video on your next DSLR?

AnCatDubh

So the Nikon D90 is the first DSLR (according to the youtube video below) to offer video on a DSLR.

I don't want this thread to turn into a my Nikons better than your Canon or vise versa but i'm curious to see what others think of the idea of video on a DSLR, would it interest you, are you happy to pay for the luxury, should the two worlds of video and still photography collide, would you think you would ever realistically use it?.

The video review part is at about 6mins 30secs of the youtube video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hRTyE8FePY

Please vote in the poll so as we can keep a track of what you guys would want in a DSLR!

Cheers.

Hugh_C

Having a foot in both camps I would say, NO, nay, never. Video may have a place in P&S holiday frolics, but absolutely not on a reasonably serious piece of stills kit. Leave it to the professionals.

Fajitas!

I can't wait to play about with video tbh, it's a great option to have, and for Canon, anyways, the quality is very very good. I may not be able to have as long a recording than with a DV tape, but in fairness, I don't think I'll be making too many over 12 minutes. Another advantage is I've got some great lenses, so I can put those straight on over.

Could be a great tool

PaulieC

I answered yes because my next camera will be an upgrade from a 30D to a 5DMKII, which just happens to have video. If it didn't have video I'd still be buying. Kind of ambivalent about the whole Video on a DSLR thing

ThOnda

YES!!! There are quite few things I cannot wait to do. Not to mention that 5DMkII allows you to take pictures during filming!

paudie

Yeah but the filming stops for a second or so everytime you press the shutter.
Kind of pointless really.

Dragan

I am looking forward to starting working with video again. It's been a long time since i have done anything that way.

To be honest, i would be more inclined to pick something up just for video, but if a company can give me a fine video option on a dSLR then i am not going to complain about that.

jackdaw

I don't know what to choose since i can't make up my mind on what cam to get !!!

Morrisseeee

How good is the video exactly, good enough to take snap-shots at any particular frame and turn it into a (top class) picture, or will that functionality be further down the line ?
In fact, what can't video do that taking pics can ? eg. slow shutter-speed type shots, etc. ?

Calina

I am interested in very high frame rate video cameras. I haven't looked at the options on the DSLRs that have it but reckon that the two tools might be better off separate.

however, we'll wait and see.

Stephen

I'm enjoying it on my D90. I don't think it will add much to the cost of a new camera anyway, since most new models are coming with Live View - all video mode is doing is recording the stream from the sensor to your memory card.

DaireQuinlan

Yeah, I've never fully understood the sheer amount of bile generated over this. So long as the addition of video doesn't actually compromise the still picture ability of a camera (which I guess is where some of the commentary was coming from) then I don't see a problem with it. At the moment I don't think the video quality looks really all that top notch, possibly because of the lack of a shutter. Doubtless it'll get better though.

Fajitas!

Tbh, the results from the 5D looked very impressive, but I'll wait til I have some unedited footage on my harddrive before I say for sure what the quality is like.

kensutz

I have decided to go for the 5D MKII myself instead of a 1D MKIII for the time being. One of the lads is heading over to the US in December so I might ask him to pick it up for me.

Dragan

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Yeah, I've never fully understood the sheer amount of bile generated over this.

Generally just people trying to impose their opinions of "true" photography on others.

It should be noted, i have no idea what "true" photography is.

Stephen

Yeah, I saw a lot of that on the dpreview forums when the D90 was announced.

Morrisseeee

A friend of mine shoots film with two old Minoltas (X300, X700 I think) and he deplores me for buying a Digital camera, imagine when I tell him it can shoot videos aswell......!! :eek:

dakar

I already have one perfectly good video camera that I don't use:), don't see much point in having another in an SLR, but I'm not philosphically opposed to the idea.

Creamy Goodness

i really like the look of the 5DmarkIII.

*holds back left hand with right hand from the credit card*

as a relative newbie to digital photography i'm always getting replies from people saying "omg you're camera cost how much and it can't do video?" i'm not too pushed tbh.

as long as the image quality isn't effected when taking exposures then a video feature is a nice add on in my opinion and if the new range of DSLR's can do 1080 video at 30fps or whatever then we shall see some exciting HD quality footage around

Stephen

dakar wrote: »

I already have one perfectly good video camera that I don't use:), don't see much point in having another in an SLR, but I'm not philosphically opposed to the idea.

Yes, but unless your existing video camera cost you tens of thousands of euros, its not going to have interchangeable lenses and all the fun that goes with them! There's great scope for creativity with the ability to adjust your aperture for shallow DOF, etc. that just can't be done with a regular consumer video camera.

DaireQuinlan

Morrisseeee wrote: »

A friend of mine shoots film with two old Minoltas (X300, X700 I think) and he deplores me for buying a Digital camera, imagine when I tell him it can shoot videos aswell......!! :eek:

I shoot film exclusively and frankly, he's right. I mean video isn't too different from what you digital snapshooters already do right ? Just take thousands of thoughtless aimless shots until one turns out to be ok then edit it in photoshop until it looks good ? Right ? Yeah I thought so.

Biro

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

I shoot film exclusively and frankly, he's right. I mean video isn't too different from what you digital snapshooters already do right ? Just take thousands of thoughtless aimless shots until one turns out to be ok then edit it in photoshop until it looks good ? Right ? Yeah I thought so.

You mean you have a camera that automatically controls the shutter via a button? Bah. The pin-hole camera with the little tab operated by hand is your only man! Anything else is not real photography!

Some people have it in their heads that good equipment is only good if it cost way more and has way less fancy features than the main stream. As soon as so called "good" equipment gains a "fancy feature" it's goodness is somehow diminished!

DaireQuinlan

Biro wrote: »

Some people have it in their heads that good equipment is only good if it cost way more and has way less fancy features than the main stream. As soon as so called "good" equipment gains a "fancy feature" it's goodness is somehow diminished!

Yeah that's probably a large part of this. The addition of a feature (video) in some way actually DIMINISHES the value of the camera, very probably purely because video is one of the things that people with (looks down nose) POINT AND SHOOT cameras do, not people with high-falutin' DSLRS, that they've payed good money for, purely in order to seperate themselves from the crowd

dakar

Stephen wrote: »

Yes, but unless your existing video camera cost you tens of thousands of euros, its not going to have interchangeable lenses and all the fun that goes with them! There's great scope for creativity with the ability to adjust your aperture for shallow DOF, etc. that just can't be done with a regular consumer video camera.

Sorry, I had my tongue firmly in cheek, I know there is a world of creativity out there that I'm potentially missing out on.

But I suppose what I meant was a video camera was procured for the dakar household to record significant events (mostly the kids in fairness) much the same as there is a P&S in most houses in the country.

In 3 years, I'd say I've taken 30 mins of footage, tops. So me having access to a wonderful creative video imaging tool would be the equivalent of someone who is happy with a P&S having a D3 or 1D sitting around to take shots of the kids blowing out candles:D.

I'm delighted for anyone who gets value out of the video function on their SLR, it'd be wasted on me:)

Morrisseeee

Just take thousands of thoughtless aimless shots

Daire, how could you say something like this, it offends me, I only take 100's not 1000's.............booooo hissss

MooseJam

I think it's cool, really shouldn't be any objection to it unless it degrades picture quality or drives the price up, the more stuff it can do the better, maybe in future they will integrate a phone into it,

PopeBuckfastXVI

I'll put my spake in... I voted no, but I ain't agin it... I just ain't fer it

Ricky91t

If i had the money and the next camera i decided to buy,then yes I'd be happy.But i wouldn't go out and buy a DSLR specifically for video

You want good video buy a video camera
Want good photos buy a DSLR

Like stills on camcorders,video on a DSLR won't be a big hit

AnimalRights

Can't wait for the video on the 5D mk II!
I shoot Videos at gigs and it was becoming a pain carrying 2 Cams, the short length is actually more suitable as I shoot mine that way anyway.
I am also looking forward to seeing how much better it is in the low light and from reading that guys journal it appears most def GOOD!

Bui

Not going to lie, it is an interesting development for this kind of camera but Im not really a fan and was a little disappointed when I saw the d90 preview.

I feel that this is somewhat of a misplaced feature on this kind of camera - as a hobby camera, it allows you the freedom to take along and snap or take clips as you feel so inclined (cough-as with any p&s, only to a higher standard and at a higher price). But for anyone seriously into photography buying a DSLR, chances are they are spending the money on a camera like this for taking photographs, and likewise anyone seriously into video is not going to spend the money on a DSLR for making video. I feel I would be spending money on a feature that I would not get the use out of, as opposed to other models where feature : money ratio you are getting more for what you pay for.

While I can see how this would appeal to some people, personally I find this somewhat of a redundant feature as a photographer and it would put me off buying this model where I could put the money towards a different model where I am getting more useable features for what I am paying for.

Chochese

As long as it's not impeding the quality of the still images, what's the problem with having video on you DSLR?

If you don't want to use it, then don't...

I can see the professional benefits from having access to video in some fields. In the modern age of photojournalism, video capture is going to become an invaluable tool to news organisations and phojos looking to keep ahead of the curve on news delivery. Video fotage on Getty available for a news site to buy 2 mins after an event will be a big step forward for news providers.

DaireQuinlan

Bui has a point though, when Nikon decide on the price point for the D90 they almost assuredly take into account this new feature. In DSLR terms its a USP at the moment so in terms of price versus sales they can maybe decide to up the price by a bit. So for people who couldn't care less about video on their still camera (and If I was in the market for a DSLR that would include me) then they're paying for a feature they will never use. This is all speculation of course, maybe it was an easy feature to add in, maybe Nikon added it to the D90 without altering the price at all to test the waters and see what peoples reactions would be. Its impossible to tell. However I -do- think the D90 is firmly in the hobbyist camera price range, at least from the manufacturers and retailers POV. I'd be surprised to see them add video to the D3+ or D300/700+ models.

PixelTrawler

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

I'd be surprised to see them add video to the D3+ or D300/700+ models.

Canons gone and done it, so its likely they will have to, even if its just to tick the box on the list of features. After a while they all will.

I cant wait to try it out, wide angle video Just be fun to try different stuff with the various lenses.

ThOnda

Chochese - amen! Exactly what Canon intended and presented. 5D MkII is truly professional still camera. And I am willing to say that top of it's class. The video is another feature that could be used. And there is still plenty of space to find out what new use could the video taken by the camera provide.

Bui

Chochese wrote: »

As long as it's not impeding the quality of the still images, what's the problem with having video on you DSLR?

If you don't want to use it, then don't...

Absolutely, I get your point but my point was that why pay for what is a main feature on a camera that you are not going to get the use out of? I would rather put the money towards another model such as the d300/700 and get the feature : price correlation I would benefit from and would be looking for, that's all I'm saying. I do agree that in the field of photojournalism this is definately a bonus feature, in that line of work; but my point was that for a photographer, this is somewhat of a redundant feature to have if you are going to pay for it to just not use it.

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

I'd be surprised to see them add video to the D3+ or D300/700+ models.

Unfortunately, I think Solyad is right, it is only a matter of time before this becomes a standard feature on these cameras. sigh.

Stephen

I think the point is that they're all including live view in the new DSLR's anyway, and if you are doing that then video is trivial. Nikon's RRP for the D90 is the same as the D80's RRP was at launch.

DaireQuinlan

Stephen wrote: »

I think the point is that they're all including live view in the new DSLR's anyway, and if you are doing that then video is trivial. Nikon's RRP for the D90 is the same as the D80's RRP was at launch.

Ah right. So its just an inevitable feature then I guess, enabled by the changes required for the live view functionality. I'd still be surprised to see them put it into the top end cameras though, precisely because of this perception that it somehow causes the camera to be -less- capable. Although I suppose if Canon has done it to their top end then Nikon has to follow suit.

D.

Biro

Bui wrote: »

Absolutely, I get your point but my point was that why pay for what is a main feature on a camera that you are not going to get the use out of? I would rather put the money towards another model such as the d300/700 and get the feature : price correlation I would benefit from and would be looking for, that's all I'm saying. I do agree that in the field of photojournalism this is definately a bonus feature, in that line of work; but my point was that for a photographer, this is somewhat of a redundant feature to have if you are going to pay for it to just not use it.

I can't speak for the Nikon, but I'd say it's a fairly safe bet that the price of the 5D MkII would have been the same price without the video feature, so I reckon if you buy one you won't have paid a cent extra! It's just as easy to include it as not with the live view, and it's another tick in the box when you do include it. Anyway, Canon and Nikon have the likes of Sony to worry about now in order to stay ahead.

ThOnda

And it more likely looks only like firmware issue, so it could come sooner or later even as a part of some firmware update for recent cameras.

Bui

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Although I suppose if Canon has done it to their top end then Nikon has to follow suit.

D.

Inevitable really....

Stephen wrote: »

I think the point is that they're all including live view in the new DSLR's anyway, and if you are doing that then video is trivial. Nikon's RRP for the D90 is the same as the D80's RRP was at launch.

Whatever about putting it on a D90, introducing it as a feature on top end cameras, regardless of how easy and trivial it might be, I don't see the point in introducing a feature like this purely for the sake of it being possible on a camera that is designed for professional photographers. I am not against the idea of video on principle, or out of photographic snobbery, I can see the advantages within certain groups etc, all I am saying is that personally I just am not sold on the idea.

ronanphilip

Vince Laforet’s 5D Mk II Video

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2086

(seen it a few days back, dont seem to be working now says "DUE TO HIGH DEMAND OF VIDEO CLIPS WE HAVE EXCEEDED OUR DOWNLOAD CAPACITY. WE ARE NOW INVESTIGATING ALTERNATIVE HOSTING METHODS.")

YogiBear

I voted no. One or the other imo.

mathias

I voted no purely because of the " jack of all trades " thing that goes on with other devices , the video capabilites on compacts are a joke , and can in no way stand up to a decent camcorder.

An SLR should be for stills first and foremost , a high end camera shouldnt be tainted with tacked on gimmicks , and if any picture quality or any other feature of the stills capability is compromised for the sake of having a video feature then Im going to hate it.

Having said that , that piece of video linked above was something else. So Im keeping an open mind till I get my hands on a 5DmkII

decsramble

I have no strong aversion to the idea, it might be good, but I voted no. My concern is that video could distract from development on the photography features. Can you imagine a 5D Mark III in a years time with 60 minutes HD video, built in mic and a bunch of new video outputs. Great, except with all that will there be better ISO, focus points, frame rates, HDR etc? If they can develop both in parallel great, if not then for the moment keep video in video cameras.