not work for them. Just
make sure your expectations are realistic. Fan films and amateur
journalism yes (but P&S has some advantages). TV or cinematic work,
no, despite what Nikon is making it look like you can do.

Actually everything is converging http://www.red.com/cameras is a good
example of movie cameras being able to be used for stills, dslrs will meet this
technology from the still camera end.

Didn't you say something about how its bad to assume about technology
that isn't even out yet?

That camera is already out, and dslr's have already started to become more like video cameras (live view, faster fps and now video) so its not an assumption based on fantasy, like yours are, its just a fact.

 

[Michael Ma]

You're saying you're willing to compromise. Ok, here's a question of something that has a chance of happening one day.

What if in the future, they change the AI Servo motor to a quieter motor so that AI Servo can be used for video. Disadvantage is that it has 10ms slower response time.

The question is not about trading 10ms response of the AI Servo for a video feature now.

Its about driving the interest of video on dSLRs with the future consequences of losing slight performance (when it comes to photography, in this case shooting action sports) due to dSLRs one day turing into full on professional video recording equipment/camera.

People will be saying, "AI Servo? Yeah they don't make them like they used to."

Of course this is a hypothetical scenario. Who know how much or how little we'll lose (of what). Or we'll lose anything at all. But there is a possibility of things of this nature happening is there.

So, are you willing to compromise on that?

You can't say Canon won't let that happen because they are willing to compromise on the quality of the images for increasing the number of megapixels for more buyer appeal. You can't blame them for wanting to sell more cameras.

Yes I do... I sure do! Yep, ahh huh.. Mmm hmm.. Yep!

I want to be able to record both sound a video for when I do
Photojournalism work where I need to obtain infos for slug lines.

I want video to record my hassles with over zealous security guards &
or bad cops who believe they can make up laws that obstruct my work,
or pleasure of photography on the spot, and or assault me, or attempt
to intimidate me.

I want video in my DSLR camera so I don't have to screw around with
handling a delicate tinker-toy palm sized video camera that requires
activation, and lugging something else besides another lens on my
person, or in my bag.

I want video in my next DSLR so that I can scout a location that
shows various positions of certain elements within a scene easier
than having to photograph them.

I want video in my DSLR camera in case I find myself in a situation
where video more easily and more understandably records news, or
legal matters, like a fender bender, or a speeding trap. Near where
I live, the police have set up an illegal speed trap where they park
less than 200 ft from a posted speed limit that is 10mps less than
the one before it with no warning of the speed change, although the
law requires 500 ft before they can legally issue me a ticket for
speeding, although they know that, they do it anyways, and taking a
series of still shots is a lot more work and not as understandable in
court as a simple video showing the distance between the parked cop
shooting radar, & the speed limit sign.

I want video in my DSLR to use for my blog, where I can combine video
with still images for better context of the situation.

I am willing to drop the pop-up flash for video.

I am willing to drop the direct print button for video.
'
I am willing to drain the battery a little more, for I have / will
have extras.

I am willing to burn up more CF card space for I have 60gigs of CF
cards in my card wallet, and several new 2tb hard drives waiting to
be filled. In 2000, memory storage was much more of an issue with the
Lexar 8x 160mb card I used for sports, because it was faster than the
cheap ones, cost me 399.99. These days, 8gig cards cost 59.00 after
the rebates, and 2tb Western Digital hard drives cost less than my
cruddy little 256mb Lexar cards that corrupted files left & right!

I am willing to pay a little more in order to have this convenient
feature. Maybe even several hundred bucks more it it was released as
an option,...much like adding on fog lights to your new car.

Maybe some don't want it because they might want to use their direct
print feature, or a pop-up flash for their "lighting", and that is
fine for them, because they do not speak for me, just as I don't
speak for them.

JP
--
http://www.Myspace.com/JPphotographer

 

[matphotos]

I get it now. What he wants is what he wants. Who are we to say his
needs or desires should be any different?

What he wants is based on personal needs, and the people arguing
against him are talking as if they were designing a dSLR based on
needs of the average dSLR user. You can make the same argument he's
making about any feature you can imagine.

The argument: Any empty space should be made into something useful.
The LCD on top should have a digital clock in there when its not
being used. Why not tell time? Why should it be blank? Some people
will use it. Some have better devices to tell time. But what is the
harm? Heck, I'd look there if I need to know what the time is if I
have a camera in my hand.

Same argument could be made for nativation GPS, video player, cell
phone, or ipod like device for games, video, music, applications, or
a video recorder. I like electronics, the problem is I don't like
carrying them all the time. If they were always there however, I'd
probably use it, despite its limitations.

Nevermind the fact that the body is built for snapping a still image
for that one split second that the camera is not shaking. All the
electronics is all there. It will have limitations, but that is the
trade off. Some people can and will use it.

The best device you have is the device you have with you. Although,
I'm guessing that people who are buying a dSLR with a plan to
regularly shoot video and/or replace their video equipment are in for
a disappointment. The Nikon D90 videos exposure control and
choppyness due to fast shutter speeds (limited to processing power)
are no different than limitations that has existed ever since video
has made it to digitcal cameras. Don't thinkt that Canon is gonna
magically improve it. The Nikon's limitations are there because
there are limitations on current technology. As technology improves,
and the processing power of the digic chips improve, the video will
improve. But it is reasonable to assume that if Canon were to put
video on a dSLR, it won't be much better.

Im hoping you are wrong, as canon has more experience in making video cameras than nikon, maybe the departments have been working together...however, I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Why don't people want it? Its sacrilegous. A dSLR has been, until
the D90, a photography tool of the highest sophistication. Every
curve, every knob, every microinch of every surface has been
relentlessly pondered about how to improve it for one purpose and one
purpose only. To take photographs. Just incase adding a feature no
one is going to use may have a chance of negatively affecting the
ability to shoot a the best photograph possible, some people are not
willing to chance that for a feature they don't have any interest in.

More people are making a fuss out of things they want leaving out than features they want in! The idea that these cameras have been perfected with every surface and button and curve to the highest sophistication is really funny, considering these are not even the top-of -the -range models and are purposefully limited by canon and nikon! I carry my camera, not to take a photo but to tell a story, I welcome any addition that will allow me to do that better.

You should try a disposable camera, that has been designed from the ground up with just one purpose, every curve, every knob...its there just to take a photo, perfect.

 

[ohyva]

... buy a D90 and be happy!

I also have my wishes, 2+ stop DR improvement being on top of the list, espacially at the high-light ends of the DR. (Shadow end improvements OK if I get HTP modes with 2 stop, and perhaps also 3 stops, besides the current 1 stop setting as well.)

Yes I do... I sure do! Yep, ahh huh.. Mmm hmm.. Yep!

I want to be able to record both sound a video for when I do
Photojournalism work where I need to obtain infos for slug lines.

I want video to record my hassles with over zealous security guards &
or bad cops who believe they can make up laws that obstruct my work,
or pleasure of photography on the spot, and or assault me, or attempt
to intimidate me.

I want video in my DSLR camera so I don't have to screw around with
handling a delicate tinker-toy palm sized video camera that requires
activation, and lugging something else besides another lens on my
person, or in my bag.

I want video in my next DSLR so that I can scout a location that
shows various positions of certain elements within a scene easier
than having to photograph them.

I want video in my DSLR camera in case I find myself in a situation
where video more easily and more understandably records news, or
legal matters, like a fender bender, or a speeding trap. Near where
I live, the police have set up an illegal speed trap where they park
less than 200 ft from a posted speed limit that is 10mps less than
the one before it with no warning of the speed change, although the
law requires 500 ft before they can legally issue me a ticket for
speeding, although they know that, they do it anyways, and taking a
series of still shots is a lot more work and not as understandable in
court as a simple video showing the distance between the parked cop
shooting radar, & the speed limit sign.

I want video in my DSLR to use for my blog, where I can combine video
with still images for better context of the situation.

I am willing to drop the pop-up flash for video.

I am willing to drop the direct print button for video.
'
I am willing to drain the battery a little more, for I have / will
have extras.

I am willing to burn up more CF card space for I have 60gigs of CF
cards in my card wallet, and several new 2tb hard drives waiting to
be filled. In 2000, memory storage was much more of an issue with the
Lexar 8x 160mb card I used for sports, because it was faster than the
cheap ones, cost me 399.99. These days, 8gig cards cost 59.00 after
the rebates, and 2tb Western Digital hard drives cost less than my
cruddy little 256mb Lexar cards that corrupted files left & right!

I am willing to pay a little more in order to have this convenient
feature. Maybe even several hundred bucks more it it was released as
an option,...much like adding on fog lights to your new car.

Maybe some don't want it because they might want to use their direct
print feature, or a pop-up flash for their "lighting", and that is
fine for them, because they do not speak for me, just as I don't
speak for them.

JP
--
http://www.Myspace.com/JPphotographer

 

[L M Lloyd]

Im hoping you are wrong, as canon has more experience in making video
cameras than nikon, maybe the departments have been working
together...however, I guess we will just have to wait and see.

If Canon ever wanted to make a video camera using a Bayer masked CMOS sensor, they have had the technology for quite some time. If they put video in their SLRs, it will not be because of cooperation with their video department, or because they thought it was good idea, but because of the same market pressure that cause Nikon to do it. Namely, people upgrading from P&S don't want to upgrade until they can get an SLR that is feature for feature just like their P&S. That is where Live View came from, that is where video came from, and that is where this whole attitude comes from.

More people are making a fuss out of things they want leaving out
than features they want in!

This is what people keep missing. Every department of every company on Earth has a finite budget. Given that there is a huge list of features people want that really do relate directly to taking a better picture, every feature put in the camera means 10 more had to get left out due to the constraints of the R&D budget. If you really think that there are no costs involved with figuring out how to get a chip that only is capable of 5FPS to record 24FPS, or adding a video compression engine, creating a continuous write memory management stack, even adding new options to the UI, then you don't have the first clue about product design, software programming, or chip design. It is a fiscal impossibility that implementing a video mode is a cheap and easy to do operation that in no way effects the R&D budget. At some level, Nikon at the very least decided that putting in a barely-usable video mode was more important than any number of other features that would have directly contributed to the camera being better at its intended purpose, taking still pictures. Engineers, programmers, chip designers, UI designers, and their managers don't work for free, just because they think a feature might be neat.

The idea that these cameras have been
perfected with every surface and button and curve to the highest
sophistication is really funny, considering these are not even the
top-of -the -range models and are purposefully limited by canon and
nikon!

The what we think of as an SLR took more than 60 years to reach its current form, and every design decision up until now was centered around making it better at taking still pictures. If that isn't the very definition of a design being perfected to the highest level of perfection, then I don't know what is. At the same time film/video cameras took a completely different evolutionary path, driven by completely different requirements. Now suddenly you decide that the past 60 years of product evolution really don't mean anything, because surely it is just a matter of flipping a switch, and turning on a video mode, and a still camera will be every bit as good, if not in fact better, than any video camera. Never mind that SLRs are ridiculously difficult to hold steady compared to video cameras. Never mind that to get video, you have to have to get rid of the reflex in SLR. Never mind that SLR lenses lack more than half the features a modern film/video lens has. It saves you room in your camera bag, saves you money, and more importantly makes sure a cheap P&S doesn't have any features your SLR doesn't, so it doesn't matter how bad an idea it is, it becomes a great idea.

I carry my camera, not to take a photo but to tell a story, I
welcome any addition that will allow me to do that better.

Well then here's a tip. Take a writing course, and get a pencil and pad of paper. Writing is a really cheap, easy, and efficient way to tell a story. Cameras are for taking pictures. It is almost like that is what they were designed to do. I wonder if that is why they call the people who use them "photographers" as opposed to storytellers, troubadours or directors.

You should try a disposable camera, that has been designed from the
ground up with just one purpose, every curve, every knob...its there
just to take a photo, perfect.

Ah, so the purpose of a disposable camera is just to take pictures, but the purpose of an expensive SLR is... what again? To impress people with how much money you have as you tell them stories that you record on the voice recorder in the camera? I mean, it kind of sounds like you are saying that an SLR should be some fabulous lifestyle accessory that is more of a creative PDA to help you "tell your story," not some boring old piece of stogy equipment just for taking boring old pictures.

--
The goal is to overcome the deliberate nature of the process.

 

[L M Lloyd]

I carry my camera, not to take a photo but to tell a story, I
welcome any addition that will allow me to do that better.

You know, the more I think about this sentence, the more it gets me. Just off the top of my head, it would seem that other tools the camera should have to help you "tell your story" instead of taking photos are, a phone (so you can get hold of people to tell your story to), a web browser (so you can connect to the Internet to distribute your story), a keyboard (so you can write your story), a MIDI synthesizer chip (so you can make a soundtrack for your story), sound recording (so you can add narration to your story), a mixing board (so you can put the narration and score together), video editing software (so you can cut your story), and a big display or projector (so you can show your story to other people). Are you sure you haven't confused your camera with your computer? Or perhaps you want a notebook computer that looks like a camera?

--
The goal is to overcome the deliberate nature of the process.