I was discussing the new Nikon cameras with a friend who is, like me, a amateur photographer who uses Nikon cameras. Neither of us will use the video features of the Nikon DSLRs and have no interest in it. In discussing this subject the question was raised: Who uses the video feature and for what purpose? I would prefer that the feature be removed and the price of the camera reduced. However, I assume that there is a market for this feature and would like to know who wants it and uses it? Do pros use it; if so, for what purpose? Who else uses it and for what purpose? I am just curious. I don't expect that my preferences will change Nikon's marketing decisions. Help me understand who wants video and why. I will appreciate receiving your input.

JDT

I believe its keeping up or ahead of the competition . I would be happy with a Non video
D800 as-well .

I go back to my cellphone example , G4 , camera ,web , music , voice recognition . I just want a phone I can call people with .

Hans K.

My Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery. nikonus@nikonians.org

The big reason why some advanced amateurs and some professionals use video out of a D-SLR is because of the quality vs costs. You can obtain near feature film like optics and shallow depth of field for a fraction of the cost of these cameras and lenses. You won't get 4k video resolution out of a D-SLR (yet), but you pay 1/200th of the cost of what a digital movie camera and similar lens. When both formats are played back on a HD TV, the much higher resolution camera yields the same resolution and looks very similar to the D-SLR in terms of quality.

Some major motion pictures are using $2000 DSLR's as one time use throw away cameras for stunt use where you could never had sacrificed a "big" camera before. Now these D-SLR's can be just a blip on the budget of a big movie and they can get into tight spaces when things go crash and boom.

But the really BIG reason why DSLR-s must have video is because amateur photographers who want to shoot a little video only want to carry one piece of equipment around. If they care enough to want quality interchangeable lenses and want to shoot even limited video, they don;t want to lug around both a video and still camera. It is convergence which means convenience to the average customer. Combine this and the low light benefits that the D-SLR sensor provides over the average video camera, and people want it. Plain and simple.

"because amateur photographers who want to shoot a little video only want to carry one piece of equipment around."

How many amateurs will buy D800 or D4?????

Regards,
Wim
Explore, dream, discover!

I might!

Kind regards

G

Please feel free to visit and comment on my Nikonians gallery.

>"because amateur photographers who want to shoot a
>little video only want to carry one piece of equipment
>around."
>
>How many amateurs will buy D800 or D4?????
>
>Exactly!! Seems to me like the "marketing tail" is wagging the "practical dog" here and we're all having to pay for expensive features we won't want. Would much rather have Nikon make a D800/D4 for those of us who don't give a rip about video (perhaps the majority who would buy those cameras?) and a "D800v/D4v" version for those who do ... and charge accordingly.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I have two friends who are video professionals, one who operates a satellite uplink truck for both news networks and ESPN, and the other is documentary filmmaker. Both news organizations and documentary film makers have been using the Canon 5D for video and are very interested in this camera. Both of these people are very excited about this camera.

Picture every photographer in the field in some international hot spot. Why not have this camera on which he can capture both stills and videos? Think of every school that teaches a course in video. Think about every company or organization that wants to post high quality video promoting their product or service on their website. This is a large and growing market. Even as a solo consultant I am thinking about posting video on my website-blog.

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

Merle Fest, always wanted to go but couldn't dove tail the territory visits as it was between SE Systems February contractor show, and NSCA/NAB. NSCA finally merged with InfoComm.

Cliff Miller owns SC and Fest is his baby. He's a brilliant guitarist as well.

Nice to be able to get on that scene.

YES, video would be very cool for you, and if the board mixer is amenable get a feed to an H4N (substance bribes perhaps? Mason jar comes to mind)

Have fun Larry, excellent work BTW.

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Rob,

Thank you. You said "Cliff Miller owns SC" What is "SC?"

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

Sorry Larry,

Dyslexic, I meant SE Systems, the folks who run the sets, lights, sound at Merle Fest.

Cliff is also, when she's not on tour with Plant's gambits, Allison Krause's longtime live sound guy.

Rides on the same bus with AKUS, very interesting and fine person.

SE Systems is in Greensboro, and a smaller office/gear warehouse in Charlotte.

http://www.sesystems.com/

Thanks,

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Jim,

Take one: rolling....

Day job evaporated in 2010, after stellar sales decade, nepotism, owner's daughter was getting the boot as one of dozens of VP's in mortgage business, hollowed out my niche to make room. So be it.

Industry was vapid for lateral, up or down jobs.

Took significant risk draining savings to step into imagery full time, square one, been tagging a camera along for years across the USA on 18 weeks annually territory runs, time to kick it, familial artistic and photographic and music genes.

Made some progress, and eventually some money, shoot in Denmark, got a concert DVD cover, and CD and dozens of stills in slide show of it.

So, choice of Video? A second level of expertise. Studied script writing in college, next metamorphoses then.

The DIT and Director of the HD crew for the concert told me, go for it but do know that CS5.5 PP will take you a good year and a half to master, he was right.

Different elements, issues, and gear involved, my experience in commercial recording/editing comes in handy, but, video is an entirely different animal.

Slowly building content for eventual release in Tourist content, web, DVD and broadcast, also reach in advertisement for companies I've had long standing relationships with.

Got to start somewhere and the DSLR Video, is pretty snappy given the lens allocations we own. Bought my second (Nephew) a D7K as well, two cameras are better than one.

So, here is by example, a pitch developed for a marketing VP I know: http://www.rainbowind-photoart.com/Professional/Doyle-Dykes-Guild-Guitars-at/21334754_9jRFS8#!i=1714718280&k=P7rTGrT

We all make business decisions, and Nikon happens to be the world class glass leader, started there.

Thanks for playing,

HTH's

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

The answer depends on the age of the respondent. Young people grew up with video and speed of scene changes and view the world that way. Still photography is too slow and not expressive enough for most young people but they do use still images a lot for lifestyle shots, the rawer and less artistically polished the better for quick opportunity shots. A typical teen will have thousands of shots of themselves or friends, dozens taken everyday. But they live in a moving video world and video production is filling class seats all over the country primarily because it is now possible to make technically difficult-condition clips with relative ease with modern DSLRs. The pro and amateur video production demand for better and better cameras and accessories is driving the market more than the mature market of traditional still shooting. By adding video to the D800 and D4, there is no other feature that by itself could double sales....except video.
It likely will alter the way all media is done. In the 1990s, home and amateur level priced sound recording equipment exploded in sales and transformed music recording, killing the traditional studio based recording(my style of recording for decades). For $12000 someone in 1998 could buy some digital recorders, a 23-32 channel mixer and record their own record...usually not well but the equipment was not the limit as it had been for decades. To record prior to that, it took $500,000 or more to set up a studio to record the same song, plus a production staff of specialists numbering a dozen or so.
Now, video has suddenly become within reach of almost anyone with the interest in doing it. Most of the output is junk and not worth the bandwidth but doing it is the reason for doing. Some actually have a talent for it and the cheap gear makes them more independent of traditional production companies and the need for gigantic budgets.
There is an insatiable hunger for content by cable TV, Youtube(which has become a major advertising tool) and multimedia web so the chances of actually making a living from video production has risen a lot. These cameras are doing in the video production realm what the home recording has done to the recording industry...made it cheap and personal so anyone with an idea or thinks they have an idea can produce something, with or without talent. The industry has lost its bread and butter market of local commercials and eng to low cost newcomers but the higher end production companies try to stay a step ahead of the semipros and low end producers by pushing the technical sophistication of productions with higher and higher reliance on state of the art equipment that the masses can't afford. Recording studios tried that also but it kill them eventually because advanced from below are faster and cheaper to develop than top end that has a limited but well heeled market.
So we are seeing a shift in one more media production industry to cheap and accessible over extremely expensive and rare.
Nikon would be crazy to depend on their still photographer market, it is not growing as much as is needed to grow their company. Phone cameras are taking the bottom end, and mirrorless and compacts are taking the entry level market for DSLRs. The growth is in higher end cameras but too small a market, and video with a surging market...one where the money is not as tightly held as in still photography. Video people are thinking a D4 is dirt cheap because they are used to seeing prices 10-100 times as much. A relatively small budget production might consume several as disposable cameras for hazardous action shots for example and feel lucky their "crash cameras" were so cheap.
If you were the CEO of Nikon, would you bet your company's future on a relatively stagnant still photography segment of enthusiast cameras or add $40 in costs to create a dual market item that would double or triple sales?
I do not like video, I do not even have or want a TV but I am glad video is in the D800/D7000/D4 because the added sales of video means research funds that impact all aspects of the camera are being spent.

Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Stan, always a delight when you wax on, wax off into the morass.

Great post.

And when the semi-pros reap future work (wheat from chaff, cream rises to the top etc.) their skills are honed, and contemporaneous enough to make a living.

Yes, the changes are bringing a sense of parity, and I welcome it.

Thanks,

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Video people
>are thinking a D4 is dirt cheap because they are used to
>seeing prices 10-100 times as much. A relatively small budget
>production might consume several as disposable cameras for
>hazardous action shots for example and feel lucky their
>"crash cameras" were so cheap.

You're killing me with that one Stan.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

It's true though. I remember looking at the Varicam.. the first real accepted HD production camera that was "affordable" and it was $78k without glass. The Sony was another 10k.

I look back a few years ago at movies like 21 and Apocolypto being shot on the Panavision Genesis. Estimated cost was about $500k, but not enough were made to be sold, so you could only rent them. For the cost of a D4 per DAY. And then you had to rent the glass.

Basic film primes like the Cooke S4 and Arri Masters are $12k-$25k each. And the Angenieux zooms are in the range of $60-90k each. When you are used to paying for that kind of gear, a D800 with a 24-70 is an easy rig to put in harms way. And something like the T2i at $900 is something you let get run over in a chase scene.

I still laugh when I think about the time we hosted HBO films at my building. The lights came in a semi... a full 18-wheeler. This was for HBO films, not Warner Brothers. The costs of running a pair of Arri 35mm motion cameras cost more PER HOUR than a D800 costs. And this is why Nikon, Canon, and others are falling all over themselves to be associated with people who have those kinds of pockets. Not the guy complaining because the D800 grip costs an extra $500.

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>It's true though.

I don't doubt it. Can you just give me my moment of silence as I stop to think of all the poor smashed D4s.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

I've never been on a Hollywood (or HBO!) set, nor do I have any video experience.

But I can easily believe this. Look at any movie or TV show, especially how the actors (and foreground!) are lit during night shots or noontime shots. (to say nothing of how the great cinematographers manipulate lighting)

That's serious lighting right there, and it takes more than a few speedlights.......

Cheers,

Marc

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"90% of my best life's work could have been made with a manual body, a 24mm lens, and a telephoto zoom in the 80-200 range"
- Galen Rowell
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice one Stan, bored tonight, then I found your post

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Stan, I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head. It's about getting Nikons into the hands of as many people as possible, and if video capability helps do that, so be it.

Nikon is now marketing to a group of photographers who have never loaded a roll of film into a camera. The customer has to get what he/she wants. As a D300 user, I think the D800 would be an absolutely fantastic camera with which to make photographs.

Making the camera as versatile as possible is probably a good thing.

James

Quote> The pro and amateur video production demand for
>better and better cameras and accessories is driving the
>market more than the mature market of traditional still
>shooting. By adding video to the D800 and D4, there is no
>other feature that by itself could double sales....except
>video.
>>Stan<Quote<<<

I think those that think eliminating Video would result in a lower price camera are kidding themselves.
The D800 is only as low as it is because Nikon plans on selling lots of them to Videos shooters.
And if they do, they will have more money for R&D with much of it spent on the Still aspects of their next cameras.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

You've already gotten some excellent responses. I will respond as a filmmaker.

1. The Canon 5Dmk2 was the first professional DSLR to be taken seriously for video purposes. I estimate that Canon probably tripled sales of this camera due to it's video features. The runaway success of that camera emboldened Canon to put video on every DSLR they make. Each camera brings something different to the table. Whether it be full frame, or 1/3 stop ISOs, or articulating screens, or sub $800 price tags. There is something for everyone.

2. We have had several people mention DSLR use for crash cams in Hollywood film. That is certainly true, but it marginalizes the use of these cameras. So I will offer a few uses that some may not know about. The first was that the season ending episode of House in 2010 was shot on a 5D. This huge event in our market signaled a shift away from seeing these cameras as toys and into the realm of real production tools. What many are unaware of is that the 5Dmk2 had been on broadcast TV for some time already. On the set of "24". They were shooting with them on every show. And the 5D made its theatrical debut in the first Ironman film. They were used in several scenes including as car cams for the racetrack scene in Monaco.

3. There is a film about to come to your local megaplex called "Act of Valor", shot by cinematographer Shane Hurlbut. He has long been a supporter of these cameras, and belongs to the very prestigious ASC, which is the professional association for cinematographers here in the US. What is unique about this film is that it was shot nearly entirely on Canon 5Ds. A full, feature length film, with a real Hollywood budget, shot on numerous Canon 5Dmk2 cameras.

4. Nikon started this revolution with the D90. And then proceeded to let it die on the vine. Canon took up the reins has has been beating Nikon ragged with it. The D7000 was Nikon's first legitimate shot across the bow. The D800/D4 are signaling a shift at Nikon to embrace the video market. I can promise you this... Nikon will sell more D800s to videographers than they do to still shooters. The 5D, 7D, and T2i have shown this in the market.

If Nikon is to survive as a company, still shooters had better be encouraging MORE video features because in short order, that will become Nikon's primary DSLR market. By 2015, video will be as integral in a Nikon DSLR as a motor drive is.

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Also,

Like Crazy, was shot on DSLR's and bought for release by a big studio, so far, broke even (4 million take) but it's a feature, twenty something content.


Hurlbut's article here: http://www.hdvideopro.com/technique/hd-dslr-filmmaking/master-tools.html


Oh, and a comment last year at NAB , THE worlds largest industry trade event, in Vegas, not the consumer show, the broadcast one, it's where one goes to buy a remote truck with matching color coordinated helicopters, comment: "There are more DSLR video enabled cameras sold in one day, then every high-end camera in these buildings, over an entire year"

Moire to follow no doubt.

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Interesting. What does all this tell us about the future of the companies making expensive video cams and lenses?

New York Nikoner
My Nikonians Gallery

"Insanity is repeating the same process expecting a different result" Albert Einstein

NAS can go into remission, but, it is incurable.

>If Nikon is to survive as a company, still shooters had better
>be encouraging MORE video features because in short order,
>that will become Nikon's primary DSLR market. By 2015, video
>will be as integral in a Nikon DSLR as a motor drive is.

I "get" the why for making video DSLR's and fine, let Nikon survive as a company but if they have the frame designed and in manufacture, and the "innards" for still photography as well, is it so hard to just market a camera for those of us that have no need, or desire for video? Why are those of us in that market forced to pay for things we will never use?

Call it a D4-v or something. I just want a nice sensor, decent ISO range andthe other nice photo features. Even if you only save $50, its a savings. And the menus and everything else are less cluttered.

End of rant....cashed in my 2 cents......

-----------------
Wally

>I "get" the why for making video DSLR's and fine,
>let Nikon survive as a company but if they have the frame
>designed and in manufacture, and the "innards" for
>still photography as well, is it so hard to just market a
>camera for those of us that have no need, or desire for video?
>Why are those of us in that market forced to pay for things we
>will never use?

You are not paying more. You are paying LESS.

I'll give you a clear and recent example. Nikon has 2 versions of the D800. They KNOW the market for the D800E is going to be MUCH smaller. Does that camera cost LESS than the one with the filter? No. It costs more even though it's missing a feature, simply because the market for it is smaller.

Removing the video or selling a version without it, would push the price up because the market becomes far smaller. And then the loyalists would be up in ARMS about why they have to pay so much more for a camera without video.

>Call it a D4-v or something. I just want a nice sensor, decent
>ISO range andthe other nice photo features. Even if you only
>save $50, its a savings. And the menus and everything else are
>less cluttered.

Everything you want in a nice stills camera, makes it a better video DSLR. That's rather the point. I hear you on the menu being less cluttered though. What I would like to see is there be an "unlock" feature in the menu. If you don't shoot video, you see nothing. Flip the toggle, and the video specific features show up. That would cost Nikon nothing to do, and would keep the menus more tidy.

>End of rant....cashed in my 2 cents......

I bought my D7000 because it had 16MP and it had video capability. I bought my D3s camreas because they are fast...without a moment's thought about their video capability.

Horses for courses.

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Let's say a UFO lands in New York City. Shoot video and shoot stills. You will make more selling video to CNN then stills to the NY Times.

Video in a DSLR is all well and good; however, I wish that it were an option just like the D800/D800E has the choice of AA. I currently have a D7000 and have upgraded from a D90. In two years, I never used the video feature on the D90. I used the video feature on the D7000 once and the audio was overridden by the focusing noise of my Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D. If I want to shoot video I use my Sony HDR-FX7, which I have had since 2008. I can also shoot stills with my HDR-FX7 but I do not, that is what my D7000 is for.

I also notice while watching the NFL post season games, that not one end zone photographer had video paraphernalia attached to their DSLRs. I thought that video was what all professional photographers were turning to.

As far as professional videographers making movies with a DSLR, it is not the DSLR that makes the movie it is the professional behind the camera that makes the difference.

Gary

----
Gary

Visit MY Nikon Gallery: http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php?cat=13361&ppuser=0

>Video in a DSLR is all well and good; however, I wish that it
>were an option just like the D800/D800E has the choice of AA.

Unfortunately, unlike an AA filter, adding video to a camera requires separate processing chips, additional ports for both input and output, and a plethora of other things. It's not trivial to offer as an "option".

>I currently have a D7000 and have upgraded from a D90. In two
>years, I never used the video feature on the D90. I used the
>video feature on the D7000 once and the audio was overridden
>by the focusing noise of my Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D.

Which is why in filmmaking you don't actually use the audio from the camera for the real film. Similar to shooting RAW+JPG. The JPG is a good proxy for the RAW. The in-camera audio facilitates the process in post production where the in-camera audio is synced to the real audio recorded separately.

>If I want to
>shoot video I use my Sony HDR-FX7, which I have had since
>2008. I can also shoot stills with my HDR-FX7 but I do not,
>that is what my D7000 is for.

Awesome. How's that FX7 work in a scenario where your D7000 is at ISO 1600? How's the DOF on the FX7 when you are trying to separate your subject from the background?

>I thought that video was what all professional
>photographers were turning to.

Nope, some just turn into grumpy old people.

>As far as professional videographers making movies with a
>DSLR, it is not the DSLR that makes the movie it is the
>professional behind the camera that makes the difference.

Quite true. So why aren't you taking photos with a Brownie?

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hey P,

Ummmm...yikes and ouch, but I am chuckling.

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

PerroneFord:

“Unfortunately, unlike an AA filter, adding video to a camera requires separate processing chips, additional ports for both input and output, and a plethora of other things. It's not trivial to offer as an "option".”

It is less than trivial, as Nikon has been making one (D700) for several years. It would be great if Nikon keeps the D700 going for those that have no interest in video.

Gary

----
Gary

Visit MY Nikon Gallery: http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php?cat=13361&ppuser=0

I'll try to put this as simply as I can. Still shooting is a dying market. Nikon can no longer afford to offer high end cameras like the D700 without video features because you guys simply don't buy enough of them.

By doubling or tripling it's footprint Nikon is going to be able to continue to offer these cameras at a price we can afford to pay. You know who still has a business model built around still shooting only? Medium format. Have you priced a digital 6x4.5 body lately?

So let me ask this in all seriousness. What is the video capability on your D7000 stopping you from doing as a still shooter? Is it affecting you in some way? Limiting you? If not, just ignore it. I have video capability in both of my D3s, and my D7000. I've never used it. I could, but I have not. It doesn't get in my way, nor does it limit me as a still shooter.

Your solution of simply not putting video in the cameras means Nikon have to charge me more for my cameras. I sincerely hope they do whatever they can to spread out R&D costs over a wider purchase base and keep my cameras affordable. Regardless if it adds a couple of buttons or ports to my camera.

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Gary, can't find the thread just yet but the VP of Nikon, was being interviewed and said as long as there is a demand for the D700, they will continue to build them.

HTH's

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

and some turn into sarcastic middle age my the only valid one type.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thanks Gary,

The end zone crew would have no need for video, the NFL likely had two or three dozen HD Cameras trained on every moment and limits for actual use of live footage are I'm guessing pretty ironclad.

The video "paraphernalia" doesn't need to be on the camera, and I have and, have used the same lens for live video, because the audio was louder than the lens noise (SPL from the amps and PA) it did not impact that evenings shots although we did have an H4n zoom running in the room.

No one implied that every Pro photo shooter is "turning to HDslr", but, I bought the D90 for video capabilities as well as stills and it was cutting my teeth but fun, but it is .mov and not h.264 which Perrone points out as well, Canon rubbed Nikon's nose in it for a few years.

When the D7K was released, we ended up with two of those in our kit, plus I have the D3S which got me into some jobs because of it's superior non flash capabilities.

The video? We shot ad lib at a friends wedding simply because an actual "videographer" on top of us, and another wedding shooter, was out of their budget, so I included it in our cut rate price for candids and they ended up using the edited short version (28 minutes) as a Christmas DVD instead of cards last December, and THAT was my pleasure although the editing, in no way was covered by the money we did get paid, so what, these kids deserved it.


Yes, these are tools, and seriously Gary anyone who is shooting video on Nikon etc., will not rely on the on camera audio for a shoot, given that a decent shotgun mic with a shock mount to isolate vibrations and focus the sound capture out away from the camera, are dirt cheap. The camera audio is used to hand synch, or Plural Eyes synch the footage, or, like my DP pal, put an app on the iPhone which is a slate, white frame flash, time code, light meter and does the dishes too.

Sorry you haven't had the need for video, but Perrone is correct, the capabilities of having both still and video is a shift in design, as Stan also alludes, and that or those changes in design will benefit both camps.

I agree with your point about the creative person behind the camera, and that also would be implicit.

Thanks for the perspective, it (HDslr) of course isn't everyone's cup of tea.

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I'll add to the already excellent responses, that video is not adding cost to your camera.

Once you had an LCD on the back of the camera, it was not a cost adder to implement Live View. Once you had Live View, you were already recording movies. Nikon realized this and the rest is history.

So, removing movie mode to save cost is like saying remove the LCD to save cost, which I personally would prefer Nikon doesn't do. I don't want them to remove Live View either, as it allows me to set focus more accurately than ever before possible on an SLR.

The only concern might be that engineering resources are being poured into movie mode, but with the steady march forward in sensor tech, I don't seriously believe this is a real problem.

Personally, I shoot still images semi-professionally and use the video on more of a hobby level. I like the option for video and don't believe any DSLR a worse still camera for having it.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

Maybe someone else has said it here too. But many photojournalists who were previously still-only shooters, are being called on to add video capability -- even at a newspaper -- for the media web site. For awhile it has been increasingly common to see newspaper phototogs pull out a point-and-shoot with basic video capability to shoot video to post on the paper's web site. Years ago in TV, I occasionally heard it said that a good still photographer was able to quickly become an excellent videographer because he or she used frames, leading lines, etc., in their composition. They could use the same ideas and add motion, becoming excellent videographers. I guess we're going to see now!

In many ways -- as much as I dislike it at age 67 -- I may have to join the crowd if I want to continue to feed at the trough. Years ago I learned that if I was resistant to cell phones, I'd best not wait for a call! A new lesson may be being taught as we watch!

Finally -- anyone who has not interest in video in their DSLR -- don't use it!

Alan
Waterloo, IL, USA
www.proimagingmidamerica.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Alan, 60 is the new 40, get used to it.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thanks to everyone for your responses. The use of video by photojournalists is easy to understand. However, I am surprised to learn that professional videographers use DSLRs for video. I had assumed for those purposes a camcorder (if that is still the correct term) would be used and that such a video machine would be inexpensive and produce results that are superior to those of the DSLRs. Is that not the case? It is obvious that I am not currently shooting video, although somewhere in my closet I have a camcorder that I used while my daughter was growing up.

I too assumed that Nikon knows its market and that there is a market for the video. I did not question that; however, I have been surprised that the market wanted video in DSLRs (as opposed to less expensive and less sophisticated cameras being used by the younger crowd who, as has been observed, do like to shoot some video). As for the proposition that the addition of video not adding to the cost, I doubt that that is acccurate. Also it seems that it also adds a bit to the weight of the camera. However, that is a pointless debate because the marketing gurus have determined that the market wants video; that is why we shall have video in our DSLRs.

JDT

I'll try to address some of this. I've made these comments in more detail in other threads, so I'll be succint here.


>Thanks to everyone for your responses. The use of video by
>photojournalists is easy to understand. However, I am
>surprised to learn that professional videographers use DSLRs
>for video.

They use them because DSLRs fill a niche previously ignored by movie camera manufacturers.

>I had assumed for those purposes a camcorder (if
>that is still the correct term) would be used and that such a
>video machine would be inexpensive and produce results that
>are superior to those of the DSLRs.

Prior to the Nikon D90, movie cameras fell into a few categories.

1. Basic consumer. These had 1/4" CCDs. DOF was measured in miles, and ISO (not called that on these cameras) was limited to about 200 ISO.

2. Semi-Pro camera. These were generally 1/3" CCD and ranged in price from $2k-$12k. DOF was measured in yards. ISO good to about 400 or so.

3. Pro 2/3". This is what you saw when your local TV station came out. Generally shoulder or tripod mounted. ISO good to about 800, cost $22k to $85k plus lenses.

4. Digital film cameras. These had APS-C sized sensors because they were emulating the size of the 35mm film gates (S35). Typically ranging in price from $125k to $1M with lenses.

Now, you drop the 5Dmk2 into this mix. With a sensor LARGER than even the best pro cameras, ISO performance better than cameras costing half a million dollars, lenses which cost in the hundreds to a few thousand dollars instead of your usual $20k per prime, and it costs less for the body, than you're spending on food for your crew per day. It would be fair to say that Canon did not have the production capacity to meet demand when this revolution started. It has not slowed down. It has increased exponentially.


>Is that not the case?

Nothing could be further from the truth. What traditional film cameras DID offer was sharper images, manual controls, better codecs, ports to record video and audio off the body, etc. These features are slowly making their way into DSLRs. What is exciting, is for the first time since the D90, Nikon has beaten Canon to the market with a MAJOR enhancement and it's going to put Nikon in a very good place.

The rabid demand you are seeing for the d800 isn't still shooters. You need only look at the tepid response from Nikonians to the D800 where it's most natural set of buyers (the D700 group) in large part are uninterested. It's the video market responding to the 5Dmk2 killer. And if this thing shoots video at least as well as the 5D Nikon will need to have separate production facilities to meet demand. Hollywood will buy them by the truckload.


>I too assumed that Nikon knows its market and that there is a
>market for the video. I did not question that; however, I have
>been surprised that the market wanted video in DSLRs (as
>opposed to less expensive and less sophisticated cameras being
>used by the younger crowd who, as has been observed, do like
>to shoot some video).

Nikon did not know the market, nor did they react to it well. Canon on the other hand, recognized the market, responded to it will and had all but crushed Nikon in this market. Think about how fast changes happen in DSLRs from a still shooter's perspective. Imagine Nikon sitting on their hands and not releasing any DSLRs with improved performance for 4 years. Well, in the video realm this is EXACTLY what happened. And Canon was releasing new models as fast as they could put a case around an improved sensor.


>As for the proposition that the addition
>of video not adding to the cost, I doubt that that is
>accurate.

It's accurate to say that it technically DOES add to the cost. But that cost is able to be spread out so thinly it hardly matters. If you have a camera you sell to 100 people for $500, and you add a $100 feature to it and sell to that same audience, everyone needs to pay an extra dollar for the company to break even. However, if that added feature means that now 1000 or 10000 people will buy it, you can charge LESS for the camera which makes it desirable to a far larger audience, and you still make a large profit because your margins are growing from volume, not increased price per unit. This is fundamental economics.

The D800 came in about $1k less than everyone thought. There is a very good reason for this. The D4 undercuts the video capable Canon by a large margin. At least if Canon stick to their announced price. There is a reason for that as well.

>Also it seems that it also adds a bit to the weight
>of the camera. However, that is a pointless debate because the
>marketing gurus have determined that the market wants video;
>that is why we shall have video in our DSLRs.

Go pick up a Canon T3i. The weight these components add is negligible. That entire camera weighs less than my 50mm/1.8.

-P

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Unlike what one posted, I do not think the desire for video is age dependent . I am approaching 52 and the pending D800 excites me not only for the 36MP but equally the video. This is coming from someone who has never owned a video camera nor really had any desire to get into video.

I am embarking on a still photography project which will ultimately hang in a a gallery. Now I have had local serious photographers who have volunteered to help me out on future projects even with the knowledge that any help I would need would not be them being behind a camera.

Prior to the announcement of the D800, I got the notion of another photographer shooting candids during this project and these candids would be displayed on a large LCD screen at the gallery kind of rotating through. With the announcement of the D800, I am now thinking of a combination of these candid stills and video snippets of the participants with intention being like a "special feature - behind the scenes" kind of thing you find on a DVD of a movie. People like a peek of what went on during the production of a project...ie.."the making of". I found this out with my last major project.

Picture this. You have large artistic still prints on the gallery wall with this "featurette" (candid stills and video snippets of the people I shot) playing on a LCD back in a corner. Getting the candids for this featurette is what a volunteer photographer and perhaps some video snippets from the shoots. I will concentrate on the exhibit stills and the more formal video snippets of the participants.

Of course it will be me editing this featurette that will be showing in conjuction with the stills at the gallery opening. A different DVD could be developed telling the story of the project combining the stills, the candids, the candid video from the shoots and more formal video of the participants and could be sold. People do not only like the stills of my projects but they like learning the story behind the whole project.

I did not need a new camera to shoot the stills or the candids that was originally planned as a slide show but with the announcement of the D800, I would be adding yet another element to the project and that is video and the potential of this excites me on a creative level. Some could say..."Mel...why not get a D7000 for the video side?" or even suggest to get a separate video cam. Well aside from the video aspect, I was never to motivated to get a D7000 and I cannot use nor benefit from my Nikon lenses if I got a separate video camera. Why would I want to get (and haul around) two entirely different cameras and the needed accessories for both when I can do it all with a single camera? The D800 brings not only the video aspect but higher MP files as well that I was looking for when it came to my next DSLR.

I am an old traditional photographer but on a creative level, I am excited about incorporating video with my traditional photography for my next project. Just my thoughts on the subject of "video".

Mel
An Opinionated Old Curmudgeon from Virginia


Website - www.meltalley.com
Blog - http://blog.meltalley.com
Facebook - www.facebook.com/mel.talley
Twitter - @meltalley

>I am an old traditional photographer but on a creative level,
>I am excited about incorporating video with my traditional
>photography for my next project. Just my thoughts on the
>subject of "video".


Fair warning. Shooting video on a DSLR at any level you'd want to show to an audience is NOT something to be taken lightly. You will be manually focusing, there are no focus aids, the DOF is quite shallow, and camera bumps and movements are magnified 10 fold on large screens. Traditional film or digital cinema cameras have quite a lot of mass, and as such are less susceptible to small bumps. Not so with the DSLR. A gentle breeze will cause the video issues to rise to unusable levels.

Best of luck with your project.

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Perrone...thanks for the warning. I am well aware with the challenges that lay ahead for me whether shooting or editing (which is very important). Luckily, I do have a brother-in-law who is a Professional Videographer who has been on the staff of AARP for many years doing their studio and location shooting. While he does not know first hand DSLR shooting, he does know freelancers he works with who do using Canons. He will be a great resource for me embarking in this new journey.

Mel
An Opinionated Old Curmudgeon from Virginia


Website - www.meltalley.com
Blog - http://blog.meltalley.com
Facebook - www.facebook.com/mel.talley
Twitter - @meltalley

Excellent!

DSLR video, particularly on a full frame camera is nothing to be taken lightly. It's good that you will have experienced guidance through this. I'll give you a quick taste of what lay ahead.

The full size frame of a DSLR is similar in size to an IMAX/Vistavision frame. In reading American Cinematographer about the shooting of "The Dark Knight" I remember the cinematorgrapher's comments that they were having quite a lot of focusing trouble. Mind you, this guy is one of the foremost cinematographers alive todsy. His comments noted that at typical apertures, it was impossible to get both eyes and ears in focus at the same time.

What most people fail to realize is that the FX cameras need MORE light on set than the APS-C cameras. And this is because of DOF. To get a DOF where you can actually keep a subject in focus at anything beyond 24m, you have to light to 2-3x the level you would for APS-C. I faced this first hand on a film I shot a few years ago, and had a DEVIL of a time convincing the director to just let me do my job and light the scene properly. He wanted a "dark and forboding scene, and I was giving him something that looked to the eye like a daytime baseball game! By the time we got through post, he got what he wanted and it was gorgeous, but there were some rather tense discussions on set!

Given my druthers, I'd shoot with a DX body any day, any time, over FX. Well the only exception being where I was doing 1-shots (single person in the frame) and they were static and I was on a tripod with the camera. Anything else is just a royal pain in the rear.

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I embarked on my photography when I was 10, I'm 61 now and like many have seen all the technological break throughs in photography. I have had a D90 and now a D7000 (also a D700)and with both video enabled cameras I have never ever even turned the video mode on, stupidly I suppose not even to check it works in that mode! As one can tell I am not interested in dSLR video However, that said the technology is there and many derive much pleasure and in some cases income via weddings etc. using video streams as that added extra.

I do not believe the cost of inclusion was financially exhaustive and merely expanded the existing technology. So, for those who want it great and perhaps it's an advantage to use the camera and lenses in a different way. Something new for a change. For those who don't need it, we will just ignore the feature, but of course we all have the option to change our mind at any time

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

>I do not believe the cost of inclusion was financially
>exhaustive and merely expanded the existing technology. So,
>for those who want it great and perhaps it's an advantage to
>use the camera and lenses in a different way. Something new
>for a change. For those who don't need it, we will just ignore
>the feature, but of course we all have the option to change
>our mind at any time
>
>Richard

I started my photography in the 70s on my father's rangefinder without a working meter. I too have watched the progress of technology in these cameras and it has been amazing.

I three Nikon's with video capability. I have used none of them in that mode. I am fully aware of what they can and cannot do. Oddly, while I was shooting a softball game a couple of weeks ago, I had a remote camera set up. One of the players asked me after the game if I had any video... I got that dumb look on my face because I know I COULD have done it, but hadn't.

Imagine our world without moving images. The technology in a D7000, and the images it produces would have been unobtainable 4 years ago for under $100k. Absolutely could NOT get a DX sized sensor in a camera under $100k.

We have lightning in a bottle, and it's just sad to me to hear people asking if they could simply have the camera for $50 cheaper without it. To me it's like buying a Porsche and asking for a transmission with only 3 gears because you never go over 70. The entire car EXISTS in it's current state because of it's abilities beyond 70. And you need not use those extra gears if you don't need them.

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Pretty much what I said. Each to their own and those that want will use it, those that don't won't.

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Mel,

Sorry but when was that shoot? How are we going to tag along and take imagery, video or stills, as you execute your behind the camera moves? Might need to solicit another D700, D800 or D4 owner to be sure and get all of the takes!

Posted in complete support and or jest.

These types of edits are de rigueur anymore with content, so point taken.

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Sorry but when was that shoot? How are we going to tag along
>and take imagery, video or stills, as you execute your behind
>the camera moves?

Rob...no shoots have been planned yet. Just in the planning process. Heck my last major project, I had some shoots that some would have paid to assisted on because of the subject matter. .... Nikonians would NEVER be asked to assist! They would be too busy telling me how wrong my technique is, how I don't understand photography, how my equipment is not up to snuff, etc.

Mel
An Opinionated Old Curmudgeon from Virginia


Website - www.meltalley.com
Blog - http://blog.meltalley.com
Facebook - www.facebook.com/mel.talley
Twitter - @meltalley

Not me, I go out with my brother the trained in photography sibling and my works in the business DP friend and pick their brains but ultimately, shoot for the moment as best as I am able.

Owning by now (Rolliflex, POS Nikons and D90 previously)a D3S and a D7K doesn't hurt and yes, over a dozen Nikon/Nikor primes, AF's and high-end glass from the 60's on down.

With framing and composition chops, (seems logical in the viewfinder) I hold my own with the other folks but, I wouldn't dream of criticizing your ability or choice of technique. Just may not be in the Roanoke vicinity or elsewhere soon enough to help you out.

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I belong to a camera club with over forty members, approximately half of which shoot Nikons. I do not know a single person who frequently shoots any video. Most never do, including the non-Nikon shooters. I too would relish a lower priced camera that was just a camera, especially a lower priced full-frame that would accept all of my old Nikkor glass. Until one comes along or all the prices on used mid-level cameras comes down I will not buy another DSLR. I will stick to my older film Nikons and my medium format gear.-
abwretired

Hot topic - lots of people (at least on photography boards) saying "WTF is the D4/D800 so expensive? I wish they could lower the price by taking out video! Where's my high-ISO D700 replacement? Where's my cheap FF camera?" And there are a lot of good posts here - PerroneFord and Stan in particular.

I also doubt that, were video capability "taken out", the D800 would be that much cheaper. My impression is that it's not that hard to add video recording capability, and even the support for things like high-spec codecs costs very little on a per-unit basis.

Moreover, Nikon has to sell 100,000s (perhaps millions) of each camera model per year. I really can't imagine a stills-only camera - were such thing even technologically sensible - would sell in sufficient quantities. (especially if film/TV studios are willing to buy up so many SLRs as minor expenses in a project's overall budget)

I also don't see a cheaper FF camera coming - see Thom Hogan's recent post on this. Bottom line: sensors are really expensive, especially when you think of it not in terms of "how much does an FX sensor cost over DX" but in terms of the broader costs that difference makes. A $2000 FX camera won't be profitable. I also believe the D700 cost about $3000 (inflation and exchange rate adjusted) when released. I really see the next $2000 camera as the DX D400 (which will probably be an outstanding camera).

Finally, I just finished looking at the work of one NPS photographer, Ami Vitale, when I came upon this thread. Her thoughts on video are fascinating from a "who uses it and why" perspective - this is more than just movie studios, or for journalists who need to feed the TV/youtube monster. Even without seeing her portfolio, her one paragraph discussion of video's creative possibilities would lead me to judge that she's a top-flight photographer.

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/als-morning-meeting/99176/how-still-photographers-turn-to-video-using-a-single-camera/

Marc (who doesn't shoot video)

ETA: I didn't mean to single out the previous poster.

Cheers,

Marc

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"90% of my best life's work could have been made with a manual body, a 24mm lens, and a telephoto zoom in the 80-200 range"
- Galen Rowell
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Moreover, Nikon has to sell 100,000s (perhaps millions) of
>each camera model per year. I really can't imagine a
>stills-only camera - were such thing even technologically
>sensible - would sell in sufficient quantities. (especially
>if film/TV studios are willing to buy up so many SLRs as minor
>expenses in a project's overall budget)

For giggles I am going to give folks an idea of what kind of money the big boys are tossing around camera wise. There is a small digital cinema company called RED. They have revolutionized the digital cinema camera market by releasing cameras that record at 4K or higher. Essentially the frame size of the D3s with the ISO performance of the D200. THeir newest camera is the RED Epic. It writes 5K files. Essentially the equivalent of the D7000. But it can write them at 120fps. The camera costs $58k or so without lenses, and they cannot make them fast enough right now to meet demand.

Upon getting a glimpse at them, Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings) ordered 30 for his little upcoming film called "The Hobbit".

http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/28/peter-jackson-nabs-thirty-red-epic-cameras-to-film-the-hobbit-t/


I just read last night that James Cameron (Titanic, Avatar) has ordered FIFTY RED Epics...

http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/25/james-cameron-picks-up-50-red-epic-ms-high-fives-peter-jackson/

These aren't studio purchases. These are individuals buying. Imagine Warner Brothers saying they were going to Standardize on RED Epics and Nikon D800s for studio productions.


Nikon would be absolutely out of their minds to not court this new market.

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

For the tally - I have video capability in my dslr and have for the last 15 months and have not used it. But, I have a cam corder that I haven't used either.

I switched from video to still about 5 years ago after my daughter graduated from high school. I went from wanting to see the game; showing the event; to wanting to show a scene in detail without it moving out of the frame.

Personally, I want to see a scene, an expression, an instant. I want to place it on the wall in a big format. I want to take joy in it again and again. I want to share what gives me joy.

that's still.

video may have commercial appeal; Hollywood (or wherever) production capabilities; documentary and story telling value. But, I have to choose right now. I choose to concentrate on a single frame at a time.

>Personally, I want to see a scene, an expression, an instant.
>I want to place it on the wall in a big format. I want to
>take joy in it again and again. I want to share what gives me
>joy.
>
>that's still.

Is it?

Suppose you could record 24 images per second, at the frame size of the D7000, and with it's dynamic range. Then you could shoot your video, and you could extract any still image from any moment you liked?

That is not pie in the sky. That camera exists today. And it's called a RED Scarlet. And it's $10k. And your Nikon glass fits it.

THAT is where the market is going. It is neither still, nor video. It is both. And in 5 years, it will be available for the price of the D800.

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Suppose you could record 24 images per second, at the frame
>size of the D7000, and with it's dynamic range. Then you

My thoughts exactly. My guess is that we are headed to cameras where there will not be much difference in between video and still shooting. It will be full FX frames captured at 30 frames per second, all under full control, and in real time to the memory card. So I don't even think the question of video or not is sound.

Personally, I am not a big user of video on my Nikon bodies but have shot a few dozen of kids and relatives (some who have passed away) and cherish these clips.

Peter

>Suppose you could record 24 images per second, at the frame
>size of the D7000, and with it's dynamic range. Then you
>could shoot your video, and you could extract any still image
>from any moment you liked?
>
>That is not pie in the sky. That camera exists today. And
>it's called a RED Scarlet. And it's $10k. And your Nikon
>glass fits it.
>
>THAT is where the market is going. It is neither still, nor
>video. It is both. And in 5 years, it will be available for
>the price of the D800.

I hope not. The thought of trying to find the shot I want in and amongst hundreds of thousands of frames is nauseating. For you it's fascinating, and technologically it's fascinating, but for amateur shooters with day jobs, it's just a lot of hard work. Video editing on the consumer desktop is still, on average, a lousy experience.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

>I hope not. The thought of trying to find the shot I want in
>and amongst hundreds of thousands of frames is nauseating. For
>you it's fascinating, and technologically it's fascinating,
>but for amateur shooters with day jobs, it's just a lot of
>hard work. Video editing on the consumer desktop is still, on
>average, a lousy experience.
>

LOL! You need to read my rant on people calling the D800 too slow. I hear ya on this. I shoot the D3s primarily for sport, but generally keep my bursts to 2 or 3 frames. When I get home from a game, I am trying to cull 800-1500 images down to 50 for delivery.

I wouldn't want to do it from 24 or 30fps. HOWEVER, there are times I'd love to have it. I think Mr. Hanishiro (I hope I got that right) has a video about how he set up multiple cameras, and synced them just right to get 30fps for the Barry Bonds record homerun shot. It's fascinating and it took them DAYS to get the sync right. They could have hired a RED and done the same thing, but I digress.

I guess I am just from the camp that I like having capable tools even if I don't always need the features. It is a RARE instance where I use the 9fps of my D3s. But when I have a parent hire me to get compelling photos of their pitcher, I don't have 3 innings to get it. I have to get it in a couple at-bats and then move on. If I was shooting for my own entertainment, that would be one thing. But shooting on contract, I have obligations to meet.

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

no - I am not interested in a 24 fps machine gun. I don't want to spend the time that a large format film camera takes - but I don't want to go through 50-500 frames to find 'the shot' either.

yes, I did that on a small scale (with digital video) in the past.


And, with all respect to people who know more about it than i, but wasn't the question:
who uses it?

not - can I convince you to use something you don't think you need?

>And, with all respect to people who know more about it than i,
>but wasn't the question:
>who uses it?
>

It was, and I think that has been fleshed out.

>not - can I convince you to use something you don't think you
>need?

Quite right. Nor was it about how Nikon has erred by trying to win much needed footprint back conceded to Canon for the past 4 years. But the conversation seems to have steered that way once the original question had been answered.

I think those who see utility in, or even use the video in these cameras could frankly care less if other people use it or not. What is frustrating is the notion that somehow Nikon belongs to still only shooters and everyone else shouldn't also get the things they would like to have. Regardless if those things help the company, regardless if it makes the camera a better product.

Nikon has a camera that answers every complaint I've heard about the D800. It is not saddled with useless video features, it does not require fancy new lenses, it does not shoot at a paltry 4fps, it has terrific low light ability, it will not require expensive new computer upgrades. And amazingly they are a terrific bargain right now.

That camera is the D700.

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Nikon has a camera that answers every complaint I've heard
>about the D800. It is not saddled with useless video
>features, it does not require fancy new lenses, it does not
>shoot at a paltry 4fps, it has terrific low light ability, it
>will not require expensive new computer upgrades. And
>amazingly they are a terrific bargain right now.
>
>That camera is the D700.

. . . which seems now to be discontinued unfortunately. No direct successor so far. Good thing the D700 is such a great camera. Too bad Nikon (and all the other makers) are ignoring the 12mp full frame, still-only sweet spot AFAIC.

My prediction about six months ago was that Nikon's disaster recovery focus would be pro bodies well ahead of the July 2012 Olympics. That seems to have happened. I wasn't the only one making that prediction at the time. Hopefully, a direct D700 successor is still in the works, but I'm afraid it might be a 'lite' version of the D800 with far too many pixels for easy handheld shooting, and all sorts of superb video functionality I'll never use.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

Well, since Perrone has made a few more points about still captures, let me add that I will continue to use the D3S as a still camera, in tandem and contemporaneously with the D7K, and with the D800/D4 I am in line for. The D7K may be retired, to soon to tell.

Why, because there is always that sensory magic, glint in eye etc. which is the root of shooting a still camera live.

As artists, I, we, you are tuned to the movement of a singer, player etc, and share that joy...'yall who are not interested in video.

I also will continue to create imagery, not just "take" photographs with a DSLR.

My main focus is landscapes, then non-flash venue, based upon the two plus years visiting these forums, I certainly hold my own.

MUCH of the beauty we all share in this Craft is timing, fiat, luck of the moment all coalesced around defined parameters, subject, light, technique, framing, composition and so on. Unless it's perfunctory sets, studios, lights and so on, yet that as well has a strong element of timing.

For me, to limit my work to still imagery at this point in time is not in the cards. I have a business background, advertisements, copy writer, developing products, artist liaison, marketing and sales executive chops and see no reason to limit my self interest now, to being just a still image maker.

The classes I've sat through in college, and the ability to render storyline and scripted work, which I also understand, preclude me from drawing a line in the sand.

It's a personal choice.

By example, I'm not now nor ever have been in the cult of Apple products, based simply on the price of admission back in the sequencing MIDI days, and for much less of a cost was able to stand my ground (build my own PC) even while the derision (always a put down but in jest, sort of) of my peers made me second tier in their Pro user sensibilities.

There were always alternatives, and now the INTEL CPU's and Nvidia GPU's have rendered iJOBS hardware as eclipsed, in a little over ten years.

Even with that admonition, no matter what, it's of no relevance to anyone here but me, and by no means dismisses any of the co-opted innovations of that iJOBS ethos (re-engineer GUI, MP3, Touch Screen etc. not invented by Steve) but, I simply choose to NEVER use that brand for other personally compelling reasons.


So, the rest of all 'yall, CHOOSE to never use Nikon's best, industry leading innovative HDslr cameras for stills, because the FX format isn't solely on-board, so...buy the D3S.

I was in one of the Samy's stores last year and the sales crew at that counter were Pro-Canon guys, but they admitted that for now (then) that the D3S was the best DSLR camera on the planet. Medium format excluded.

I know, I know, it has video on it but read the post above about Amy Vitale and see why HDslr does make sense, to a few of us anyway.

Thanks for the discussion, regardless.

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I bet several years ago, we would have been having similar discussions about over the move from monochrome to colour (color for my friends across the pond).

I use a D700 and a D90, have two consumer video cameras, and have hardly used the video capabilities at all.

I am beginning to wonder if I am missing a trick.

Sorely tempted by the D800 for the 100% frame alone - even though I have previously stated publicly that I did not desire one.

Ah well, marvellous mind expanding thread.

Kind regards

G

Please feel free to visit and comment on my Nikonians gallery.

>

>
>I switched from video to still about 5 years ago after my
>daughter graduated from high school. I went from wanting to
>see the game; showing the event; to wanting to show a scene in
>detail without it moving out of the frame.
>
>Personally, I want to see a scene, an expression, an instant.
>I want to place it on the wall in a big format. I want to
>take joy in it again and again. I want to share what gives me
>joy.
>
>that's still.

Dear Mr Beans,
I really love your philosophy.

Ted

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

For the readers who don't want to fly over to the other site here is what Ami Vitale said:

"Al Tompkins: As a longtime still photographer, what surprised you most about working with video?

Ami Vitale: I was surprised by how it opens the possibilities for powerful storytelling. I think I was heavily influenced by TV video news shows, and I am now realizing that this is nothing like that. We have a whole new medium here with unimaginable opportunities. I can tell compelling stories with more tools, and these tools can be used artfully, poetically and in a compelling way.

What is the advantage of working with an SLR camera versus a more traditional video camera?

Vitale: There are a few for me. First, I travel to remote places, so the weight and amount of gear is the same as when I was a still photographer. Carrying a whole other setup with a video camera was often not physically possible. Secondly, I like the variety of lenses I can use that can give the video a more cinematic feel. I can use perspective lenses, long lenses, wide lenses etc., depending on the mood I want to create.

How does working in video change the way you think about light, sequences and motion?

Vitale: Video as a medium is quite Zen like. It forces still photographers to plan more, be more patient and to think about the story in a tangential way. The principles are the same but one needs to wait longer, hold shots and get a variety of angles and perspectives to make it flow. The sequences are important, so it is a bit more time-consuming. I’m still learning about motion, but video does not change the way I think about light. Light is always one of the most important aspects to powerful photography, and it’s no different with video.

Why are you experimenting with video?

Vitale: This is the best time to be a photo journalist. We have more tools available than ever before and we also have an audience bigger than anytime in the history of mankind. It’s powerful, and I’d like to harness these tools and use them to communicate and create understanding in a complex world where messages are so easily misunderstood. I see this as a wonderful time to exploit all these tools for the power of good!"

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

<<I also doubt that, were video capability "taken out", the D800 would be that much cheaper. My impression is that it's not that hard to add video recording capability, and even the support for things like high-spec codecs costs very little on a per-unit basis.>>

This is my view to.

<<Suppose you could record 24 images per second, at the frame size of the D7000, and with it's dynamic range. Then you could shoot your video, and you could extract any still image from any moment you liked?>>

As we all know "Red" cameras are expensive video cameras and are principally used in specialist areas and as stated cost up to $58000 for a package ex lenses. The technology of extracting stills from that technology in a pro or consumer dSLR in my view are many years away. I hardly think it would attract many, as the concept of video as the principal feature of a dSLR with stills secondary is a long way away, if ever.

I think it's fair to say there are three camps. Those who say they'll never use video in a dSLR, those who will use it and it was an important selling point and those who know it's there and may use it at some point in the future.

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

KK I too agree. I really am not interested in video. If I wanted to take video I would use a true and devoted video unit. I think Nikon is trying to cover too many bases. I am semi Professional, shoot thousands of images and would like to see a Display that can be moved out from the back of the body and have a flexible view point with good resolution. I am waiting to see what eventuates with the hopefully new D400,,,,,YEH!
kk

I am not interested in video in a DSLR format camera at all.
I also do not want video capability to disrupt the placement of traditional camera controls.
One has to believe that Nikon has something waiting in the wings for the dumped traditional users that were hoping for full frame upgrade from DX. Hopefully very soon.

Dan

>I am not interested in video in a DSLR format camera at all.
>
>I also do not want video capability to disrupt the placement
>of traditional camera controls.
>One has to believe that Nikon has something waiting in the
>wings for the dumped traditional users that were hoping for
>full frame upgrade from DX. Hopefully very soon.

I am not interested either.