Video mode on dSLRS?

[mrkgoo]

With more and more dSLRs incorporating some sort of live view, do you think a video recording mode is inevitable? Granted, the implementation right now has very little in the way of focus mechanisms, but will that improve allowing you to record movie files through camera lenses?

[PAFC2004]

I think it is pointless... people buy DSLR's because they want it to perform better than a standard PnS. When you add more, you are almost always compromise something else.

[Woolburr]

Seems like a rather silly feature to me, same as on a P&S camera...if you want to shoot video, grab the video camera. But I'm sure some people will think this is a grand idea.

[mrkgoo]

I understand your points. But still, don't you want to see what video would be like through L-lenses? Also, granted somethings are compromised for new features, I wouldn't say almost always. Cameras are a field where a lot improvements have been made with minimal compromise (apart from price).

[Pete-eos]

People need to step back from their photographer bubbles, if the joe average consumer wants this, it'll inevitably end up in an entry level system soon. I bet it'll be Sony that makes the jump first as well, they've just added live view with dedicated AF and a swivel screen so video next?
Pluss Sigma has Video working on their DP1 using their foveon sensor (mind there is no mirror) so it can work as far as I know...

Personally, no I don' t want it in my DSLR...

[Ferrari_Alex]

I do not think that this is going to happen. People don't need that. People would hate that

[Cyth0n]

No one hates to have more modes. At worst they'll just be indifferent.

With more and more P&S users buying DSLR systems, I have no doubt that it'll end up in the entry level models. In much the same way that the consumer bodies have scene modes and higher level bodies don't.

[gooble]

When you mix products like that you usually get worse products than if they were individual.

Is it a still camera that does video, or a video camera that does stills?

Well, right now I'd bet most video cameras offer some still shooting option but it sucks compared to a DSLR. Advanced P&S cameras do video but it is poor.

Of course things will improve and sometime we'll see a device that does both pretty darn well.

The problem I see is that even when it gets there there will still be ample reason to not want a dual-purpose device.

First, the ideal still camera and video camera are vastly different in their physical sizes. Good video cameras are big. Not necessarily because the complexity or technology dictate it but because they need to be. The bigger they are the more stable it is. They need room to attach all sorts of stuff like hard drives, mics, lights and other things.

Secondly, most people that have a job to do as a photographer or vidoegrapher will want the right device for the job and will not want to pay extra for a still camera or video camera that they don't want or need.

A still camera, even if it did wonderful video would not cut it for enthusiast videographers or semi-pros. If they modified it to please vidographers, the photographers would quit buying it. And vice versa.

If you've seen or heard of the RED camera it's a HD video camera that does something in the neighborhood of 3840x2400 video. That's about 8 megapixels. If you take individual frames of video you have 8MP images. But guess what, I would not lug that thing around to take still images. Besides, it's $15K.

[Collin85]

Seems like a rather silly feature to me, same as on a P&S camera...if you want to shoot video, grab the video camera.

Do consumer-level video cameras shoot as good stills as a dSLR? No, they don't.

It's all about priorities. I'm sure if such a feature were implemented into dSLRs, people (by common sense) wouldn't expect jaw-dropping video quality, because they'd obviously buy a video camera for that. That's pretty much a given, so I don't see why this point gets mentioned by someone everytime this debate comes up. It's totally beside the point. Advocates just hold affinity to the fact that it can take a video if need be. Top quality isn't the point.

And yes, I think it's a grand idea.

[grimey121uk]

video is a novelty
dslrs are for pictures
if you want good video then get a video camera

[Pete]

Maybe I'm a bit old-fashioned, but I don't like the idea of live-view.

I like using the viewfinder with the dSLR. If that means I have to grovel in the dirt for low angles and make a fool of myself, then so be it.

[Collin85]

Maybe I'm a bit old-fashioned, but I don't like the idea of live-view.

I like using the viewfinder with the dSLR. If that means I have to grovel in the dirt for low angles and make a fool of myself, then so be it.

I don't like live-view either, but I'm certainly a fan of a potential video mode. I'm all for utility - if it's useful, I'm all for it. But from the impressions I've gotten off similar discussions at the DPReview forums, I can't help but feel some here may be loathing the concept predominantly out of being a dSLR elitist. Or in other words, don't want a feature characteristic of a lowly P&S on their big expensive dSLRs.

For me atleast, I'd love it if my camera could take a few videos here and there. It's not going to make my dSLR any less of a camera and its presence isn't going to automatically make my camera take worse photographs.

[Pete]

I don't like live-view either, but I'm certainly a fan of a potential video mode. I'm all for utility - if it's useful, I'm all for it. But from the impressions I've gotten off similar discussions at the DPReview forums, I can't help but feel some here may be loathing the concept predominantly out of being a dSLR elitist. Or in other words, don't want a feature characteristic of a lowly P&S on their big expensive dSLRs.

For me atleast, I'd love it if my camera could take a few videos here and there. It's not going to make my dSLR any less of a camera and its presence isn't going to automatically make my camera take worse photographs.

I carry around a P&S. Job done.

[grimey121uk]

I don't like live-view either, but I'm certainly a fan of a potential video mode. I'm all for utility - if it's useful, I'm all for it. But from the impressions I've gotten off similar discussions at the DPReview forums, I can't help but feel some here may be loathing the concept predominantly out of being a dSLR elitist. Or in other words, don't want a feature characteristic of a lowly P&S on their big expensive dSLRs.

For me atleast, I'd love it if my camera could take a few videos here and there. It's not going to make my dSLR any less of a camera and its presence isn't going to automatically make my camera take worse photographs.

i think its more the fact that a dslr is a serious bit of kit(even entry level).
adding stuff like video playback is just a novelty which will add cost the consumers which 90% of them wont even use. And id rather camera companies invest more cash into usefull technology such as lower noise or faster af.

[lakiluno]

I certainly wouldn't object to having video. I love the viewfinder on my camera, and if they ever try and phase out the mirror setup on DSLRs for live view alternatives, I will be really angry, but I can't see how video would be a bad thing. The worst that could happen is you didn't use it. It'd pretty much be entirely software based anyway, so it wouldn't add any weight or much cost to the camera, and it would mean you'd be able to make video through all your nice expensive lenses. As an added bonus, because the video would almost certainly be lower resolution than the sensor, you could have quite tight crops (turn a 300mm lens into a 2000mm lens) if needed, making it quite useful for far away videoing.

Basically, when I go to upgrade my 20D, if it was a choice between a 50D with video and a 50D without, I'd get the one with video.

[Collin85]

I carry around a P&S. Job done.

Me too. But I won't have to do that at all if my dSLR could also serve that purpose.. geddit?

i think its more the fact that a dslr is a serious bit of kit(even entry level).
adding stuff like video playback is just a novelty which will add cost the consumers which 90% of them wont even use. And id rather camera companies invest more cash into usefull technology such as lower noise or faster af.

Asserting that it's a 'novelty' really isn't fair - it simply depends on who you ask. For me, it's far from being a novelty. To me, Live View is a novelty, but I don't dare try to label it as a generalization.

As for it adding to the costs, probably. Infact, that's most definitely a valid point. But so does features like Live View, and people have gotten over complaining over that one. In other words, the R&D costs may pitch initially, but once implemented, should be of little burden on consumers, cost-wise, as further iterations of the technology become available in future releases.

[timnosenzo]

I hope they don't, its definitely not a feature I would want to have to pay any extra for. I feel like Live View could maybe serve a purpose in my life, so I don't mind having it, but I have no desire for video anything. http://www.dgrin.com/images/smilies/Disappointed.gif

Unfortunately we may not be too far from this being implemented, at least in entry level DSLR's. Nikon added a makeshift movie mode to their D60 that basically stitches together a few pictures and plays them as a movie. If people love it, I'm sure they'll continue to develop it.

[apersson850]

Apart from the "it can do that too" feeling, there's no real point in it. It still makes a large and clumsy video camera, that's awkward to hold, as you can't use the viewfinder when the mirror is up.

Besides, the L-lens quality can't be used, since to fully take advantage of that, the data streams will be too large. No television screen will be able to faithfully reproduce that quality either.

[binliner]

People buy DSLRs because they're serious about taking pictures... if they're serious about filming things they'll buy a video camera

[Pete-eos]

People buy DSLRs because they're serious about taking pictures... if they're serious about filming things they'll buy a video camera

You think? maybe the people on this forum, theres plenty of consumers out there happily in green box mode who would probably love video mode. I wouldn't expect to see video in anything above entry level but it'd be quite an attractive feature to those p&s users to upgrade to the 500D.

[Collin85]

People buy DSLRs because they're serious about taking pictures... if they're serious about filming things they'll buy a video camera

Not sure how many times this redundant point has been mentioned now. It's getting a little silly.

To your point - YES, if they're serious. But that's really a pretty trivial 'DUH' statement. Yes, of course they'd buy a proper video camera, if they're serious. But let's not leave out the other large subset, i.e. the people not so serious about their videos, shall we?

[AdamJL]

I understand your points. But still, don't you want to see what video would be like through L-lenses? Also, granted somethings are compromised for new features, I wouldn't say almost always. Cameras are a field where a lot improvements have been made with minimal compromise (apart from price).

You can already use L series lenses on some Canon video cameras. A lot of wildlife cameramen use L series lenses in their setup. And Canon have an equivelant L series as well for video.

To the topic, I wouldn't mind having video. I'm not any kind of arrogant purist who thinks the mixing of concepts is a bad thing. If Canon can keep image quality as good as it is now, then I'm all for it.

[Concorde Rules]

Pointless unless it doesn't impact on photo taking qualities.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was included on the xxxD line. Any higher and I'd start to get worried that RnD on video is taking time away from AF/ISO noise/MP/whatever else is important!

[binliner]

Not sure how many times this redundant point has been mentioned now. It's getting a little silly.

To your point - YES, if they're serious. But that's really a pretty trivial 'DUH' statement. Yes, of course they'd buy a proper video camera, if they're serious. But let's not leave out the other large subset, i.e. the people not so serious about their videos, shall we?

But surely those people who aren't so serious are unlikely to want to buy a DSLR when they can get all the same features on a P&S for less money... 12mp, mega zoom, video, 3" screens etc etc... not saying it won't happen just that it wouldn't be something that would sway me towards buying a certain camera

[col4bin]

That is a feature that IMO, should not be on a DSLR. Keep that in the P&S arena.

[farrukh]

I would love video mode on dSLR, because we can't get a versatile sensor video camera with such DOF advantage cheaply.

[bmwm3csl]

This is the same debate that takes place within the audio world. A true audiophile would never think of having his receiver and amp combined into one unit!!! My GOD the sound quality would be compromised..... However for most everyday music listeners an all-in-one Receiver, Amp, CD, Tape, & Record Player sounds just fine.

I think video has it's place in the lower end DSLR market.

It would not surprise me to see the next gen 500D having a video option.

But as people get more serious about either format they will quickly get annoyed or frustrated by the limitations that a single integrated device places on their ability to produce the best photo or video quality.

[Collin85]

But surely those people who aren't so serious are unlikely to want to buy a DSLR when they can get all the same features on a P&S for less money... 12mp, mega zoom, video, 3" screens etc etc... not saying it won't happen just that it wouldn't be something that would sway me towards buying a certain camera

No, you're still misunderstanding.

The equation is simple: Serious about photos, NOT serious about excellent quality videos. The ability to take videos (P&S quality is good enough).

Nowadays, I'm forced to bring a P&S whenever I also expect to take some videos here and there. That's quite often, unfortunately. If a dSLR incorporated such a feature, that's one less device I have to bring.

[Collin85]

That is a feature that IMO, should not be on a DSLR. Keep that in the P&S arena.

Why? Just curious.

This is the same debate that takes place within the audio world. A true audiophile would never think of having his receiver and amp combined into one unit!!! My GOD the sound quality would be compromised..... However for most everyday music listeners an all-in-one Receiver, Amp, CD, Tape, & Record Player sounds just fine.

I think video has it's place in the lower end DSLR market.

It would not surprise me to see the next gen 500D having a video option.

But as people get more serious about either format they will quickly get annoyed or frustrated by the limitations that a single integrated device places on their ability to produce the best photo or video quality.

Hardly anyone is looking for a device which does both in astounding quality. That was never the point. Some just want a dSLR which CAN do videos. Excellent quality 1080p @ 15Mbps+ isn't a realistic expectation and no one is expecting that. P&S quality is good enough.

[col4bin]

Well, IMO, DSLR is for those wanting to improve their still photography. Video seems more of a novelty geared at the more casual shooter. I for one would not want to pay for that technology in a DSLR. On the flip side, I would not want a video camera for its still capabilities. To me, it kind of cheapens the slr concept.

[Collin85]

To me, it kind of cheapens the slr concept.

That's what gets me, and I think I already addressed this debate in a previous post. That is, the implementation of such a feature wouldn't make your SLR any less of a camera. The camera's function is to take photographs. That's its utility. Adding a video capture ability isn't going to suddenly make it take worse pictures, is it? Heck, they could implement a Super Mario game into the 3" LCD.. it would certainly be rather silly, but it's not going to make my camera take worse pictures.

Conversely, let's look at handycams (that you brought up). Many current models boast stills-taking as a feature, but of course people who buy video cameras don't buy it for its still taking abilities, like you implied. For that, they'd buy a proper camera, not a video camera. But the point is, it's THERE, incase you need it. The fact that a video camera can take low-quality stills doesn't make it less of a video camera. It's still a fully-fledged video camera.. just that it now boasts an extra feature you don't even have to care about if you don't need it. You can even just pretend it's not there.

IMO, the only against-arguments I tend to see fall into two main categories:
- Extra cost to the user who doesn't care for the feature (quite valid).
- The notion that it makes your camera any less of a photograph-taking machine (I feel this just hints off a bit of SLR-elitism).

[bmwm3csl]

Hey Collin85,

I could be wrong, but I'm begining to get this funny feeling that you would really like to have a DSLR that can also shoot video. ;)

[Collin85]

Hey Collin85,

I could be wrong, but I'm begining to get this funny feeling that you would really like to have a DSLR that can also shoot video. ;)

No way! :lol:

[rc13k]

I don't understand how you guys can't like live view. Especially for macro photography or shooting over someone's head. I've actually never used the feature since I only own a 400d but sometimes I really wish I had a camera that had it.

[binliner]

No, you're still misunderstanding.

The equation is simple: Serious about photos, NOT serious about excellent quality videos. The ability to take videos (P&S quality is good enough).

Nowadays, I'm forced to bring a P&S whenever I also expect to take some videos here and there. That's quite often, unfortunately. If a dSLR incorporated such a feature, that's one less device I have to bring.

LOL I'm not misunderstanding anything... the question posed in this thread was 'is the addition of video inevitable on DSLRs?' and I was giving my opinion on that.

It's perfectly clear that you would like it on yours and I understand why, personally it isn't something I'd look for ;)

[John Hudson]

There's a newly posted article on the Luminous Landscape website which is relevant to this thread.

Concentrating on the cinema cameras transition to digital and how this technology now incorporates high MP RAW frame captures. This technology is filtering down from high end cinema cameras into hand held consumer devices (Casio EX-1) and I don't doubt that there will be pressure for video to be incorporated into future generation of DSLRS (likely from the consumer end initially).

It's not something I would pay extra for, but if they want to engineer it into a DSLR then why not?

John.

[rodolfocorona]

HEHEHE well i don't think that is going to happen, may be may be some day you can take 24 fps on a 1D MK X and thats the close think of video you can see.