I just ordered a D800e and am now waiting for the arrival sometime in mid April of both the camera and the bill to go with it.

So, as everyone else has been doing.... I am reading everything I can about it.

I came up with a question regarding shooting video with this camera.
I have never had a need to shoot video with my D300s, or my Nikon V1, because I also own a Sony HDR-CX700 Handycam.

The Sony is a 12.3 Mega Pixel camera that has internal memory of 96GB and an additional SDXC slot for a card (currently I use a 64GB SD card in it) and we all know memory level is important with video.

This little Sony, while a bit pricey at $1200, is almost as small as my V1 camera. The fact that there is no lens projection allows it to be slipped into a shirt pocket.... something I can almost do with the V1, but not quite.

The Sony records in HD and has 5.1 Dolby 5 channel recording/playback.

So I have to ssk myself, why in the world would I have a need to use the 800e (or V1) for video when I have a much better camera for that use with the Sony?

Here is where I wish Nikon had offered a 3rd choice....Maybe called the D800ex where the video feature is dropped.
If I want to take a picture I will use a camera.
If I want to shoot video I will use the proper tool for that as well.

Just thought I would ask some of you if you have any thoughts on this?
perry

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>I have never had a need to shoot video with my D300s, or my
>Nikon V1, because I also own a Sony HDR-CX700 Handycam.
>
>The Sony is a 12.3 Mega Pixel camera...

It's a 2MP camera for video purposes.


>The Sony records in HD and has 5.1 Dolby 5 channel
>recording/playback.

Consumer gimmick. But ok.

>So I have to ssk myself, why in the world would I have a need
>to use the 800e (or V1) for video when I have a much better
>camera for that use with the Sony?

You don't have need. And define "better".


>Here is where I wish Nikon had offered a 3rd choice....Maybe
>called the D800ex where the video feature is dropped.

To what end? What would "dropping video" add to your experience as a stills shooter?

>If I want to take a picture I will use a camera.

As do most.

>If I want to shoot video I will use the proper tool for that
>as well.

What is a "proper" tool? When people with movie budgets in excess of $30 million dollars are sourcing these DSLRs, doesn't it make you somewhat curious what they see in them that you might not? Why they seem them as "proper" and you don't?

>Just thought I would ask some of you if you have any thoughts
>on this?
>perry

My thoughts on this are that your question is akin to asking why anyone would want to own both a stills camera and a video camera when my iPhone can do both. AND my iPhone geo-tags with no extra components, and it can upload them right to youtube! Who in their right minds would want to spend $1200 for a camcorder when the iPhone slips right into my pants pocket.

------
Webpage: http://www.ptfphoto.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>What is a "proper" tool? When people with movie
>budgets in excess of $30 million dollars are sourcing these
>DSLRs, doesn't it make you somewhat curious what they see in
>them that you might not? Why they seem them as
>"proper" and you don't?
>

This is a very valid point.

Yesterday I went to see the full feature film "Act of Valor", which I believe was shot entirely with a Canon 5DmkII. And a 5DmkII was also used to shoot an entire show of the TV series "House".

So it appears Nikon my fear losing name recognition and market share by not including features Canon included some time ago.

Pete

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>So it appears Nikon my fear losing name recognition and market
>share by not including features Canon included some time ago.

They don't fear it. The damage has long been done. Nikon is 4 years behind. And in the world of marketing, especially to people who spend over a million dollars per film on their camera budget, the war has been lost for the most part.

Canon is now the "establishment" and Nikon is the upstart... in a game they STARTED. So now a new battle begins. How to get the Nikon brand into the hands of shooters like Shane Hurlbut (The man behind Act of Valor) and get Nikon onto the silver screen. The problem is now the market is FULL of capable cameras. The Scarlet, the AF100, FS100, and others. Nikon is going to be forced to start from scratch. The clean HDMI video out is something they can hang their hat on for 12-18 months.

The true winner in this MASSIVE battle will be the company who can deliver RAW output at under $10k. That may be Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, RED, or others. RED is close, but the ISO performance isn't there yet. Nikon is close, but they have no background in this area. Canon have a compelling reason NOT to deliver it since they have a camera slightly upmarket from these that would be severely undercut. This little trick is what all the video guys are waiting to see.

------
Webpage: http://www.ptfphoto.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Deleted duplicate post.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

The answer is lenses, lenses and lenses.

Larry Miller, Annapolis, MD
D700/D800
http://www.pbase.com/lmmiller9
http://lmmillerphotography.smugmug.com/

Hi WB Perry,

Similar question was moved by Brian the moderator here:http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=190&topic_id=79746 and here same thread:http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=402&topic_id=1353&mesg_id=1353&page=

These are a more general discussion about DSLR Video.

So before we get bumped again, for good reason, this forum is technical as to the cameras listed, and not a round table for the semantics, pros and cons etc. try landing over there for dialogue.

My answers to your very balanced query are in that thread, along with Perrone's and Larry's.

HTH's

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thanks Rob (and to you other guys too) for your comments.
I just felt compelled to ask the question regarding using the D800 for video because I see no real need for it myself.
If someone wants to shoot video.... then go buy a video camera.
Not technical at all but, but Nikon can keep the video feature and replace it with something truly useful, or lower the price by $400

If this thread gets bumped..... no problem.
I really did not expect to get an answer to the question that would satisfy me anyway...... and with respects to that, I now somewhat even regret bringing the subject up.
Perry

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I think that you and Nikonians in general have to realize that the membership here is self-selected and that self-selection is based on enthusiasm for still photography. It is a bit like going on a sports car forum and asking, "who cares about having room for seven passengers?" Well, no one on that forum. But, there is a large population of folks who do video, and a growing number who want to combine video and stills for wedding, web pages, corporate publicity and events, etc.

This camera is designed to expand the gene pool.

Larry Miller, Annapolis, MD
D700/D800
http://www.pbase.com/lmmiller9
http://lmmillerphotography.smugmug.com/

No sweat Perry, it's a free country and no issues for anyone displeased with h.264 capable DSLR's.

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I have video-enabled DSLR (a Nikon D90). I have a dedicated FullHD camcorder (Sony something). Why can’t I even remember the type of my camcorder? Because I use it so seldom. Why? Because I am an amateur and I seldom go to shoot video exclusively. I take pictures of animals, landscapes and family gatherings, and if I shoot video, I also shoot still. I feel ridiculous walking (or skiing, cycling or sailing) around with multiple cameras hanging from my neck. Wouldn’t it be much easier to do everything with the same camera I’m carrying? It’s not just the number of cameras. If there are more than one, they are banging against each other, unless I’m wearing a photographer’s vest, which makes me look like I’ve escaped from a home improvement program. Sure, a DSLR for video has its limitations, the most important one being the fact that the eye-level viewfinder cannot be used for video and I need reading glasses and a shade against sunlight to use the LCD screen. But the pros override the cons and for almost everything (apart from taping very long events, eg musical performances), DSLR for video is here to stay.

Regards, Antero

I'm with Larry. Lenses!

I doubt video adds $400 to the cost. I'm guessing it's mostly software...

D700 l N90s l AF-S 16-35 f4 l AF-S 24-85 f3.5-f4.5G VR l AF-S 70-200 f2.8G VRII l AF-S 50 f1.8G l AF-S 300 f4 l TC-14EII l 2x SB600 l Autometer IIIF.
https://www.facebook.com/tony.johnson.photography
http://www.eyesonboulder.com
My Nikonians Gallery

The last VideoCam I liked was the super 8.
I've tried many since and some even take stills.

I am buying the D800 primarily for Video.
I also plan on doing some high resolution Landscapes.

However, if this camera brings out the details in plant leaves,
it will pay for itself in Nursery sales.
If the keeper rate is better than a D7000,
it will pay for itself in Event Photography sales.

So, it has to do it all for me to buy it.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

For me, the D800E should be a very good video tool. I intend to use the same camera and the same lens for video as I did with my still photography of each waterfall. One great bonus of video is sound. The sound of the waterfall will help me to recall the emotions I felt when I took the still photographs of each waterfall. I will attempt to convey this emotional experience in the still photograph of each waterfall. I am a bit of a realist, so it is also important for me to convey the "look" of the water in each waterfall. I have experienced great difficulty in getting the water in the still photo to look like it did when I was there looking at each waterfall. I expect that the video capability of the D800E will help me to learn to estimate at least the correct range of shutter speeds to shoot for my still photos for each waterfall. Without video, I have trouble trying to remember the emotions I felt for each waterfall, and I can't remember exactly the way the water looked at each waterfall either. I am excited about the video capability of the D800E helping me to improve my still photography of each waterfall.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

For me, the D800 will be used for videos almost as much as it would be used for stills.

As a film maker and someone who also works in corporate video, DSLRs add a creative flexibility to my work that many pro video cameras don't offer.

Thanks to the smaller sensors on video cameras, you don't have the beautiful shallow focus that DSLRs offer. Shooting a wide shot with shallow focus just cannot be achieved by most pro video cameras. That's exactly where the D800 and other DSLRs fit in perfectly, you only have to ask my clients

It seems bizarre to me that many photographers see video as almost a throwaway technology on cameras. I am amused that one will spend lots of time and money on great lenses, to achieve the perfect still, then use a cheap quality video camera to capture the same scene in motion.
For me, I put the same amount of critical consideration into capturing video as I would a still image.
Unfortunately the common video camera has made it for too easy for people to accept mediocrity due to the lack of creative control and low quality.
Rejoice oh brothers and sisters of photography, the video DSLR shall set you free!!!

Videos and stills can live in perfect harmony, try it, you just might like it!


Neill

Website: www.epicdream.co.uk