nikonians

Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

| |

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries News Workshops Shop Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising
Go to a  "printer friendly" view of this message which allow an easy print Print Go to the page which allows you to send this topic link and a message to a friend Email this topic to a friend
Forums Lobby CAFÉ English Café (Public) topic #79746
View in linear mode

Subject: "Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?" Previous topic | Next topic
jim thomas Silver Member  Edmond, US  Nikonian since 12th Jan 2003 Sat 18-Feb-12 02:09 AM
1296 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
"Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"



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

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? nikonus Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014
18th Feb 2012
1
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? DVDMike
18th Feb 2012
2
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? image01
20th Feb 2012
53
     Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Dark Messiah Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
54
     Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Amann Silver Member
21st Feb 2012
103
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? LMMiller9 Silver Member
18th Feb 2012
3
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Robman3
18th Feb 2012
5
     Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? LMMiller9 Silver Member
18th Feb 2012
10
          Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Robman3
21st Feb 2012
110
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Robman3
18th Feb 2012
4
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? km6xz Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, including Portraits and Urban Photography
18th Feb 2012
6
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Robman3
18th Feb 2012
7
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? MotoMannequin Moderator Awarded for his extraordinary skills in landscape and wildlife photography
18th Feb 2012
18
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? PerroneFord Silver Member
18th Feb 2012
19
     Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? MotoMannequin Moderator Awarded for his extraordinary skills in landscape and wildlife photography
18th Feb 2012
20
     Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? MarcG19
20th Feb 2012
38
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? richardd300 Silver Member
18th Feb 2012
22
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? grizzly200
21st Feb 2012
104
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? RRRoger Silver Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his long history of demonstrated excellence and helping other members with equipment, technique and DSLR video in the true Nikonians spirit.
04th Mar 2012
134
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? PerroneFord Silver Member
18th Feb 2012
8
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Robman3
18th Feb 2012
9
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? phlash46
20th Feb 2012
58
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? wkilburg
20th Feb 2012
74
     Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? PerroneFord Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
77
          Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? fogfilter Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
86
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Garys
18th Feb 2012
11
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? PerroneFord Silver Member
18th Feb 2012
12
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Robman3
18th Feb 2012
14
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Garys
18th Feb 2012
15
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? PerroneFord Silver Member
18th Feb 2012
17
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Robman3
18th Feb 2012
21
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? jcoil Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
85
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Robman3
18th Feb 2012
13
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? MotoMannequin Moderator Awarded for his extraordinary skills in landscape and wildlife photography
18th Feb 2012
16
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? ajdooley Gold Member
18th Feb 2012
23
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Robman3
19th Feb 2012
33
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? jim thomas Silver Member
19th Feb 2012
24
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? PerroneFord Silver Member
19th Feb 2012
25
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? MelT
19th Feb 2012
26
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? PerroneFord Silver Member
19th Feb 2012
27
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? MelT
19th Feb 2012
28
     Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? PerroneFord Silver Member
19th Feb 2012
29
          Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? richardd300 Silver Member
19th Feb 2012
30
               Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? PerroneFord Silver Member
19th Feb 2012
31
                    Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? richardd300 Silver Member
19th Feb 2012
32
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Robman3
19th Feb 2012
34
     Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? MelT
20th Feb 2012
36
          Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Robman3
20th Feb 2012
37
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? abw1931 Silver Member
19th Feb 2012
35
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? MarcG19
20th Feb 2012
39
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? PerroneFord Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
40
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? SoCalBeans Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
42
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? PerroneFord Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
43
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? PAStime Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
56
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? agitater Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014
20th Feb 2012
90
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? PerroneFord Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
91
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? SoCalBeans Silver Member
21st Feb 2012
98
     Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? PerroneFord Silver Member
21st Feb 2012
101
          Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? agitater Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014
21st Feb 2012
105
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Robman3
20th Feb 2012
47
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Dark Messiah Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
49
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Uncle Dubi
20th Feb 2012
62
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Robman3
20th Feb 2012
46
     Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? richardd300 Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
48
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? KundabungKid Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
41
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Tekkie Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
44
     Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? blatgun Gold Member
20th Feb 2012
45
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? fabric Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
50
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? epanderton Gold Member
20th Feb 2012
51
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? richardd300 Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
52
     Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? PerroneFord Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
55
          Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? richardd300 Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
60
               Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? PerroneFord Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
61
                    Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? richardd300 Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
63
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? gcarey8 Gold Member
20th Feb 2012
57
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Uncle Dubi
20th Feb 2012
59
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? wloprete
20th Feb 2012
64
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Seajay
20th Feb 2012
65
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? richardd300 Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
67
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? benveniste Moderator Awarded for is high level skills in various areas, including Macro and Landscape Photography Donor Ribbon. Awarded for his generous suppport to the Fundraising Campaign 2014
20th Feb 2012
66
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? richardd300 Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
68
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? cameraiphotostudio Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
69
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Seajay
20th Feb 2012
70
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? richardd300 Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
72
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? craigc
20th Feb 2012
82
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? quenton8 Silver Member Awarded for bringing his experience to the Nikonians community helping members with printing and the use of post-processing software from the perspective of an IT professional. Ribbon awarded for his enthusiastic and repeated support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014
20th Feb 2012
71
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Swift480 Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
73
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? KnightPhoto Gold Member
20th Feb 2012
75
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? richardd300 Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
79
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? wesj1 Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
76
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? RHS Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
78
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? hcirdoog Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
80
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? dmontaba Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
81
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? richardd300 Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
83
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? jcoil Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
84
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Seajay
20th Feb 2012
87
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? voyageurfred Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
88
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? PerroneFord Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
89
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? voyageurfred Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
93
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Robman3
21st Feb 2012
102
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? agitater Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014
20th Feb 2012
92
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? PerroneFord Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
95
     Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? agitater Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014
20th Feb 2012
97
          Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? PerroneFord Silver Member
21st Feb 2012
99
               Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? agitater Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014
21st Feb 2012
100
               Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? MelT
21st Feb 2012
106
               Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? grizzly200
21st Feb 2012
107
                    Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? PerroneFord Silver Member
21st Feb 2012
108
                         Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? agitater Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014
21st Feb 2012
111
                         Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? voyageurfred Silver Member
21st Feb 2012
114
                              Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? agitater Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014
22nd Feb 2012
127
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? notes386 Gold Member
20th Feb 2012
94
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Nikon300Bob Silver Member
20th Feb 2012
96
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? KnightPhoto Gold Member
21st Feb 2012
109
     Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? agitater Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014
21st Feb 2012
112
          Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? loveandppeace
21st Feb 2012
113
               Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? suzyk Silver Member
21st Feb 2012
115
               Reply message D800 vs D800E voyageurfred Silver Member
21st Feb 2012
116
               Reply message RE: D800 vs D800E richardd300 Silver Member
21st Feb 2012
117
               Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? agitater Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014
22nd Feb 2012
126
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Sportymonk
21st Feb 2012
118
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Robman3
21st Feb 2012
119
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? mmariant Team Member Expert photography teacher
21st Feb 2012
120
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? PerroneFord Silver Member
21st Feb 2012
121
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Robman3
21st Feb 2012
122
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? richardd300 Silver Member
21st Feb 2012
123
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? walkerr Administrator Awarded for his con tributed articles published at the Resources Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in multiple areas Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Master Ribbon awarded as a member who has gone beyond technical knowledge to show mastery of the art and science of photography
21st Feb 2012
124
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? MelT
21st Feb 2012
125
Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? rhulbert Gold Member Winner of the Nikonians 10th Anniversary Photo Contest Awarded for his limitless enthusiasm and extraordinarily genial nature consistently in support of Nikonians Writer Ribbon awarded for his generous and valuable contributions to the Nikonians Articles (Resources) section.
22nd Feb 2012
128
     Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? PerroneFord Silver Member
22nd Feb 2012
129
     Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? rhulbert Gold Member Winner of the Nikonians 10th Anniversary Photo Contest Awarded for his limitless enthusiasm and extraordinarily genial nature consistently in support of Nikonians Writer Ribbon awarded for his generous and valuable contributions to the Nikonians Articles (Resources) section.
22nd Feb 2012
130
     Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? Robman3
22nd Feb 2012
131
          Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? richardd300 Silver Member
22nd Feb 2012
132
          Reply message RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It? MelT
22nd Feb 2012
133

nikonus Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014   San Diego, US  Nikonian since 04th Feb 2007 Sat 18-Feb-12 02:21 AM
451 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#1. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



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

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

DVDMike   Metro Atlanta, US  Registered since 25th Mar 2003 Sat 18-Feb-12 02:28 AM
2223 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#2. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0




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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
image01   Vinkeveen, NL  Registered since 05th Mar 2007 Mon 20-Feb-12 12:08 PM
6 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#53. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 2



"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!

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
Dark Messiah Silver Member  Wymondham, UK  Nikonian since 27th Feb 2009 Mon 20-Feb-12 12:18 PM
94 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#54. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 53



I might!

Kind regards

G

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
Amann Silver Member  Plano, US  Nikonian since 24th May 2008 Tue 21-Feb-12 01:24 AM
4 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#103. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 53



>"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.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

LMMiller9 Silver Member  Potomac, US  Nikonian since 18th Dec 2005 Sat 18-Feb-12 02:50 AM
1126 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#3. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



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, Potomac, MD
DF/D800
http://www.pbase.com/lmmiller9
http://lmmillerphotography.smugmug.com/

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
Robman3   West of Santa Monica, US  Registered since 12th Apr 2010 Sat 18-Feb-12 04:28 AM
1842 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#5. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 3



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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
LMMiller9 Silver Member  Potomac, US  Nikonian since 18th Dec 2005 Sat 18-Feb-12 02:53 PM
1126 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#10. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 5



Rob,

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

Larry Miller, Potomac, MD
DF/D800
http://www.pbase.com/lmmiller9
http://lmmillerphotography.smugmug.com/

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

            
Robman3   West of Santa Monica, US  Registered since 12th Apr 2010 Tue 21-Feb-12 05:08 AM
1842 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#110. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 10



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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

Robman3   West of Santa Monica, US  Registered since 12th Apr 2010 Sat 18-Feb-12 03:52 AM
1842 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#4. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0
Sat 18-Feb-12 08:43 AM by Robman3


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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

km6xz Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, including Portraits and Urban Photography   St Petersburg, RU  Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2009 Sat 18-Feb-12 04:37 AM
3380 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#6. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
Robman3   West of Santa Monica, US  Registered since 12th Apr 2010 Sat 18-Feb-12 04:52 AM
1842 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#7. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 6
Sat 18-Feb-12 04:56 AM by Robman3


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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
MotoMannequin Moderator Awarded for his extraordinary skills in landscape and wildlife photography   Livermore, CA, US  Nikonian since 11th Jan 2006 Sat 18-Feb-12 07:24 PM
8582 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#18. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 6



>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

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
PerroneFord Silver Member  Tallahassee, US  Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011 Sat 18-Feb-12 07:39 PM
2680 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#19. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 18



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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

            
MotoMannequin Moderator Awarded for his extraordinary skills in landscape and wildlife photography   Livermore, CA, US  Nikonian since 11th Jan 2006 Sat 18-Feb-12 07:45 PM
8582 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#20. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 19



>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

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

            
MarcG19   Arlington, US  Registered since 16th Apr 2009 Mon 20-Feb-12 04:03 AM
289 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#38. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 19



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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
richardd300 Silver Member  Dyserth, UK  Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009 Sat 18-Feb-12 10:30 PM
3669 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#22. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 6



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

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
grizzly200   Solano County, California, US  Registered since 18th Dec 2011 Tue 21-Feb-12 02:22 AM
707 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#104. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 6



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

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
RRRoger Silver Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his long history of demonstrated excellence and helping other members with equipment, technique and DSLR video in the true Nikonians spirit.   Monterey Bay, US  Charter Member Sun 04-Mar-12 05:42 PM
3186 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#134. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 6



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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

PerroneFord Silver Member  Tallahassee, US  Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011 Sat 18-Feb-12 05:47 AM
2680 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#8. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0
Sat 18-Feb-12 05:51 AM by PerroneFord


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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
Robman3   West of Santa Monica, US  Registered since 12th Apr 2010 Sat 18-Feb-12 08:12 AM
1842 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#9. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 8
Sat 18-Feb-12 08:41 AM by Robman3


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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
phlash46   Peekskill, US  Registered since 01st Feb 2008 Mon 20-Feb-12 01:05 PM
2207 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#58. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 8



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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
wkilburg   Yorkville, US  Registered since 03rd Apr 2011 Mon 20-Feb-12 04:00 PM
93 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#74. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 8



>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

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
PerroneFord Silver Member  Tallahassee, US  Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011 Mon 20-Feb-12 04:27 PM
2680 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#77. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 74



>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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

            
fogfilter Silver Member  Sarasota, US  Nikonian since 24th Aug 2006 Mon 20-Feb-12 08:55 PM
2 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#86. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 77



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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

Garys   Mesa, US  Registered since 22nd Sep 2009 Sat 18-Feb-12 04:14 PM
234 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#11. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 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. 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

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
PerroneFord Silver Member  Tallahassee, US  Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011 Sat 18-Feb-12 06:16 PM
2680 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#12. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 11



>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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
Robman3   West of Santa Monica, US  Registered since 12th Apr 2010 Sat 18-Feb-12 06:37 PM
1842 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#14. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 12



Hey P,

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

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
Garys   Mesa, US  Registered since 22nd Sep 2009 Sat 18-Feb-12 07:12 PM
234 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#15. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 12



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

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

            
PerroneFord Silver Member  Tallahassee, US  Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011 Sat 18-Feb-12 07:23 PM
2680 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#17. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 15



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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

            
Robman3   West of Santa Monica, US  Registered since 12th Apr 2010 Sat 18-Feb-12 08:13 PM
1842 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#21. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 15



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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
jcoil Silver Member  orofino, US  Nikonian since 13th Dec 2007 Mon 20-Feb-12 08:50 PM
24 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#85. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 12



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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
Robman3   West of Santa Monica, US  Registered since 12th Apr 2010 Sat 18-Feb-12 06:31 PM
1842 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#13. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 11
Sat 18-Feb-12 06:40 PM by Robman3


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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

MotoMannequin Moderator Awarded for his extraordinary skills in landscape and wildlife photography   Livermore, CA, US  Nikonian since 11th Jan 2006 Sat 18-Feb-12 07:19 PM
8582 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#16. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



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

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

ajdooley Gold Member  Waterloo, US  Nikonian since 25th May 2006 Sat 18-Feb-12 11:37 PM
2245 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#23. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0
Sat 18-Feb-12 11:38 PM by ajdooley


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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
Robman3   West of Santa Monica, US  Registered since 12th Apr 2010 Sun 19-Feb-12 10:59 PM
1842 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#33. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 23



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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

jim thomas Silver Member  Edmond, US  Nikonian since 12th Jan 2003 Sun 19-Feb-12 02:05 PM
1296 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#24. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



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

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
PerroneFord Silver Member  Tallahassee, US  Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011 Sun 19-Feb-12 03:59 PM
2680 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#25. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 24
Sun 19-Feb-12 04:08 PM by PerroneFord


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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

MelT   Petersburg, US  Registered since 06th Jul 2002 Sun 19-Feb-12 04:57 PM
4608 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#26. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



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

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
PerroneFord Silver Member  Tallahassee, US  Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011 Sun 19-Feb-12 05:36 PM
2680 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#27. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 26



>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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
MelT   Petersburg, US  Registered since 06th Jul 2002 Sun 19-Feb-12 06:46 PM
4608 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#28. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 27



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

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

            
PerroneFord Silver Member  Tallahassee, US  Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011 Sun 19-Feb-12 08:03 PM
2680 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#29. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 28



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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

                
richardd300 Silver Member  Dyserth, UK  Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009 Sun 19-Feb-12 08:22 PM
3669 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#30. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 29
Sun 19-Feb-12 08:39 PM by richardd300


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

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

                    
PerroneFord Silver Member  Tallahassee, US  Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011 Sun 19-Feb-12 08:57 PM
2680 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#31. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 30



>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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

                        
richardd300 Silver Member  Dyserth, UK  Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009 Sun 19-Feb-12 10:33 PM
3669 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#32. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 31



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

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
Robman3   West of Santa Monica, US  Registered since 12th Apr 2010 Sun 19-Feb-12 11:29 PM
1842 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#34. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 26



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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
MelT   Petersburg, US  Registered since 06th Jul 2002 Mon 20-Feb-12 12:00 AM
4608 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#36. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 34
Mon 20-Feb-12 12:14 AM by MelT


>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

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

            
Robman3   West of Santa Monica, US  Registered since 12th Apr 2010 Mon 20-Feb-12 12:59 AM
1842 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#37. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 36



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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

abw1931 Silver Member  Albany, US  Nikonian since 07th May 2003 Sun 19-Feb-12 11:35 PM
31 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#35. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



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

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

MarcG19   Arlington, US  Registered since 16th Apr 2009 Mon 20-Feb-12 04:31 AM
289 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#39. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0
Mon 20-Feb-12 05:11 AM by MarcG19


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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
PerroneFord Silver Member  Tallahassee, US  Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011 Mon 20-Feb-12 05:19 AM
2680 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#40. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 39



>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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
SoCalBeans Silver Member  San Diego, US  Nikonian since 09th Jan 2008 Mon 20-Feb-12 05:43 AM
385 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#42. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 39




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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
PerroneFord Silver Member  Tallahassee, US  Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011 Mon 20-Feb-12 06:18 AM
2680 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#43. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 42



>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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

            
PAStime Silver Member  Kingston, CA  Nikonian since 10th Feb 2009 Mon 20-Feb-12 12:29 PM
2670 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#56. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 43




>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

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

            
agitater Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014   Toronto, CA  Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007 Mon 20-Feb-12 10:05 PM
4270 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#90. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 43




>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 Photo.Net Gallery
My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

                
PerroneFord Silver Member  Tallahassee, US  Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011 Mon 20-Feb-12 10:16 PM
2680 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#91. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 90



>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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

            
SoCalBeans Silver Member  San Diego, US  Nikonian since 09th Jan 2008 Tue 21-Feb-12 12:03 AM
385 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#98. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 43




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?

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

                
PerroneFord Silver Member  Tallahassee, US  Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011 Tue 21-Feb-12 12:27 AM
2680 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#101. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 98



>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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

                    
agitater Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014   Toronto, CA  Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007 Tue 21-Feb-12 02:39 AM
4270 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#105. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 101



>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 Photo.Net Gallery
My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
Robman3   West of Santa Monica, US  Registered since 12th Apr 2010 Mon 20-Feb-12 08:04 AM
1842 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#47. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 42



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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

            
Dark Messiah Silver Member  Wymondham, UK  Nikonian since 27th Feb 2009 Mon 20-Feb-12 08:33 AM
94 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#49. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 47



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.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
Uncle Dubi   UK  Registered since 07th Nov 2011 Mon 20-Feb-12 01:33 PM
20 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#62. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 42



>

>
>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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
Robman3   West of Santa Monica, US  Registered since 12th Apr 2010 Mon 20-Feb-12 07:25 AM
1842 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#46. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 39
Tue 21-Feb-12 05:02 AM by Robman3


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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
richardd300 Silver Member  Dyserth, UK  Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009 Mon 20-Feb-12 08:24 AM
3669 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#48. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 46



<<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

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

KundabungKid Silver Member  Kempsey, AU  Nikonian since 21st Jan 2007 Mon 20-Feb-12 05:41 AM
122 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#41. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



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

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
Tekkie Silver Member  Montville, US  Nikonian since 22nd Apr 2006 Mon 20-Feb-12 06:31 AM
24 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#44. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 41



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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
blatgun Gold Member  Ollon VD, CH  Nikonian since 03rd Oct 2007 Mon 20-Feb-12 06:54 AM
659 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#45. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 44



>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.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

fabric Silver Member  Nice, FR  Nikonian since 31st Jan 2007 Mon 20-Feb-12 08:42 AM
17 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#50. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



Personally I don't use video, and it irritates me that so much editorial space is being devoted to video in articles and reviews of all new cameras in all media and all over the world.

I think the problem may be that to-day a large number of journalists are asked not only to write but also to provide photos and videos. To save cost for the media. So, when media buy cameras for their staff they prefer the ones with good video facilities.

fabric

CARPE DIEM

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

epanderton Gold Member  Sutton Coldfield, UK  Nikonian since 07th Sep 2007 Mon 20-Feb-12 09:05 AM
1 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#51. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0




Peter Anderton
peter@andertonp.freeserve.co.uk

I agree. I cannot understand why I have to have a video feature that I will never use on a camera. Not only is it more expensive but, like most 'smart' technology, there is more to go wrong. If I wanted to shoot videos I would buy a video recorder.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
richardd300 Silver Member  Dyserth, UK  Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009 Mon 20-Feb-12 09:38 AM
3669 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#52. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 51
Mon 20-Feb-12 11:25 AM by richardd300


<<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).>>

good point, however I think there's more relevance in the "from film to digital" debate a decade ago.

<<If I wanted to shoot videos I would buy a video recorder>>

I totally agree, although not necessarily the "more to go wrong aspect", but.....if you were a camera manufacturer who increased his market by offering video to the first time buyer dSLR user, you'd do it too. I read an article a few months ago that the sales of dSLR's to new users was one of the fastest growing technology markets. Then of course some of the higher end market dSLR users would be livid if it wasn't bundled with their camera of choice as in the D800/D4 etc.

I was as vociferous as all the anti video commentators are here, but we must move on and although I know I'll never use it, but it aint going anywhere some time soon. I am more pragamatic now and accept it is a feature of modern dSLR's which many folks enjoy, but if I were interested in video I'd buy a dedicated video camera too. Choice is the most important aspect of marketing.

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
PerroneFord Silver Member  Tallahassee, US  Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011 Mon 20-Feb-12 12:20 PM
2680 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#55. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 52



>I was as vociferous as all the anti video commentators are
>here, but we must move on and although I know I'll never use
>it, but it aint going anywhere some time soon. I am more
>pragamatic now and accept it is a feature of modern dSLR's
>which many folks enjoy, but if I were interested in video I'd
>buy a dedicated video camera too. Choice is the most
>important aspect of marketing.
>
>Richard

I don't know how to state this any more plainly. Video makers WANT video only cameras. They were FORCED into buying DSLRs (at least the small guys were) because to get the features they were interested in, the traditional camera were north of $100k dollars as recently as 4 years ago.

DSLRs involve a terrible set of compromises for making films. But the savings of nearly $100k made people live with them. It's as simple as that. Now that video camera companies have watched tens of millions of dollars abandon them because Canon listened and they didn't, they are starting to build cameras the people wanted. Maybe in a few years this will all blow over.

I am terribly sorry we've "ruined" your cameras with a couple extra buttons. I've been a still photographer for nearly 30 years, and I should have known this was coming... Maybe Nikon will release the digital equivalent of an FM10 for you.

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

            
richardd300 Silver Member  Dyserth, UK  Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009 Mon 20-Feb-12 01:24 PM
3669 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#60. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 55



<<I am terribly sorry we've "ruined" your cameras with a couple extra buttons. I've been a still photographer for nearly 30 years, and I should have known this was coming... Maybe Nikon will release the digital equivalent of an FM10 for you.>>

With the greatest respect, if you had bothered to read my posts there is no talk of "ruining" my or anyone elses photography in the least! In fact I am supporting those who require it, those who don't and those who haven't made their minds up yet. I also made it quite clear that if I want video, I'll buy a dedicated video camera. Please read my and all posts again slowly please

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

                
PerroneFord Silver Member  Tallahassee, US  Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011 Mon 20-Feb-12 01:30 PM
2680 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#61. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 60



><<I am terribly sorry we've "ruined" your
>cameras with a couple extra buttons. I've been a still
>photographer for nearly 30 years, and I should have known this
>was coming... Maybe Nikon will release the digital equivalent
>of an FM10 for you.>>
>
>With the greatest respect, if you had bothered to read my
>posts there is no talk of "ruining" my or anyone
>elses photography in the least! In fact I am supporting those
>who require it, those who don't and those who haven't made
>their minds up yet. I also made it quite clear that if I want
>video, I'll buy a dedicated video camera. Please read my and
>all posts again slowly please
>

Richard, my apologies. I read the list in linear mode. My reply was simply to the last post I read and not directed in ANY way toward you. I've enjoyed your very balanced posts.

Please know that this was merely a technicality of posting because yours was the last post on the page.

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

                    
richardd300 Silver Member  Dyserth, UK  Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009 Mon 20-Feb-12 01:44 PM
3669 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#63. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 61



Accepted, thank you for clarifying.

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

gcarey8 Gold Member  Eads, US  Nikonian since 25th Feb 2009 Mon 20-Feb-12 12:43 PM
20 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#57. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



I agree. I have it on my D300s and dont even know how to get to it on the controls. Never even thought of using it even once.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

Uncle Dubi   UK  Registered since 07th Nov 2011 Mon 20-Feb-12 01:11 PM
20 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#59. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



I use photography to illustrate books, teaching English to very young learners. Recently my company started work on not a book but a range of CDs to teach Encyclopaedic Knowledge to these babies and children. Having the Video facility in the same camera that I've already set-up for stills gave me the idea - I am pretty lazy - to use the video to animate a lot of my illustrations. The idea works wonderfully, the video looks great, the boss thinks I'm a genius, and I have absolutely no extra work. Thank you Nikon. Ted

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

wloprete   US  Registered since 30th Apr 2009 Mon 20-Feb-12 02:04 PM
1 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#64. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



I have owned a D-90 for several years and have NEVER used the video feature. Like so many other product manufacturers (eg television, computer, phone) features are added because they can be, not necessarily because the consumer wants or needs them.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

Seajay   Lincoln, UK  Registered since 29th Mar 2007 Mon 20-Feb-12 02:42 PM
60 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#65. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



I am not a young man nor do I feel it a pre-requisite for embracing the latest technology. At almost 66 and retired I can now devote my time to my passion, natural history photography. It is affordable (sort of, keeps me active, my mind alert, happy and sets various goals to achieve. Nature never ceases to astound me with its beauty.
The last couple of years I took up video too.
A lot can be shown on video that is impossible to convey on a digital photo and vice versa but I also feel both complement the other.

Nikon have now produced the D800 which is an absoloutely marvellous piece of technology, 36mp and full HD. Were I to buy it why on earth would I not use it? I have the D7000 and the video works great! It means I can quickly switch from stills (which stills taken from my video footage do not even approach in quality} to video with no great movement.
What about a legacy to leave to one's descendants - not just photographs but video too! Can you imagine being able to not only see your relatives from hundreds of years ago but hearing them too?
Come on you lot - open your minds and creativity! Nikon has brought you some great gear use it. BRING IT ON NIKON!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
richardd300 Silver Member  Dyserth, UK  Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009 Mon 20-Feb-12 02:51 PM
3669 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#67. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 65



Hi Seajay

<<Come on you lot - open your minds and creativity! Nikon has brought you some great gear use it. BRING IT ON NIKON!>>

Good to see someone else around my age posting and I agree with your angle totally. I do tend to think outside the box with a dSLR in creativity terms, but find the video genre a totally different concept to stills. You elude to this yourself, but I am not against video and applaud those who use a dSLR to enable the capture. it's just that of the two aspects, I prefer photographs. Maybe one day I'll switch it on and take video of my wildlife....maybe

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

benveniste Moderator Awarded for is high level skills in various areas, including Macro and Landscape Photography Donor Ribbon. Awarded for his generous suppport to the Fundraising Campaign 2014   Boston Area, US  Nikonian since 25th Nov 2002 Mon 20-Feb-12 02:44 PM
9728 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#66. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



I own a domain name -- wemightneedthat.biz. I have other domain names; I have no real need for this one. I own it because ... well ... you get the idea. It was (and is) cheap to do so. I currently use it as a sort of an on-line junk drawer.

Adding video capacity to dSLR's isn't quite as cheap as a domain name, but I wouldn't expect it to add a lot to the per unit cost. Most of the hardware is already there. The software development costs, after all, are spread out over a very large number of units, and adding an extra connector isn't that expensive either. Nor would I expect it to add significantly to the weight.

I believe that as a rule, people make buying decisions based on emotion and then look for facts to justify their decision. Part of that justification, either to themselves or to their spouses, may well be video capability. After all, "we might need that."

Personally, I see the D800's video capabilities as a small feature at a small increase in price. If it saves me from being stuck in back of an unfamiliar video camera even once, it has paid for itself. But had the D800 not included video, it would have placed Nikon at a marketing disadvantage far greater than the cost.

If you want to photograph a man spinning, give some thought to why he spins. Understanding for a photographer is as important as the equipment he uses. - Margaret Bourke-White

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
richardd300 Silver Member  Dyserth, UK  Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009 Mon 20-Feb-12 02:55 PM
3669 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#68. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 66
Mon 20-Feb-12 02:56 PM by richardd300


<<I believe that as a rule, people make buying decisions based on emotion and then look for facts to justify their decision. Part of that justification, either to themselves or to their spouses, may well be video capability. After all, "we might need that.">>

mmm, true and other smoke and mirrors to justify the purchase to my spouse

<<Personally, I see the D800's video capabilities as a small feature at a small increase in price. If it saves me from being stuck in back of an unfamiliar video camera even once, it has paid for itself. But had the D800 not included video, it would have placed Nikon at a marketing disadvantage far greater than the cost.>>

Fair comment, as I said earlier, camera manufacturers would be daft to miss a trick like this. Who can blame them indeed.

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

cameraiphotostudio Silver Member  US  Nikonian since 21st Feb 2011 Mon 20-Feb-12 03:07 PM
17 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#69. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



I have avoided buying any new equipment because of the video feature. I am a photographer, not a videographer. If I want to capture a video, I will use my iPhone. If I were Nikon, I would put out two cameras - one with video and one without video. They could call them the D800 and D800v. It would be interesting to see which one sells more.

Camera-i Photo Studio
http://www.cameraiphotostudio.com

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
Seajay   Lincoln, UK  Registered since 29th Mar 2007 Mon 20-Feb-12 03:38 PM
60 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#70. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 69



It would also be interesing which would be the cheaper?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
richardd300 Silver Member  Dyserth, UK  Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009 Mon 20-Feb-12 03:42 PM
3669 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#72. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 70



I believe the simple answer is, neither. The technology work is done, the money invested and I don't believe it was a massive leap financialy as much that was needed for this leap was invested in the D7000 video 18 months ago.

Only my opinion of course.

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
craigc   austin, US  Registered since 10th May 2007 Mon 20-Feb-12 06:06 PM
56 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#82. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 70



While Nikon was the first to come out with video on their cams, Canon was the one that put this type of camera on the front burner as a money making machine for the company. This was almost not the case, even with Canons vast video broadcast divisions, the snobs in the SLR divisions didnt want anything to do with video. It took the mandate by one of the higher ups that the walls would fall and everybody would start getting along or they could look for another job,, over at Nikon. They actually stumbled onto the key features added to the 5D, If it were left upto the "Still boys" it would have been 720 and not 1080, which is where Nikon made its mistake. Actually the 7D has more motion friendly features and is able to be modified to support PL mounted cine lenes. Ironically most video shooters with canon cameras prefer using Nikon lenes, even though they focus in reverse to how motion shooters work. This is not the first time a shocker has happened. RED cameras have shot several mag covers, pulling RAW frames out of a 24 frame/sec timeline. Can anybody see the exit door left for that 25K Hassy body? They have a seat on the same bus out of town that the Kodak guys are on. If you look as a lot of still shooters you will see that due to falling rates and loss of print mag subscribers they have had to segway over to motion work, and in the process have driven the day rates down in that market. Do motion pros like the HDSLR's? not really, but the drive for shallow DoF out weighted the other drawbacks. And It has pushed the rest of the pack to play catchup,, Sony, Panasonic, Nikon, and even RED, who upon the release of the 5D, put their 2/3 chip camera ideas in the trash can. My point with all this rambling is your getting a better still camera because of the drive to add better motion capture. If you don't want to hassle with the hard to use video capture qualities then you've saved yourself about 20 pages of a boring manual to read.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
quenton8 Silver Member Awarded for bringing his experience to the Nikonians community helping members with printing and the use of post-processing software from the perspective of an IT professional. Ribbon awarded for his enthusiastic and repeated support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014   Toronto, CA  Nikonian since 11th Apr 2010 Mon 20-Feb-12 03:41 PM
1406 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#71. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 69



Well -- I can see why nikon (canon etc) have added video. Its a selling feature. If nikon offered a camera with and one without video, and if the price diff was say 10%, I would take the one with, just so I had it.

That said ...

  • I have never used the video on my D90 except to "prove it worked"
  • I don't see still dieing -- we have a full video of my daughter's wedding -- we looked at it a few times a few weeks after the wedding, since then we (and my daughter) pull out the stills to look at
  • I attended a friends Ordination (Anglican priest) last night -- it was being vidoe'ed -- he specfically asked would I photograph it -- he wants photos to give to family and friends
  • I can put stills on my wall, in a book as well as posting on social networking sites -- much more flexible

Will this change with the next generation? I don't think so -- will phone pictures become the norm? perhaps, but properly done shots will always be of greater value.

My opinion.

----
Dennis Smith.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

Swift480 Silver Member  Norfolk, UK  Nikonian since 09th Jan 2012 Mon 20-Feb-12 03:52 PM
29 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#73. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



As an amatuer photographer, I do not need video in a D-SLR. When we go away for major holidays, I take my video camera too, as we record, for our record, hours of video etc. If you want still images: a D-SLR, if you want video: a video camera built for that task. It seems pro's have more need of it built into their Pro D-SLR, so why not remove it from the everyday Nikon & keep the cost reasonable. £200 - £300 ontop of a D-SLR for hardly any video, you can buy a really great video camera nowadays with all the bells & whistles for a tad more, & excellent resolution etc. Thats my opinion anyway.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

KnightPhoto Gold Member  Alberta, CA  Nikonian since 18th Dec 2006 Mon 20-Feb-12 04:02 PM
4595 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#75. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



Hi Jim,

I haven't read the thread yet, will come back later and do so as I kind of enjoy discussing and shooting DSLR video.

I think where your thesis completely breaks down is that a video-less camera would be far more expensive (not less expensive). Due to market forces this seems completely clear to me.

So I have always felt that as long as folks who don't want video were stepping up to the bar and indicating they understood they would have to pay more, then I feel the thesis has integrity

Best regards, SteveK

'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
My Nikonians gallery
My Nikonians Blog

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
richardd300 Silver Member  Dyserth, UK  Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009 Mon 20-Feb-12 04:30 PM
3669 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#79. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 75



steve: It's also a legacy of technology where often we buy "gadgets" that have capabilities included, beyond what the purchaser needed. the things not needed are inevitabley needed by someone else or the designer wouldn't have included it.

Yes, Steve I believe it's true that not having video now would limit the purchasing potential, but also the dynamics have changed since the D90 arrived I feel. The dSLR potential market sector has expanded greatly and will continue to do so. In fact it's true to say that my opinion of dSLR included video has changed greatly over the last year and although I'm not interested in it myself, I am so glad that those who do are catered for. That, in a nutshell, is the power and usefulness of this forum.

Interesting thread whatever the varying opinions.

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

wesj1 Silver Member  Harrisburg, US  Nikonian since 15th Mar 2007 Mon 20-Feb-12 04:12 PM
2 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#76. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



I almost never use it.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

RHS Silver Member  's Gravenmoer, NL  Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2008 Mon 20-Feb-12 04:30 PM
59 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#78. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



Jim,

I'm planning to buy a D800, but have no need for the video features and will not use it. I would like to have it removed and have the price reduced.

Rob

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

hcirdoog Silver Member  Vero Beach, US  Nikonian since 07th Jul 2008 Mon 20-Feb-12 05:42 PM
2 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#80. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



Couldn't agree more. No interest in video, and resent Nikon now featuring in all of their new DSLRs. Must be market driven, and am assuming that they know their customer, but upgrading for video capability as a feature in their new cameras certainly does not drive this 36 year customer to upgrading. Am also holding back on the D800 because of the file size of RAW images. Probably will require a PC upgrade to run CS5, Lightroom 3 and NIK plug-ins efficiently. How much more resolution do I really need for images being being printed on my Epson 3880 and 4000? Images taken on my D700 still look look outstanding even at max print size for these printers, so not sure what value added.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

dmontaba Silver Member  Drexel Hill, US  Nikonian since 28th Jun 2007 Mon 20-Feb-12 05:44 PM
11 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#81. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



Thanks for asking this question that a number of friends and I have been grumbling about. I'm currently using a D300S (love it) and would seriously consider ugrading to the D400(?) when it arrives but _not_ if it has the additional video capabilities (and added expense). I have enough invested in video equipment as a separate medium to want to duplicate it in a DSLR.

They could take the road that Microsoft did with its various versions of their operating system. The CDs/DVDs shipped contained the complete code for each version and what you were able to install was based on your serial number. Hard to believe in this day that they cannot produce a single hardware version in which the video capability is enabled or disabled in software or hardware.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
richardd300 Silver Member  Dyserth, UK  Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009 Mon 20-Feb-12 07:17 PM
3669 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#83. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 81
Mon 20-Feb-12 07:20 PM by richardd300


<<They could take the road that Microsoft did with its various versions of their operating system. The CDs/DVDs shipped contained the complete code for each version and what you were able to install was based on your serial number. Hard to believe in this day that they cannot produce a single hardware version in which the video capability is enabled or disabled in software or hardware.>>

Interesting take, but we are talking about a physical device consisting of both mechanical, electrical and electronic devices, not forgetting the software. In any event you can't enable or disable hardware, difficult with firmware, but possible with software. The dynamics of the product and the marketing thereof are worlds away from a programming desk and a DVD producing laboratory. It is true of course that many aspects are sub contracted, but nevertheless the whole are a sum of integrated parts. To give options of specific areas such as "video yes/no-tick here" would be clumsy and unworkable IMHO and marketing lunacy.

Video, whether we like it or not is here to stay and the course of advanced technologies does not normally have a reverse gear. If I honestly believed that if Nikon or any other maker could produce a better camera if it eliminated video I for one would probably buy it. They are undoubtably already designing the highest spec image cameras available today. However, as the cost would undoubtably be higher as the market share would be lower it's a non starter.

To finish, this comes from someone who positively rejected the thought of video in a stills camera when the D90 launched and has kept that faith until recently. No, I don't want or need it but pragmatically it's here to stay and those who don't want it, just ignore that it's there. Life's sometimes easier that way

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

jcoil Silver Member  orofino, US  Nikonian since 13th Dec 2007 Mon 20-Feb-12 08:44 PM
24 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#84. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



Don't use it and would prefer to be able to buy a camera without that feature and the $ lowered or put to better use for still photography.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

Seajay   Lincoln, UK  Registered since 29th Mar 2007 Mon 20-Feb-12 09:22 PM
60 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#87. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



I agree with Richard, 'video is here to stay'. I also don't really see what the problem is.
If the camera was made considerably more expensive due to it having video capability when hardly anyone wanted it then fair enough, video haters have a genuine gripe but is that the case? I suspect we have the improvements we have 'because of' and not 'inspite of'. My bet is that if video capability was not inlcuded there would be no D800 and eventually no Nikon either.
Niche markets are expensive, risky ones.











Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

voyageurfred Silver Member  Montreal, CA  Nikonian since 20th Jun 2007 Mon 20-Feb-12 09:49 PM
439 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#88. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0
Mon 20-Feb-12 09:51 PM by voyageurfred


"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."


Perrone, I have really enjoyed your articulate and well written posts on the whole topic of video in still cameras. You have stated everything clearly and concisely, with some excellent links.


Like Perrone, I am a professional photographer, but have also worked in the broadcast world, shooting ENG (electronic news gathering) and live events with cameras such as the Sony Betacam SP and Betacam SX with various production companies. And like he says, these cameras cost upwards of $30,000 body only, then you add the lenses of choice. On top of that, you need the editing equipment to handle all that tape.

The broadcast world has been turned on its ear of late, with tumbling prices and simplification. Recording to Hard discs, flash cards, or DVD discs has really brought the price down. The introduction of video in DSLR cameras has accelerated this trend.

For hard core still photography shooters, who use their motor drives at 4 or 8 or 10 frames per second (fps) to capture birds in flight, or ospreys coming in for a landing on their nest, or little leaguers performing that perfect, diving slide into home base - imagine instead of 10fps, that you could shoot it at 30fps? That's the advantage of video, and at full 1080p High Definition video to boot!!!!

I've shot some pseudo videos with my D700, for example, by panning and zooming hand held, some 30 or 40 images of architecture landscapes at 9fps, then turned it into a digital slide show with Fotomagico. http://boinx.com/fotomagico/overview/

Shooting video at 30fps is just the next step up. I personally am looking forward to this, and will acquire a D800 before the year end, to explore this new facet of the DSLR. Of course, I'll need a new, heavy-duty tripod with a fluid head, and some other accessories, but the potential of mixing video and stills from the same camera are just awesome! Maximum flexibility and creativity in one package!

By the way, if you're on a Mac, iMovie comes with the Snow Leopard software, so you can get started right away editing video you shoot with your DSLR. Or you can upgrade to Apple's Final Cut Pro or Avid's Pro Tools and get even more elaborate.

WARNING : Video takes a LOT of hard disk space, so investing in something like the Western Digital MyStudio 4T or 8T (terrabyte) RAID hard drive is a great idea if you really get into this!

More about the WD RAID hard drives here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/625843-REG/Western_Digital_WDH2Q40000N_4TB_My_Book_Studio.html/BI/4775/KBID/5289/

Cheers,

Frederic in Montréal

Nothing ventured... nothing gained!
http://www.RemarkableImages.ca

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
PerroneFord Silver Member  Tallahassee, US  Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011 Mon 20-Feb-12 10:05 PM
2680 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#89. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 88



Just a couple of things to note...



>That's the advantage of video, and at full
>1080p High Definition video to boot!!!!

1080p is becoming passe these days. With UHD becoming the new standard in Japan (8K over broadcast), the new H.265 spec about to be released with support for both 4K and 8K, and cameras like the Scarlet and others writing 4K or better files at 30p.. 1080 is about to become a footnote in history.

>Or you can upgrade to
>Apple's Final Cut Pro or Avid's Pro Tools and get even more
>elaborate.

Pro Tools is an audio app. Avid Media Composer in the professional editing application, and Avid Studio (recently released for iPad but also available on PC and maybe Mac) is the video/audio competitor to iMovie.



>WARNING : Video takes a LOT of hard disk space, so investing
>in something like the Western Digital MyStudio 4T or 8T
>(terrabyte) RAID hard drive is a great idea if you really get
>into this!

You said it brother. I've got 10TB attached to my editing machine with another 100TB in offline storage space. Good video will make you want to buy stock in storage companies!


>More about the WD RAID hard drives here:
>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/625843-REG/Western_Digital_WDH2Q40000N_4TB_My_Book_Studio.html/BI/4775/KBID/5289/
>
>Cheers,
>
>Frederic in Montréal
>
>Nothing ventured... nothing gained!
>http://www.RemarkableImages.ca

Nice to see you posting.

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
voyageurfred Silver Member  Montreal, CA  Nikonian since 20th Jun 2007 Mon 20-Feb-12 11:01 PM
439 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#93. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 89
Mon 20-Feb-12 11:02 PM by voyageurfred


"Pro Tools is an audio app. Avid Media Composer in the professional editing application, and Avid Studio... is the video/audio competitor to iMovie."


Thanks for the correction re Pro Tools Perrone - you're absolutely right!

1080p may becoming passé, as you say, especially for the cinema industry as they look from jumping from 35mm film projection to all digital projection. However in the television broadcast world, 1080p will be around for quite a while.

Television networks in Canada and the US have just spent billions changing from the old NTSC standard of 525 lines of horizontal resolution to 1080 lines progressive. Current transmission bit rates can be as low as 4megs per second, it can be really bad on cable tv or by satelite tv creating pour images, which is why using a proper HD antennae to pick up TV signals broadcast over the air - will give the viewer a way better image.

Sorry for going off-topic everyone (as alluded to by Howard, below) - but then, still cameras have kinda gone off topic too, from shooting only stills, to now shooting many - in the form of video!

Cheers,
Frederic in Montréal

Nothing ventured... nothing gained!
http://www.RemarkableImages.ca

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
Robman3   West of Santa Monica, US  Registered since 12th Apr 2010 Tue 21-Feb-12 01:21 AM
1842 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#102. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 88
Tue 21-Feb-12 04:56 AM by Robman3


Frederic,

As far as Off Topic (comments to that end by other posters) the Mod's moved this discussion for the sake of gnawing by the Nikon at large set to this forum for exactly that reason, so here it shall live and eventually drop off.

Besides AVID, and the two iJOBS platforms, Sony is suited to pro editing along with a plethora of dedicated hardware & software variations which are usually well represented at the NAB show in Vegas every April.

For those who do NOT use MAC, and there are reasons why one might want to upgrade the Pro series GPU from that company, especially for video when using certain cameras (RED), then Adobe has been in the hunt as well.

Premiere Pro Production Premium and Master Suite, have taken the dropped ball (+ or -) on the iJOBS release of FCPX, and turned it into market share, as have the AVID folks.

In the case of Adobe, which has partnered with Nvidia to release their hounds via the CUDA GPU's and are scorching fast for gamers, a combination allowing native file editing (no transcode, just load 'em and edit, RED included) and given the assumption that one's machine has TB's of off machine SSD or HD (eSATA 7200 RPM/RAID or better) plus tons of CPU (quad and hex cores) as well as a boxcar of RAM, 8GB's bare minimum, more is mo' bettah'; then the formidable challenges for anyone at the filmic and or broadcast level is no longer out of reach.

Parity, for the creatives, simple as when the drum machine by Linn/EMU/AKAI allowed composers and writers to track into the wee hours and NOT keep up the neighbors, same drill different weapon.


For the more home style folks, they might consider this link, ten user friendly application in editing land, that do everything needed for YT,FB, MS, BR and DVD at very low costs.

http://video-editing-software-review.toptenreviews.com/

Plus well respected free and pay ware, from AVS and Streamclip.

I'll stop now, but with a story of how bitter an instructor was at UCLA night school, the class was Record Production and he was a Jazz cat, livid that drum machines were taking jobs, which eventually came full circle as HH folks began to use live musicians anyway, but for a time it was understandable.

However, for the people on the way up, who are tied to places like Lifetime, doing under-beds for weekly soap movies, hammering out a kit at 2 AM allows the wife and kids some peace, let alone the folks in the cul-de-sac.

Yes, things do change, and I'm too old not to know, when to embrace that, and yes I choose to NOT be an iPEEP or a FB fan-boi, LinkedIn is exposure enough thanks, but I AM an Adobist and a HDslr denizen, no shame in that AFAICT.

Thanks for chiming in, good points in your post!!!

Rob




Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

agitater Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014   Toronto, CA  Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007 Mon 20-Feb-12 10:24 PM
4270 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#92. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0
Mon 20-Feb-12 10:36 PM by agitater


>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.

How about cleaving back to the original question(s)?

Based on the content of this great thread, so far it seems as though a lot of pros (primarily photojournalists, some pro sports shooters, documentary and movie shooters, TV news shooters, TV production shooters, and wedding shooters) are homing in on the D800 in particular. I think Perrone has laid it out clearly and rationally. The D800 could be the pro's dream in all these categories (although the PJ's sometimes rushed still shooting technique that 12.1 megapixels forgave will have to be improved when shooting a D800 because even JPEG Fine Large is still 18mp).

On the other hand, for most amateurs and most still shooters (who seem to make up the majority of the Nikonians membership?) buying a D800 will essentially be the purchase of an enormous megapixel count that will force them to fully revise their approach to handheld and tripod shooting (see the excellent new Shot Discipline articles by Thom Hogan), and oustanding video firepower that very few will use often enough to gain any respectable proficiency. All told, that's sometimes referred to as a waste of money.

My Photo.Net Gallery
My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
PerroneFord Silver Member  Tallahassee, US  Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011 Mon 20-Feb-12 11:20 PM
2680 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#95. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 92



>On the other hand, for most amateurs and most still shooters
>(who seem to make up the majority of the Nikonians
>membership?) buying a D800 will essentially be the purchase of
>an enormous megapixel count that will force them to fully
>revise their approach to handheld and tripod shooting (see the
>excellent new Shot Discipline
>articles> by Thom Hogan), and oustanding video firepower that
>very few will use often enough to gain any respectable
>proficiency. All told, that's sometimes referred to as a waste
>of money.
>

So... don't buy one? Seems like reasonable advice. If the camera is the devil incarnate, a waste of money, has too many pixels, requires an entire rethink of how to hold and shoot a camera... , would require an entire ecosystem upgrade from lenses, to editing computer to storage...let it go. What clearer signal could be sent to Nikon that this is the WRONG camera for the the user base than simply not purchasing it.

I truly wonder if the D400 will have video.

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
agitater Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014   Toronto, CA  Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007 Mon 20-Feb-12 11:54 PM
4270 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#97. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 95
Mon 20-Feb-12 11:56 PM by agitater


>>On the other hand, for most amateurs and most still
>shooters
>>(who seem to make up the majority of the Nikonians
>>membership?) buying a D800 will essentially be the
>purchase of
>>an enormous megapixel count that will force them to fully
>>revise their approach to handheld and tripod shooting (see
>the
>>excellent new Shot
>Discipline
>>articles by Thom Hogan), and oustanding video firepower
>that
>>very few will use often enough to gain any respectable
>>proficiency. All told, that's sometimes referred to as a
>waste
>>of money.
>>
>
>So... don't buy one? Seems like reasonable advice. If the
>camera is the devil incarnate, a waste of money, has too many
>pixels, requires an entire rethink of how to hold and shoot a
>camera... , would require an entire ecosystem upgrade from
>lenses, to editing computer to storage...let it go. What
>clearer signal could be sent to Nikon that this is the WRONG
>camera for the the user base than simply not purchasing it.

I'm not buying a D800 because it doesn't serve any of my needs. I think that judging by the immense pressure coming from full frame/FX consumers, there may be a lot of Nikon loyalists who'll jump at the D800 simply because it's the first new FX body in years. For a lot of those consumers, except for the pros discussed in this thread, I think that would be a mistake.

There's only one caveat from my perspective. If the AF system in the D800 is as forgiving and consistent as the AF system in the D700, then Nikon will have gone a long way toward making the D800 far more accessible to and usable by photography amateurs and hobbyists. That would be a huge win on Nikon's part and a huge win for PJs and handheld street shooters too.

My Photo.Net Gallery
My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

            
PerroneFord Silver Member  Tallahassee, US  Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011 Tue 21-Feb-12 12:17 AM
2680 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#99. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 97



>There's only one caveat from my perspective. If the AF system
>in the D800 is as forgiving and consistent as the AF system in
>the D700, then Nikon will have gone a long way toward making
>the D800 far more accessible to and usable by photography
>amateurs and hobbyists. That would be a huge win on Nikon's
>part and a huge win for PJs and handheld street shooters too.


Perhaps I am mistaken here, but wasn't the entire point of this line of cameras to be for professionals benefit? Perhaps for studio, perhaps as a backup to the D3/D3s/D4?

To what degree should Nikon be concerned that amateurs and hobbyists are not pleased with a camera that was not aimed at them?

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

                
agitater Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014   Toronto, CA  Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007 Tue 21-Feb-12 12:20 AM
4270 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#100. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 99



>Perhaps I am mistaken here, but wasn't the entire point of
>this line of cameras to be for professionals benefit? Perhaps
>for studio, perhaps as a backup to the D3/D3s/D4?
>
>To what degree should Nikon be concerned that amateurs and
>hobbyists are not pleased with a camera that was not aimed at
>them?

I completely agree with you. What I've commented on, in part, is the fact that there seem to be a lot of demonstrably non-pros who are pre-ordering the D800 - droves of them in fact, as far as I can tell.

My Photo.Net Gallery
My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

                
MelT   Petersburg, US  Registered since 06th Jul 2002 Tue 21-Feb-12 03:28 AM
4608 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#106. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 99



>To what degree should Nikon be concerned that amateurs and
>hobbyists are not pleased with a camera that was not aimed at
>them?

A point lost on many in the threads I have read.


Mel

An Opinionated Old Curmudgeon from Virginia



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

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

                
grizzly200   Solano County, California, US  Registered since 18th Dec 2011 Tue 21-Feb-12 03:47 AM
707 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#107. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 99
Tue 21-Feb-12 03:50 AM by grizzly200


Why must a camera be "aimed?" why can't it just be for anybody? One thing I have noticed since getting with Nikons about ten years ago is that We Nikonians often seem to be very concerned with how others define and categorize our cameras. Is it "consumer?" Is it "prosumer?" Is it "pro?" Does it really matter?

Looks to me like this D800 will be a big hit. This is a camera most everybody will want. Nikon's "aim" should be to make it the biggest selling DSLR of all time. This camera is going to shake things up.

James

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

                    
PerroneFord Silver Member  Tallahassee, US  Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011 Tue 21-Feb-12 04:08 AM
2680 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#108. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 107



>Why must a camera be "aimed?" why can't it just be
>for anybody? One thing I have noticed since getting with
>Nikons about ten years ago is that We Nikonians often seem to
>be very concerned with how others define and categorize our
>cameras. Is it "consumer?" Is it
>"prosumer?" Is it "pro?" Does it really
>matter?
>
>Looks to me like this D800 will be a big hit. This is a
>camera most everybody will want. Nikon's "aim"
>should be to make it the biggest selling DSLR of all time.
>This camera is going to shake things up.

Why must it be aimed? For exactly the reasons we've seen such vitriol in this thread and others. Does it matter? Yea, sadly it does.

I would not presume to go buy a Ferrari and then complain how it won't haul lumber from Lowe's. The car is not aimed at that. Just as I wouldn't be someone trying to find a camera to shoot my kid's soccer game, and think the D4 or D800 is the "right" camera for me. Fundamental business principle of market segmentation.

From the looks of things, the D800 is poised to be the biggest seller for the company of all time. Isn't it ironic that some of the people who should be MOST thrilled for the company have nothing but negative things to say about it?

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

                        
agitater Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014   Toronto, CA  Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007 Tue 21-Feb-12 05:43 AM
4270 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#111. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 108




>From the looks of things, the D800 is poised to be the biggest
>seller for the company of all time.

It's possible, but maybe just the biggest selling pro body.

> Isn't it ironic that some
>of the people who should be MOST thrilled for the company have
>nothing but negative things to say about it?

Thrilled for the company? The company competes as it should and doesn't need anyone to be thrilled for it. I'll wait for a real D700 successor, but if it doesn't show up I'll just keep using my D700. Don't need video, which is my answer to the OP's query.

My Photo.Net Gallery
My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

                        
voyageurfred Silver Member  Montreal, CA  Nikonian since 20th Jun 2007 Tue 21-Feb-12 06:34 AM
439 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#114. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 108
Tue 21-Feb-12 06:35 AM by voyageurfred


"I would not presume to go buy a Ferrari and then complain how it won't haul lumber from Lowe's."

Brilliant! Love your metaphor Perrone


Frederic in Montréal

Nothing ventured... nothing gained!
http://www.RemarkableImages.ca

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

                            
agitater Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014   Toronto, CA  Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007 Wed 22-Feb-12 01:13 AM
4270 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#127. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 114



I don't think the analogy is appropriate or sensible. The D800 is built to 'haul' just about anything. It's about as far from (and a lot beter than, IMO) any Ferrari every built. Problem is, as Perrone has so accurately and emphatically pointed out, the D800 is a very serious pro body with some rather specific uses. It's not a general use camera for the great majority of full frame amateur or hobbyist shooters. The original question by the OP is really well answered, I think, where the D800 is concerned. Pros will use its video subsystem, most others will not. At least that's what I'm gathering from the video-positive responses in this thread.

My Photo.Net Gallery
My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

notes386 Gold Member  Peoria, US  Nikonian since 14th May 2008 Mon 20-Feb-12 11:14 PM
243 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#94. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



Church photographer... Would be GREAT for baptisms, etc...

Dan, Peoria, Az

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

Nikon300Bob Silver Member  VANCOUVER, CA  Nikonian since 08th Sep 2009 Mon 20-Feb-12 11:42 PM
139 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to send message via AOL IM
#96. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



When I bought my Nikon D300 the D300s had just come out, so I had a choice of buying a camera with or without video. Since I knew I would never use the video and I could save a few hundred dollars I choose the D300.

If Nikon offered the D4 without video at a savings of 10% I would definitely choose the model without. However, I know that is not going to happen - all high end still cameras from now on are going to have video like or not.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
KnightPhoto Gold Member  Alberta, CA  Nikonian since 18th Dec 2006 Tue 21-Feb-12 04:11 AM
4595 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#109. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 96



The model without video would be more expensive not less expensive

So... how many on that side of the argument would pay more for a camera that did not have video?

Or feel free to explain how Nikon would pull off this video-less strategy. Would it be certain models in the line up, all models, and how and why would this strategy work for Nikon and what impact would it have on Nikon's global sales?

Best regards, SteveK

'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
My Nikonians gallery
My Nikonians Blog

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
agitater Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014   Toronto, CA  Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007 Tue 21-Feb-12 05:54 AM
4270 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#112. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 109



>The model without video would be more expensive not less
>expensive
>
>So... how many on that side of the argument would pay more
>for a camera that did not have video?


Why would it be more expensive? The D700 tooling, dies, parts chain, etc., etc., exists. I could wish for a new 12+mp sensor and the latest CPU, all in the existing D700 body. Why would this be more expensive than a D800? Forget it - I don't think it will happen.

My Photo.Net Gallery
My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

            
loveandppeace   Fairfield, US  Registered since 21st Feb 2012 Tue 21-Feb-12 06:32 AM
4 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#113. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 112



"There seem to be a lot of demonstrably non-pros who are pre-ordering the D800 - droves of them in fact, as far as I can tell."

Hello, Howard. I think you're right: I'm not a pro, though I've been an enthusiast since 1979. I've been waiting for the D800 to come along for around six months and avidly following the Nikon Rumors. Thank God, the rumor that it would cost $4,000 was incorrect. I'm by no means rich, but since I decided to switch from my D300 to a full framer, I have been saving my money. I pre-ordered the 800E because I like the idea of squeezing out every available iota of sharpness. With the extra $$ that I saved, I've already purchased a RAID system to store those huge files.

Concerning video, it might be nice to have it in case a tornado strikes or some other flashy event, but other than that, I will just ignore it.

By the way, I'm new to the Nikonian blog; this is my first post.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

                
suzyk Silver Member  near Hobart, AU  Nikonian since 13th Dec 2011 Tue 21-Feb-12 07:40 AM
1563 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#115. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 113



Hey Jim,

Welcome to Nikonians.

Cheers,
Suzy

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

                
voyageurfred Silver Member  Montreal, CA  Nikonian since 20th Jun 2007 Tue 21-Feb-12 07:54 AM
439 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#116. "D800 vs D800E"
In response to Reply # 113
Tue 21-Feb-12 07:55 AM by voyageurfred


"I pre-ordered the 800E because I like the idea of squeezing out every available iota of sharpness."

Welcome Jim to Nikonians! Congrats on your order, but may I suggest you carefully reconsider your decision to go with the 800E. You have made a quantum leap in technology going from the DX format D300 to the FX D800. I can say that with all honesty because I have the D300 and the D700, and they are worlds apart.

Rather than my explaining why you may be better off staying with the regular D800, I suggest reading Scott Kelby's excellent post with his reasoning:

http://scottkelby.com/2012/24632/

Cheers,
Frederic in Montréal

Nothing ventured... nothing gained!
http://www.RemarkableImages.ca

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

                    
richardd300 Silver Member  Dyserth, UK  Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009 Tue 21-Feb-12 09:14 AM
3669 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#117. "RE: D800 vs D800E"
In response to Reply # 116
Tue 21-Feb-12 10:12 AM by richardd300


Whilst we Brits were sleeping PerroneFord made the following interesting comment:

<<To what degree should Nikon be concerned that amateurs and hobbyists are not pleased with a camera that was not aimed at them?>>

Personally, I think they take them/us very seriously. Two years ago at Focus on Imaging, UK's largest photography fair, I asked a Nikon representative, "how important and how large is the amateur market in the UK"? I seem to remember that his, slightly guarded view, was that users are grouped into hobbyist, advanced amateur, semi pro and pro.

At the time the market was quiet with only the D3s being the talking point, but the upshot was that and as one would expect, pro's dominated the D3s/D3x, D300/s and D700 was also a big factor. Advanced amateurs were spread across D300/s, D90 mostly with some D700 sales, hobbyists were principally D90, D5000, D3000 and some D300/s. The response to the advent of video had been excellent and a big D90 market puller and then was increasingly attracting the pro D3s users. However, dSLR video was still in its infancy.

So, I do think that Nikon's attention is mainly directed towards the pro market with the D4, but the D300s and D700 is a significant player in the amateur market. I will be most surprised if this isn't the case with the D800 as it will be with much awaited D300s replacement and video will continue to earn it's crust in attracting pro and amateur customers alike.

The D800 like the D700 will bridge a gap between the amateur and professional user in my view, but be more attractive because of high quality video, whether anti video users like it or not. It would be interesting to take a poll of the correspondants in the D800 forum to see the spread between pros and amateurs!

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

                
agitater Gold Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014   Toronto, CA  Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007 Wed 22-Feb-12 01:07 AM
4270 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#126. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 113



Thanks for your first post. Thanks also for describing your approach to the D800.

My Photo.Net Gallery
My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

Sportymonk   Rocky Mount, US  Registered since 16th Jul 2007 Tue 21-Feb-12 03:00 PM
814 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#118. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0



Wow, this thread has exploded.

For me, Video is an either or proposition. If I am shooting a wedding, I can shoot stills of if I had the D300s (I had one as backup last wedding) I could shoot video BUT I can't shoot both at the same time. I suppose one could alternate but then you wind up in the dilemma of when to go still and when to go video and of course trying to explain to the client that you can't turn photos into video and video won't produce good stills. The client will inevitably want the other. I think it best to simply let somebody shoot video and somebody else shoot still.

The Image Doctors has an excellent podcast concerning video shooting and how the DSLRs limit the continuous time you can shoot thus you have to plan and script it, you can't just shoot endlessly to edit later like you can with a camcorder.

I could blow off the young people and You Tube but I can't ignore what may well be the wave of the future. Too many profession classes and other works are already on You Tube, its not just for amateurs.

But in the end, I will probably stick to stills with some video maybe if and when I ever get a new camera.

Nikonians is the Smithsonian of Nikon knowledge. If there is a question they can't answer, I want to see the question.

My Gallery: www.HLDPhotos.com
My Blog : www.HLDPhotos.blogspot.com

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
Robman3   West of Santa Monica, US  Registered since 12th Apr 2010 Tue 21-Feb-12 06:03 PM
1842 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#119. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 118
Tue 21-Feb-12 09:26 PM by Robman3


Hello Sportymonk,

I differ on shooting a wedding, the segments in speech patterns, bridal party, wedding march, song or music performances are fairly easy to anticipate and edit later especially that 20 to 30 (D7K D800/D4) minute takes per record activation is a Loooooooonnnnngggggg time in the video sense so that works well enough.

If one has a second who is using another lens and viewpoint, then the problem will never be a big deal.

Same for concerts, events, and venue related stuff like speeches, a few seconds when the speakers are changing on the dais, or take a sip of water, stand for applause, all part of the "chops" one will use if seriously pursuing that idiom.

It's simple, hit the stop button and a new clip begins when reengaged, and focus should already be set from the last shot. IF there is an actual skip, then lets assume as the still camera is engaged (D3S set up adjacent to, or near enough to be on point) then floating in a very well framed still of the ring hand off, or the kiss, etc. to cover the short span, allows the drawn out nature of a shot that long, to be broken up, creating interest for the viewer.

Yes, I walked away from the static D7K and positioned the other tripod a good 50 feet away using the D3S and did exactly as described, and the DVD product was just fine.

So alluding to the experts on the site you mention, perhaps they have been used to Canon which doesn't shoot past 12 minutes as I recall. My D3S and handed down D90 shoot at 5 minutes as well.

The Panasonic GH2 has no time limitation BTW.

It's a very simple engineering argument to include video, and adherents with no intent of using that, would really not find any savings if Nikon left it off, given this statement which I'll repeat paraphrased from last years NAB show. I believe it was in an issue of HDVideo Pro.

Something like : There are more video enabled DSLR's sold in one day, then the combined sales in one year of every camera on display at the show.

Just sayin'

And many thank to Perrone, for his lucid and at times cryptic but light hearted analogies about schlepping Lumber from Loews, that never precluded me from figuring out a way to do such cartage in my old Bavaria, but I digress, and it was a four door.

HTH's and thanks for chiming in.

Rob


Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

mmariant Team Member Expert photography teacher   Morro Bay, US  Nikonian since 21st Jun 2008 Tue 21-Feb-12 07:56 PM
677 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#120. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 0
Tue 21-Feb-12 10:34 PM by mmariant


As a professional in the field both independently and for The Associated Press (as well as being Nikonians Academy faculty, including teaching the HD-SLR workshop), I've been following this discussion now for the past couple days, and thought I would add some thoughts.

• First off: Yes, the HD-SLR is used in the field by videographers and cinematographers, probably a lot more than you realize. Just a few weeks ago while covering an entertainment event, I was talking with a good friend who works as a still shooter on sets, both TV and film. He shared that roughly 70% of the television shows he works on, from single-camera to multi-camera sitcoms, are shot on HD-SLR cameras now. And nearly every commercial you watch on TV was shot on HD-SLR cameras. As for feature films, while the 5DMII and/or 7D was second unit cameras for quite awhile, they have quickly moved into primary camera work.

• The introduction of video into the still camera was not, as I'm sure everyone in this discussion realizes now, an attempt to upend the video market. The technology was there in the SLR, and the costs to incorporate were quite marginal, so it became an added selling point. A bonus feature.

However, while the Nikon D4 and D800 has improved HD qualities, that doesn't mean Nikon and Canon are now developing these cameras for the pro market. Quite the contrary, as seen by the release of the Canon C300 pro camera modeled from the success of the HD-SLR, at a price point of $16K. And with both EOS lens mount and the industry-standard PL mount. The HD pro market is getting their own cameras. So the current crop of HD-SLR cameras aren't built for the video/film industry pros ... they are built for you.

• And for those that question the value of the video feature, or feel that they can't shoot both still and video at the same event ... my take on that is to get used to it. A camera is nothing more than a tool. And every tool has a purpose. There is no catch-all camera that will please everyone. You pick the tool that is best suited for the job you are doing. Just as you wouldn't use a wrench as a hammer (maybe), you wouldn't pick up a P&S to cover a wedding. So the video feature is just one of the tools in your tool bag.

• As I tell everyone in the HD-SLR workshops and lectures I do, if you are currently an amateur or weekend professional shooting weddings, sports or portraits ... and making money from it ... then to not add video is pretty much both career and financial suicide.

Why? If you do it right and take advantage of the HD-SLR feature set, unique characteristics, and complement of important related accessories ... whatever you are charging for still photos, just add a "0" to that dollar amount and that's what you charge for HD-SLR video.

And if you don't do it, someone else will. And take your business away.

____________________________
Michael A. Mariant
Nikonians Academy Faculty
Master Your Vision Workshops

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
PerroneFord Silver Member  Tallahassee, US  Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011 Tue 21-Feb-12 09:11 PM
2680 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#121. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 120



Thank you for that rather eloquent and succinct summary. It will probably fall on deaf ears, but I'm glad you said it just the same.

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
Robman3   West of Santa Monica, US  Registered since 12th Apr 2010 Tue 21-Feb-12 09:40 PM
1842 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#122. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 120
Wed 22-Feb-12 07:40 AM by Robman3


@mmariant,

"And nearly every commercial you watch on TV was shot on HD-SLR cameras. As for feature films, while the 5DMII and/or 7D was second unit cameras for quite awhile, they have quickly moved into primary camera work."

I was going to ignore this point after sleuthing a car commercial last night during cable TV but now that you bring it up.

By the editing, at least to my eye, it was clear the spot was done on an HD-DSLR (Nomenclature is HDslr or HD-DSLR?) and run through a layered process, to mitigate moire/motion, OOF on one clip of the vehicle as it was moving fast to absolve the blur, rotoscope or equivalent to isolate car from prone to moire background and matted/layered on that with overstated blur effect as well, stuff like that.

Also the story board had preferred angles for the crisp takes and so on.

It just seemed as if they pulled the best bits out and ran effects threaded into the shots, very nicely done.

Tonight, I'll check it again in case I've under or over valued the retention in my lizard brain.

Thanks to you as well, your post was very timely for ALL of the great folks here at Nikonians.

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
richardd300 Silver Member  Dyserth, UK  Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009 Tue 21-Feb-12 10:08 PM
3669 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#123. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 122



@mmariant,

<<• The introduction of video into the still camera was not, as I'm sure everyone in this discussion realizes now, an attempt to upend the video market. The technology was there in the SLR, and the costs to incorporate were quite marginal, so it became an added selling point. A bonus feature.>>

Excellent, as I always assumed, the technology was already there. That means that the cost of a dSLR is not largely inflated by the video inclusion and in short use it or not, it's there if one wants it. One day I may even try it

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
walkerr Administrator Awarded for his con tributed articles published at the Resources Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in multiple areas Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Master Ribbon awarded as a member who has gone beyond technical knowledge to show mastery of the art and science of photography     Colorado Springs, US  Nikonian since 05th May 2002 Tue 21-Feb-12 10:21 PM
15269 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#124. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 120



Well said, Michael.

Rick Walker

My photos:

GeoVista Photography

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
MelT   Petersburg, US  Registered since 06th Jul 2002 Tue 21-Feb-12 11:49 PM
4608 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#125. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 124



Well this horse has been beaten to death. Polar opposite views are not surprising at all. The bottom line is whether you like it or not, video is going to be included in DSLRs so you might as well get use to it. If you don't want it, you can simply stay with what you have. It is the evolution of photography.

I remember there was a day when there was a big outcry when cameras became reliant on...gasp...batteries . The need for batteries is not even thought of today. It is what it is. Lets just hope that a demand for "green" cameras doesn't develop and forced on us with perhaps little solar panels collecting energy from the sun . Lets get out and shoot stills and/or video. It doesn't really matter which. You are out doing some PHOTOGRAPHY .


Mel

An Opinionated Old Curmudgeon from Virginia



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

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

    
rhulbert Gold Member Winner of the Nikonians 10th Anniversary Photo Contest Awarded for his limitless enthusiasm and extraordinarily genial nature consistently in support of Nikonians Writer Ribbon awarded for his generous and valuable contributions to the Nikonians Articles (Resources) section.   North Vancouver, CA  Charter Member Wed 22-Feb-12 01:47 AM
580 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#128. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 120



Following up on Michael Mariant's excellent post, I want to jump in as well on the whole notion of Video or Cinematography and its relationship to Still Photography.

However, my take will be from a different "perspective."

Because of the obvious long range impact of Video as a "tool" that is now part of the Single Camera Solution, I have been studying and learning about Cinematography.

The "punch line" is that I am convinced that just the awareness alone of Cinematic Principles of Communication can and will improve all of our photography ... including our still photography. When we start to appreciate the methods and principles of how story telling and the portrayal of multi-dimensional environments on a 2-dimensional screen are so carefully and thoughtfully conceived and articulated, we will see how our ability to "make" photographs will improve.

I contend that this will be true whether or not we actually embrace the use of the new video features that are now part and parcel of the evolving device we call a "camera."

These are great times in which we live. Change is coming at an enormous pace. Although change can be scary and frightening, we can all ultimately benefit. While I do not plan on ever becoming a "movie maker," I am convinced that a knowledge of movie making will only add to our abilities to portray and interpret the world around us through photography.

Rick Hulbert
Vancouver, Canada
http://www.rickhulbertphotography.com

Member, Nikonians Academy Faculty
http://www.nikoniansacademy.com/viewFacultyPage.html?page_id=8

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
PerroneFord Silver Member  Tallahassee, US  Nikonian since 07th Apr 2011 Wed 22-Feb-12 03:05 AM
2680 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#129. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 128



Very thoughtful post. And I concur. I can certainly say that doing a few movies improved my photography by leaps and bounds. If for no other reason than I was FORCED to study light placement, and TRULY examine the frame.

By the same token, the 3 years I spent learning to edit film well, really taught me about peak action and story telling.

Operating the camera also honed my manual focus skills again. I actually went out and got some reasonable birding shots at 900mm on manual focus.

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

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

            
rhulbert Gold Member Winner of the Nikonians 10th Anniversary Photo Contest Awarded for his limitless enthusiasm and extraordinarily genial nature consistently in support of Nikonians Writer Ribbon awarded for his generous and valuable contributions to the Nikonians Articles (Resources) section.   North Vancouver, CA  Charter Member Wed 22-Feb-12 03:46 AM
580 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#130. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 129



Hi Perrone,

I have been appreciating your posts of late. Hopefully we will meet face to face one day.

In my case, as an Architect and photography teacher, I have found the concept of portraying what is referred to in cinematic terms as "deep space," "limited space" and "flat space" fascinating. This is because architecture and urban design is all about creating spaces for people and their activities. I find the notion of the many "cues" that are used to convey a sense of 3-D space on the "big screen" very applicable to Urban Photography and I intend to include that in my Urban Photography workshops for Nikonians coming up in April and May.

http://www.nikoniansacademy.com/nikon-Urban+Photography-workshop/110

Thanks for your kind response.

Regards,

Rick Hulbert
Vancouver, Canada
http://www.rickhulbertphotography.com

Member, Nikonians Academy Faculty
http://www.nikoniansacademy.com/viewFacultyPage.html?page_id=8

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

        
Robman3   West of Santa Monica, US  Registered since 12th Apr 2010 Wed 22-Feb-12 07:06 AM
1842 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#131. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 128



Or use two cameras and have 3 dimensional...

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

            
richardd300 Silver Member  Dyserth, UK  Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009 Wed 22-Feb-12 09:25 AM
3669 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#132. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 131



Hi PerroneFord.

<<Operating the camera also honed my manual focus skills again. I actually went out and got some reasonable birding shots at 900mm on manual focus.>>

If ever there has been a post/s that has got me to re-examine my thinking, then this one has to be it. As a birding photographer (my favourite genre along with landscape) this could be a fine way to both better understand light placement and manual focusing of birds in flight. Perhaps I may just feel different about my D7000 too and find a way to increase my enjoyment!

Because of this post my opinion of video has changed. As an engineer in science and technology for over 40 years I've always embraced change and advancements in technology, however video in a dSLR has for some reason been resisted. In my defence I have never bemoaned those who do use video. The arguements for and against posted here have helped me to revisit my understanding.

Thanks to everyone and I think I'd better go and do some reading

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

            
MelT   Petersburg, US  Registered since 06th Jul 2002 Wed 22-Feb-12 10:47 PM
4608 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#133. "RE: Why Video in a Still Camera; Who Uses It?"
In response to Reply # 131



Actually came across an interesting video on Vimeo of a guy using using two Canons to do HDR video. Can't really ever see myself attempting to do this even if I had two identical video capable cameras but it is interesting.

http://vimeo.com/14821961


Mel

An Opinionated Old Curmudgeon from Virginia



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

  

Alert Print | Reply | Quote | Top

Forums Lobby CAFÉ English Café (Public) topic #79746 Previous topic | Next topic