Canon DSLR's - Movie mode

[MLphoto]

I think after the new camera's hit sales like D50 5D etc... Canon should start working on a DSLR with movie mode, Now that the Nikon D90 does movies im sure other brands like sony etc will do this too. I will still upgrade normally to the 50D, but i think more people might be going for Nikon if Canon doesn't start putting movie mode into some of therer DSLR's. I'm sure people that are spending around 1000 or more will want the best functions and options in there camera.

I'm sure the D90 takes excelent pictures and it takes amazing videos too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ONRYGZLbaY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd94II6EO6s

[VTSHEP1]

Agreed, maybe the excitement will die off for me, but as of right now I am hell bent on video in my SLR ASAP...Noink or Canon. It really opens up a whole other world of creativity/options when i am out shooting.

I assume studio people couldnt care, and wedding photogs may be a little interested...

[NGrinerPhoto]

as a photojournalist, i'd be really interested. my editors thinking about handing me a video camera to shoot some low rez stuff for our website.

[connexile]

it`s surprising to see how people here are positive about this video feature. Don`t you think that it damages the sensor and shortens its life time. I definitely think it does. That`s the reason why the d90 shoots only 5 mins of video in full resolution. If canon wants to put it in the rebel series, that may be fine but it would be lame in any camera better than the rebels.

[Nightcrawler]

I think a video feature would be nice, but not the way Nikon did it. I want the video feature to actually AF and have auto exposure. You know, actually work like a video camera. In the end, though, a video feature won't make me decide one camera over the other.

[FlyingPhotog]

as a photojournalist, i'd be really interested. my editors thinking about handing me a video camera to shoot some low rez stuff for our website.

Do you guys have a union?

If so, I hope you fight this tooth and nail. If not, maybe you ought to organize.

[Juan Zas]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=6202017&postcount=10

[VTSHEP1]

Do you guys have a union?

If so, I hope you fight this tooth and nail. If not, maybe you ought to organize.

Huh?

[gjl711]

... Don`t you think that it damages the sensor and shortens its life time. I definitely think it does. That`s the reason why the d90 shoots only 5 mins of video in full resolution....
Why would it shorten the life of the sensor? Heat maybe, but that is controllable by limiting video clip lengths. Anyway, 5 minutes of uninterrupted video is pretty long.

[VTSHEP1]

I am interested in hearing what the real reasons are for pro's objecting to video, because i dont get it right now. I was taken back by the apparent backlash against video in SLRs from professional photogs.
I am wondering if it is a resistance to change like when it went from film to digital, or a legitimate concern.
The way I see things evolving, multimedia is growing by leaps and bounds, with the internet increasingly moving towards interactive content. Actually that happened years ago. I am in marketing, I have seen first hand the stats of webpages INCREASE when you simply add a video…not professionally lit or shot video either…on a B2B site…without any promotion! These are the same webpages with photographs from professionals. I mean look at Youtube, it was bought for like $2 BILLION…and I know most of you think of it as simply a point and shoot haven, but guess what, corporations are all over it, so are politicians…everyone…isnt this the way things should be going? I understand we all want a camera with infinite dynamic range, but failing that, if it is easy for the manufacturers to bubble something up from the P&S line…what is the problem? I cant imagine still photos will hold as much value in the future as they do now…its got to go somewhere else as technology evolves, they will always have their place but…at some point maybe digital displays will take over paper, then I can imagine photos will be much less desirable…maybe 3D…holographic….something. So with video in SLRs now, what are the reasons for objection?

[CoolToolGuy]

as a photojournalist, i'd be really interested. my editors thinking about handing me a video camera to shoot some low rez stuff for our website.

Up until seeing this post I was in the "Okay - but just for the P&S upgraders" camp. But it made me think, as others have pointed out, that multimedia is becoming more mainstream and in demand - and having video in your DSLR along with your kit is a lot less cumbersome than trying to carry equivalent video equipment along with the still-camera stuff.

Of course, video from a DSLR will probably not replace pro camcorders, but we may see it coming to the "1" series sooner than you would think. :confused:

My 2 cents.

Have Fun,

[jbuk1975]

I quite like the idea of having the ability to shoot a high res movie if I had the need to

I hope they can also build in an mp3 player, gps, phone and digital TV reciever

and i`m not even joking :)

[John_B]

I also would like to see the video available to the Canon DSLR's :)

[cyrn]

I don't mind having video on a DSLR... but at least make it a proper video, I hope IQ would be as good as those 35mm cinematic cams. And also have simultaneous high rez still pic capture.

And try to squeeze a 128GB SSD in as well.:cool:

[Dave.H]

I have zero interest in that and would steer away from buying a camera with the video feature given the choice.

Why?
- I'm not really into video anymore, if I was I would want a GOOD video camera, they are pretty small these days and weigh less than some L lenses
- It's another "feature" I'd be paying for that I don't want or ever intend to use
- I'd rather they spend R&D on other features to make still pictures better

Thats my $0.02. I could however see it as a very marketable feature on the Rebel series cameras to the casual parent that wants something a little more than a P&S but would still like to take small video clips.

[jbuk1975]

I have zero interest in that and would steer away from buying a camera with the video feature given the choice.

Why?
- I'm not really into video anymore, if I was I would want a GOOD video camera, they are pretty small these days and weigh less than some L lenses
- It's another "feature" I'd be paying for that I don't want or ever intend to use
- I'd rather they spend R&D on other features to make still pictures better

Thats my $0.02. I could however see it as a very marketable feature on the Rebel series cameras to the casual parent that wants something a little more than a P&S but would still like to take small video clips.

what if it didnt impact on the cost of the camera or the cost to produce it?
you dont have to use movie mode if you dont want?

same was as i only ever really use 3 modes on my 5d , but it didnt stop me buying it because it has an auto mode

[Dave.H]

what if it didnt impact on the cost of the camera or the cost to produce it?
you dont have to use movie mode if you dont want?

same was as i only ever really use 3 modes on my 5d , but it didnt stop me buying it because it has an auto mode

True, but I can't see it not affecting the cost. The auto modes affect the cost I am sure but we have no choice there and haven't for years. Sure if all cameras had it I would have no choice, but if I had a choice I would not buy it. Its never possible to please everyone and I am sure they are going down this path if the competition is, just my oppinion is I'd prefer not to have that wrapped up into my camera and if there was an acceptable alternative camera I would buy it over the one with video, but if they all had video I guess I would just have to buy it and never use it: :)

[gjl711]

True, but I can't see it not affecting the cost. ..
Why would it affect cost. It is simply a software application using the existing hardware in a different manner. Nikon might choose to adjust the price because of market niche but not because of camera complexity.

[Dave.H]

Why would it affect cost. It is simply a software application using the existing hardware in a different manner. Nikon might choose to adjust the price because of market niche but not because of camera complexity.


How does an exta button/feature and software NOT affect cost? It does where I work everyday. if its a "feature" your even more likely to pay extra for it whether you want it or not. I understand the hardware is there but there is a cost associated with the R&D and the additional manufacturing tooling costs or new parts. It may be minor but don't expect they will do for "free".

Software changes on a major product are not just a simple swipe of the mouse even if its a one line change. There is a lot of validation and engineering involved before a product makes it to market.

I'm not arguing whether this is good or bad, I am simply stating I have no use for it and that if they think they can make money off of it they WILL. It won't bring Nikon down, it will push canon up with the added "feature". Maybe I am wrong.

Right or wrong I see the market going this way because it seems as though the consumers, in general, want the extra feature. I think its innevitable.

[CoolToolGuy]

There is a very good chance that video in the DSLRs would improve them for still photography. One particular feature - FPS. If the camera has to shoot, process, and write all of those frames to the card it will require faster hardware in the camera as well as in the card. And HD video would result in an even bigger boost for still-camera FPS :D I'll bet there are other features that improve as well.

I'm not waiting in line for the first Canon DSLR with video. but I am interested to see what else changes for still photography when it arrives. :cool:

Have Fun,

[Skippy29]

Why would it shorten the life of the sensor? Heat maybe

Why isn't this an issue with regular HD camcorders then?

[John_B]

I have zero interest in that and would steer away from buying a camera with the video feature given the choice. Dave.H,
Do you use the print button on the 40D? ???
I sure don't (tried it for the first time today and its a waist of time) (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=6203843&postcount=43) but that wouldn't steer me away from buying a camera that I need or want.

Now if the new Canon camera had video but overall was lower quality then say my 40D, I wouldn't bother with it. But if its better and does video I can't wait to try....

[Dave.H]

Now if the new Canon camera had video but overall was lower quality then say my 40D, I wouldn't bother with it. But if its better and does video I can't wait to try....

I agree if its better and I am not paying an arm and a leg for the extra features then I am all for it. Like I said, I think its inevitable that they are going to go this route as the technology advances, its just one of those things I would rather not have because I won't use it, but if its not going to cost me extra then I will take it and just not use it.

I think one thing people are forgetting is that the sensor is there but the microphone is not. I'm sure thats easy enough to change but if you want HD quality movies off of an SLR camera its not going to be cheap. If anything its going to be fairly low quality video and very limited in lentgh.

[theflyingkiwi]

well video on a SLR camera doesn't have to use the full sesnor, so this is going to help them make it. If the video output is HD, which is 1080p then the sensor is going to have no troubles making video.

After all even a 10D sensor (6mp 3072x2048 ) is more than enough to create a HD video. It should be easy for them to do that. However having full res video from a 15mp sensor is a different matter. the storage requirements will be really large and of course there isn't anything that would display it at it's native res.

of course I am more interested in still photography than video. so generally it's a feature I wouldn't use.

[FlyingPete]

If I had video on my D-SLR I would use it. We carry two cameras at the moment, a 40D and TX1, the TX1 for video, but it is crap for photos and it has crap battery life (5-15 minutes), so having one device to do everything despite it being considered sacrilege (as were the opinions of live view when it was first announced) I would find it useful for the family holidays and other less professional uses my SLR gets.

[BugEyes]

I wouldn't want video mode for free, I'd be willing to pay extra not to have it actually. It would clutter up the menus and controls, introduce a microphone sensitve to weather and annoy the s**t out of me. It would force me to learn things I'm not interested in.

Keep the video mode an give me good weather sealing, good AF and good low light performance and I'll buy.

[elbirth]

well video on a SLR camera doesn't have to use the full sesnor, so this is going to help them make it. If the video output is HD, which is 1080p then the sensor is going to have no troubles making video.

After all even a 10D sensor (6mp 3072x2048) is more than enough to create a HD video. It should be easy for them to do that. However having full res video from a 15mp sensor is a different matter. the storage requirements will be really large and of course there isn't anything that would display it at it's native res.

of course I am more interested in still photography than video. so generally it's a feature I wouldn't use.

well, HD video begins at 720p, which is what the Nikon D90 records at. It'd be great if they did record at 1080p, but that would require a lot of buffer bandwidth and card speed to get it saved.



One thing I would like to see, if this feature is in fact included, is the addition of a second card slot. It can be either a CF and SD slot like on the 1-series, or 2 SD slots, or whatever, I don't really care... but It would be fantastic to have the option of having a card in the camera dedicated for the video function and another card dedicated to still images... and then if you're not shooting video, you can use the same features as the 1-series, such as writing to both simultaneously, using the other as a backup if the first runs out, etc

[tonydee]

A few general points.

There's a trade-off between spending money on research, computer programmers and manufacture costs and recouping money through sales volume, so, if it costs a bit to get HD video recording, it may still end up making the camera cheaper for everyone through larger sales volume.

Therefore, it's silly to say "I don't want to pay X for HD video I'll never use", or even "I don't want it if it's free"... the real question may be "would you pay X to keep it off your camera?" (and to a much lesser extent "could Canon put in a single 'enable/disable HD video' menu option that would hide the other config and keep the menus simple?"). By all means tell us your Xs, but in the end it's pretty pointless unless Canon shares the expected affect on unit cost.

Roughly, 1080p video is ~2MP per frame, 720p is ~1MP. So, 24fps 1080p is ~48MP/s. So, it's a bit like taking 3fps at 15MP (50D) - clearly doable already, but in fact the storage bandwidth required may be less if the video compression looks for redundancy
across frames. The D90 is only using Motion-JPEG which is about the dumbest memory-hungry compression codec imaginable... it will chew through your cards like crazy. Why would they do this? Probably because it uses existing hardware/software during compression (can already compress effectively to JPEG). MPEG 2 is used on DVDs and is much better but still uses a considerable storage (2 hours SD = 4.7GB), MPEG 4 is appropriate for dedicated low-quality video devices (2 hours SD = ~800MB). So, the more compression you want the more hardware and software complexity to achieve it, but the lower the bandwidth/storage thereafter.

My 2c,

Tony

[Performa01]

After all even a 10D sensor (6mp 3072x2048) is more than enough to create a HD video. It should be easy for them to do that.

It is not easy, because you need an electronic shutter and must be able to transfer and handle the huge amount of data. The 10D sensor probably cannot deliver much more than 3 images per second (a data rate of about 30MB/s), way too slow for video. To overcome this the sensor needs circuitry to combine pixels in order to lower the resolution up to the point where the achievable data rate is finally sufficient for getting at least 24 pictures per second.
If the 10D sensor had this circuitry, it would have to make groups of 8 sensor pixels each, thus providing a resolution of only 0.75MP, which is too low for 720p HD video.

The implementation of an electronic shutter on a high quality CMOS image sensor is also not as easy as it might sound. I have detailed the problem in another post:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=6205277&postcount=62

All this is probably why Nikon had to limit the video capabilities of the D90 to 720p @ 24fps.

[boomerang]

Just because you do not want it does not mean it lacks appeal to others..... so no its not a waste or in anyway an added expense.

Canon and Sony both will not want to throw there hats in on this market because they have to compete with there own video division. Nikon may have this feature all to themselves for a bit.

[Innocence]

2 things.

1/ Imagine shooting motion picture with a nice L prime wide open, with manual focus...sexy!

2/ Do Nikon have video camcorders? Because they're making it pretty tough for Canon...

[andylok]

well...
this movie mode finally comes to consumers' eye for those peeps have not have many knowledge to a SLR. because many people (in asia) will ask those amateur DSLR owners a very simple question -- "can your big bulk camera shoot videos?", although many DSLR owners will think of it as a silly question. but to those without many knowledge in photography/video shooting seems obvious, becoz they might think ALL digital camera SHOULD be able to shoot videos....

as a canon user, myself, i think it's better not to plug the video mode into the DSLR body. not that I'm opposing this idea, but from a marketing stand point, it could be a chance for canon to put itself into the "true professional's choice" kind of marketing campaign, and increase their photograph quality.

all i can say is Nikon is making a bulk move, but does it work? i think it would work for a lots of average joes. and canon should put a cheap line of video camcorders with interchange lenses that are compatible with the EF and EF-S lenses...

[theflyingkiwi]

It is not easy, because you need an electronic shutter and must be able to transfer and handle the huge amount of data. The 10D sensor probably cannot deliver much more than 3 images per second (a data rate of about 30MB/s), way too slow for video. To overcome this the sensor needs circuitry to combine pixels in order to lower the resolution up to the point where the achievable data rate is finally sufficient for getting at least 24 pictures per second.
If the 10D sensor had this circuitry, it would have to make groups of 8 sensor pixels each, thus providing a resolution of only 0.75MP, which is too low for 720p HD video.

The implementation of an electronic shutter on a high quality CMOS image sensor is also not as easy as it might sound. I have detailed the problem in another post:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=6205277&postcount=62

All this is probably why Nikon had to limit the video capabilities of the D90 to 720p @ 24fps.

My point was to illustrate that a camera that's already old by the terms of today's dSLR cameras already has a sensor that has a resolution larger than the 1080p. I never said that the 10D would be able to do, or that the sensor is suitable for capturing video.

These are all different things.

2 things.

1/ Imagine shooting motion picture with a nice L prime wide open, with manual focus...sexy!

2/ Do Nikon have video camcorders? Because they're making it pretty tough for Canon...

Hmmm I think for Nikon to make it tough for Canon, they would have to start to do more than just put video in to a slr camera. I think you will find that canon are used to playing catch up, even making their products are already sellable with in the current market.

If they didn't, they would be this big now would they.

[NathanJK]

I think video in a dslr is utterly ridiculous and I think the concept of video replacing still imagery is equally outrageous. They each will continue to be viable for a long long time to come because they are best suited for different things. You can't hang video on your wall, glance at it as you walk by and smile from the memory. That just isn't how it works. It requires you to pay a certain amount of attention that still imagery does not. You can process and enjoy a still photograph in what, a second or two? The same isn't true for video. You generally have to watch it for at least 20 or 30 seconds to get a handle on what is going on, that is time possibly better spent doing something different! I like my media fast...I never listen to podcasts, they are slower than reading and I never watch a video when I could look at pictures. If Canon decides they need video in a DLSR fine, but I sincerely doubt I'll do anything more than try it out once or twice just to say I did. I personally would prefer that they not waste their resources on it, I'd buy a damn camcorder if that was what I wanted!

[Dave.H]

2 things.

1/ Imagine shooting motion picture with a nice L prime wide open, with manual focus...sexy!



You already can :D I talked to a guy at a wedding recently that was a professional videographer for a major cable channel and he said his cameras will run all of my lenses.

[cyrn]

1 more joining the fray...

http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/30/reds-next-move-monstro-dslrs/

;)

[slitherjef]

A DSLR with video mode? NO THANKS :rolleyes:

If I wanted to shoot video, I would by a camcorder, or a P&S with that function. I thought a SLR was for making photos...

Just my 2 cents

[FlyingPhotog]

You already can :D I talked to a guy at a wedding recently that was a professional videographer for a major cable channel and he said his cameras will run all of my lenses.

There is an adaptor that allows mounting EF lenses on the XL2

However, the crop factor is 7.8x...

[fura.s28]

CANON PLEASE NO MOVIE

I WOULD SPEND THESE ON THE PHOTOGRAPHY FUNCTION RATHER THAN MOVIE FUNCTION

[BugEyes]

CANON PLEASE NO MOVIE

I WOULD SPEND THESE ON THE PHOTOGRAPHY FUNCTION RATHER THAN MOVIE FUNCTION

Second that!

[herbe_nelson]

There is an adaptor that allows mounting EF lenses on the XL2

However, the crop factor is 7.8x...

Just what I was about to bring up. I believe the lenses can also be used on the current XL H1? Obviously with an adapter.

[hitmanh]

You already can :D I talked to a guy at a wedding recently that was a professional videographer for a major cable channel and he said his cameras will run all of my lenses.

Either at a crop factor of 7.2, as mentioned, or using a bulky and fairly expensive 35mm adapter. Neither are very convenient...

[bbbig]

In the end, when imaging device resolutions reach the limits of our eyes can resolve, then the whole idea of "still image" will become useless. In other words, this "device" will be making motion picture at 8000fps @ zillion x zillion (x zillion? 3D?), to insist on a still camera would be just silly. For those rejecting shooting video on their cameras, you have to move away from the old-school thinking of "video from camcorder and photos from camera", as we'll be seeing more device convergence in the future. i.e. computer + video + stills + gps + internet, etc. Soon, we'll be seeing dSLRs with wirless internet capabilities, allowing you to upload photos (& videos) with GPS tagging information, directly to the destination of your choice... perhaps even real-time video chat and broadcast capabilities.

[slitherjef]

They should make a camera with a "full auto" mode, where you set it to full auto, then the camera just takes it self out for a walk everyday and comes back with an 8gig card filled up with images worthy of National Geographic. No work from the photographer required aside from mailing the photos off for publishing, collecting the check, and making sure the camera is charged and has an empty card.




LOL

[ACDCROCKS]

you buy a video camera for video recording, you buy an slr for quality photography, you buy food to eat, you buy guitars to play...

[pcunite]

I am interested in hearing what the real reasons are for pro's objecting to video, because i dont get it right now. I was taken back by the apparent backlash against video in SLRs from professional photogs.


Because it does NOTHING to make better still images. If I am to make money creating movies I would use a much better tool for the job. The ergonomics of a DSLR doing video is like use a screwdriver with a hammer on the other end... neat for a Christmas gift... not a tool for real work...

I could go on and on of all the missing features that a DSLR could really use to make my job easier for creating still images...

[FlyingPhotog]

Because it does NOTHING to make better still images. If I am to make money creating movies I would use a much better tool for the job. The ergonomics of a DSLR doing video is like use a screwdriver with a hammer on the other end... neat for a Christmas gift... not a tool for real work...

I could go on and on of all the missing features that a DSLR could really use to make my job easier for creating still images...

Does it do anything to make the still images worse? With the exception of energizing the sensor in a prolonged fashion, what (in your mind) has to be removed from the camera because of video capability?

I think people are giving the video capability more credit than it deserves and that the Hammer / Screwdriver analogy misses the mark. Actually, it's probably more akin to using a Quarter as a screwdriver. It can turn the screw, just not as efficiently as a real screwdriver. Still cameras and video cameras share common features: Lens, Iris, Shutter and a place to record the resultant image or stream of images. However, I don't think anyone (so far) has suggested that the video capabilities of a dSLR are going to be the way George Lucas will shoot the 7th Star Wars Movie.

All that's happened is that the camera makers have found a way to capture Live View and not let it spill out into the ether. It's the very first thing I thought of the first time I tried Live View on a 40D: "Huh, kind of a choppy frame rate but this dSLR is making video..."

I would agree that it should be an option. In fact, I think it would be a very interesting litmus test to see if it's as popular an idea as the makers think it is. Sales of units with video capability versus the exact same model without .. which sells more?

And this blurring of the line between still and video started a long time ago. Sure there's the "RED" system today but we've had the ability to grab full-frame stills of video sources for a number of years (and I do mean two-field, full-frame.)

The biggest drawback has always been the resolution which before HD was only 525 lines (yuck) and to date has only doubled. Still far short of what's needed to make a passable print of any size. Despite this, it isn't unusual to see photos in the newspaper where the photo credit goes to FOX Sports or CBS Sports because they pulled a video still and ran it in print.

[VTSHEP1]

Because it does NOTHING to make better still images. If I am to make money creating movies I would use a much better tool for the job. The ergonomics of a DSLR doing video is like use a screwdriver with a hammer on the other end... neat for a Christmas gift... not a tool for real work...

I could go on and on of all the missing features that a DSLR could really use to make my job easier for creating still images...

I understand it wont help you with still images, and it sounds like you would like two devices, one for each task focused on a core capability.

So...if your next SLR had video mode are you saying you would NEVER use it? No conceivable use when on assignment? What kind of work do you do? Forget for profit you would never use it on a vacation? or with your family? Pets? Cars....whatever?

I assume sports photogs and photo Journalists would love to be looking through a lens, quickly realize, a video would best capture what is happening...then with the flick of a button capture a video at least suitable for the web...before that fleeting moment passes. Heck, wouldnt a lot of people? We are not talking about making the next batman movie with the D90...at least the convergence isnt there yet

And someone else mentioned that still imagery isnt going anywhere... I doubt that it will ever be gone completely, but i would wager anything that it will not increase or even stay at its current level. Look into flexible digital displays, mobile computing (think iPhone), think about a mostly wireless paperless world where you carry around a folded display or a mobile device the size of paper and download your content...maybe i am too much in the clouds....but that is the way I see it going, publications investing more and more online, ad strategies, mobile content, historically traditional "still" publications including video, the iPhone appstore, the blackberry, YouTube sold for $2Billion dollars!!!!...

I am not a professional photographer, nor do i desire to be. But I have seen those in the business world fail who do not adapt to the digital changes of the last two decades. I sincerely hope this does not happen to some of you folk.

[bmwm3csl]

Embrace change, don't fight it....

Give video in a DSLR a chance before you form your opinion. You never know, you just might grow to appreciate the ability to chose between quality stills or video from the same device.

[gjl711]

Embrace change, don't fight it...This whole video argument is very similar to the argument a year ago about live view. You had one camp willing to give it a go and another camp entrenched in the current technology unwilling to change. Live view clearly showed that the sky will not fall when all cameras start using it and I’m sure video in a SLR will be similar

[bbbig]

I wonder if people reacted so strongly too, when first auto-focus was introduced in camera? I can imagine some purists insisting no need for such feature... come to think of it, I guess some feel the same about Image Stabilization and alike too.

[VTSHEP1]

I wasnt into photography for the digital - film change, was it similar then also?

[gjl711]

I wasnt into photography for the digital - film change, was it similar then also? I think it was always like that from day one. When Og came into the cave with his new round invention, Glothar loved it but Glonk scratched his butt and though it was un-needed. When Alexander Graham Bell offered Western Union the telephone patent for almost nothing, William Orton, from WU, turned it down claiming it was nothing more than a novelty. When CDs came out many audiophiles rejected the technology in favor of the purity of vinyl. I sense much the same is going on with video in a SLR. It will be interesting to see where this goes but I sense it is not a novelty and in a few years all SLRs will support video as well.

BTW, the Bell tele-patent is regarded as the single most valuable patent in history and Orton could have had it for 100K

[pcunite]

This whole video argument is very similar to the argument a year ago about live view. You had one camp willing to give it a go and another camp entrenched in the current technology unwilling to change. Live view clearly showed that the sky will not fall when all cameras start using it and I’m sure video in a SLR will be similar

LiveView makes for better still images. I knew that before they came out with it. Why? It helps me manual focus...

[pcunite]

I understand it wont help you with still images, and it sounds like you would like two devices, one for each task focused on a core capability.

So...if your next SLR had video mode are you saying you would NEVER use it? No conceivable use when on assignment? What kind of work do you do? Forget for profit you would never use it on a vacation? or with your family? Pets? Cars....whatever?


Keep in mind I can always not use the feature... that is not the problem. The problem is a list of features I need BEFORE we add something that does nothing to still image creation.

I shoot weddings and environmental portraits. Something I will never video. LOL :) I would not hold an DSLR the way they have to be held for 8 hours recording a wedding! I would rather have something shaped in a more comfortable way.

To me adding video to something shaped and setup in terms of size and features to a DSLR is like adding an MP3 player to it! Come on there are 5 major features I want to see added to DSLR before we start putting in a radio, mp3, and lie detectors in 'em!

[pcunite]

When CDs came out many audiophiles rejected the technology in favor of the purity of vinyl. I sense much the same is going on with video in a SLR. It will be interesting to see where this goes but I sense it is not a novelty and in a few years all SLRs will support video as well.

Because these people had a reason to not see an improvement in tech. I don't care about video! Improve video all you want. I DON'T CARE. I want better still images!!!!

Let me say this again. Improve the gas mileage of a car. It does not help with still images. Make air conditioning more green. Great, it does not help with still images.

Just give me a DSLR that makes still creation using flash photography easier!

CD's made audio better. See my argument is different. It does not bother me to see video improve... just do so on somebody else's camera and make mine better for what I bought and get paid for.

[pcunite]

I wonder if people reacted so strongly too, when first auto-focus was introduced in camera? I can imagine some purists insisting no need for such feature... come to think of it, I guess some feel the same about Image Stabilization and alike too.

And these people are very unwise... ALL of the things you mention make for better still image creation. Does adding an mp3 player to a camera help? I did not think so...

[FlyingPhotog]

I wasnt into photography for the digital - film change, was it similar then also?

Can't say how bad the moans and groans were when digital came along but I know there was severe gnashing of teeth accompanied by wailing and lamenting when EF supplanted FD as the lens mount of choice.

JMO, but Canon got that one wrong. It's one thing to have people make a concious choice to change things but another to engineer obsolecensce into an entire system.

Yeah, there's an FD <> EF adaptor but you don't get the functionality out of the lenses that you should get.

Minus IS, the FD lenses were (are) every bit as good as the EFs and people should have been allowed to keep them viable.

[NathanJK]

Come on there are 5 major features I want to see added to DSLR before we start putting in a radio, mp3, and lie detectors in 'em!

Since you shoot weddings, I'm sure you know...having a lie detector in your camera could be VERY interesting at times! I vote for a lie detector instead of video, who's with me?

[bbbig]

Another inevitable feature I can think of, is the elimination of the viewfinder altogether.

Soon, we'll have very high-resolution LCDs with Liveview, showing very good dynamic range, and you'll no longer have to squint into view finder, no longer have to deal with mirror slapping, shutter lags, dust in viewfinder, etc.

I'd say we'll go viewfinder-free within the next 10 years. I guess we'll then call dSLRs... urrr.. just a "digital camera"? I'm sure we'll be still having the same discussion around lens sharpness, sensor-size, etc. May be the future cams will just mount on top of our eyes, focuses where we look at, allowing us to control it using our thoughts. :)

[theflyingkiwi]

Another inevitable feature I can think of, is the elimination of the viewfinder altogether.

Soon, we'll have very high-resolution LCDs with Liveview, showing very good dynamic range, and you'll no longer have to squint into view finder, no longer have to deal with mirror slapping, shutter lags, dust in viewfinder, etc.

I'd say we'll go viewfinder-free within the next 10 years. I guess we'll then call dSLRs... urrr.. just a "digital camera"? I'm sure we'll be still having the same discussion around lens sharpness, sensor-size, etc. May be the future cams will just mount on top of our eyes, focuses where we look at, allowing us to control it using our thoughts. :)

Yes we already have cameras that don't have a shutter per say. most p&s cameras don't have a shutter.

it's fine, however if we have the delay that we have in p&s cameras then forget. I hate that. When I press the shutter button I want the camera to take a photo.

[jblaschke]

as a photojournalist, i'd be really interested. my editors thinking about handing me a video camera to shoot some low rez stuff for our website.

This is the way journalism is going, with newspapers struggling to remain relevant in the internet age. Regular beat reporters are being given hand-held digicams and told to shoot clips for the web. Adding video capability to dSLRs is going to become a required feature REAL SOON LIKE. As much as photo purists hate the idea, Canon would be really shortsighted not to do so. As it is, Nikon's got a serious head start in that game...