Stills vs Video?

Disclaimer: My intentions are not to offend anyone here. Partial rant, but genuine curiosity.

I have been passionate about photography for many years (several decades actually). Back when I started, video was referred to as movies. There was a clear distinction between the two. I mention this to give you some insight into my thought process.

When video recording became a thing, you either had a camcorder or a "camera" (referring to a stills camera).

Now, most dslr's can record both stills and video. I have no major objection to having a video recording feature on a dslr, however, I feel that video needs to be addressed as a secondary feature on a dslr, not as a main selling point. I rarey shoot any video clips with my dslr's.

Most online reviews now will crucify a dslr if it does not produce Netflix quality videos.

I understand that markets change, but I can't comprehend why everyone has chosen to mash video and stills photography into one category.

I respect cinematographers, but I believe they have plenty of dedicated video cameras to choose from. Why is there so much space wasted on photography forums discussing video capture with primarly stills cameras?? Video capture on a stills camera is just another feature; it's not what the camera was designed for!

Again, for those of you who occasionally shoot a video clip with your dslr, disregard everything I said. But for those of you who primarily shoot video, why aren't you on a forum dedicated to cinematography? I don't mean that as an insult, I sincerely want to know why you would use a dslr which was designed primarily to shoot stills for cinematography? And for any moderators from other forums who happen to be reading this, why won't you move any posts from stills discussions to video capture discussions?

In my opinion, stills photography is very different from video capture/cinematography​. Both genres should be addressed individually.

.
Many professionals are now "multi media content producers" instead of just being a stills photographer or a videographer.

For instance, many of the wildlife photographers that I am friends with have clients who expect them to shoot some video along with the stills when they are out in nature pursuing wild animals with their cameras. . The paying clients who, years ago, only wanted still photos, now want both stills and video of the same species.

Much of the market for these short little snippets of wildlife video are for the end use of being posted on blogs or social media posts. . I mean, a company that manufactures and sells deer hunting gadgets will probably want some several-second clips of footage of Whitetail Deer to post on their website or product advertisements or Instagram posts, along with some stills to use on the same website, as well as to use on packaging, Insta and Facebook posts, etc.

Likewise, wildlife conservation organizations such as Audubon and The Nature Conversancy like their content producers to capture footage of the wildlife, along with stills of the wildlife. . In today's market, it's the same guy providing both video and stills to the client. . Prices paid for little bits of video footage are often quite small - too little to justify these content producers going out and buying a full fledged video camera with dedicated video lenses, and all the gear that goes along with it.

Hence, to many professionals and semi-professionals who shoot stock, there are practical and economic benefits to having one kit that can produce both stills and video that are good enough for the market that they sell their imagery to. . Everyone in the business has learned that todays DSLRs and mirrorless cameras are able to produce video that is more than good enough for the market that they sell to. . Why would someone pay way more than they have to to get gear that gets the job done?

............... ............... ............... ............... ...............

.
By the way, I quoted your entire Original Post below, just to ensure that we have a record of it, in case you edit it later. . I just thought it would be nice to have a record of what you wrote when you first started this thread.
.

snegron wrote in post #19321622
Disclaimer: My intentions are not to offend anyone here. Partial rant, but genuine curiosity.

I have been passionate about photography for many years (several decades actually). Back when I started, video was referred to as movies. There was a clear distinction between the two. I mention this to give you some insight into my thought process.

When video recording became a thing, you either had a camcorder or a "camera" (referring to a stills camera).

Now, most dslr's can record both stills and video. I have no major objection to having a video recording feature on a dslr, however, I feel that video needs to be addressed as a secondary feature on a dslr, not as a main selling point. I rarey shoot any video clips with my dslr's.

Most online reviews now will crucify a dslr if it does not produce Netflix quality videos.

I understand that markets change, but I can't comprehend why everyone has chosen to mash video and stills photography into one category.

I respect cinematographers, but I believe they have plenty of dedicated video cameras to choose from. Why is there so much space wasted on photography forums discussing video capture with primarly stills cameras?? Video capture on a stills camera is just another feature; it's not what the camera was designed for!

Again, for those of you who occasionally shoot a video clip with your dslr, disregard everything I said. But for those of you who primarily shoot video, why aren't you on a forum dedicated to cinematography? I don't mean that as an insult, I sincerely want to know why you would use a dslr which was designed primarily to shoot stills for cinematography? And for any moderators from other forums who happen to be reading this, why won't you move any posts from stills discussions to video capture discussions?

In my opinion, stills photography is very different from video capture/cinematography​. Both genres should be addressed individually.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19321695
.
Many professionals are now "multi media content producers" instead of just being a stills photographer or a videographer.

For instance, many of the wildlife photographers that I am friends with have clients who expect them to shoot some video along with the stills when they are out in nature pursuing wild animals with their cameras. . The paying clients who, years ago, only wanted still photos, now want both stills and video of the same species.

Much of the market for these short little snippets of wildlife video are for the end use of being posted on blogs or social media posts. . I mean, a company that manufactures and sells deer hunting gadgets will probably want some several-second clips of footage of Whitetail Deer to post on their website or product advertisements or Instagram posts, along with some stills to use on the same website, as well as to use on packaging, Insta and Facebook posts, etc.

Likewise, wildlife conservation organizations such as Audubon and The Nature Conversancy like their content producers to capture footage of the wildlife, along with stills of the wildlife. . In today's market, it's the same guy providing both video and stills to the client. . Prices paid for little bits of video footage are often quite small - too little to justify these content producers going out and buying a full fledged video camera with dedicated video lenses, and all the gear that goes along with it.

Hence, to many professionals and semi-professionals who shoot stock, there are practical and economic benefits to having one kit that can produce both stills and video that are good enough for the market that they sell their imagery to. . Everyone in the business has learned that todays DSLRs and mirrorless cameras are able to produce video that is more than good enough for the market that they sell to. . Why would someone pay way more than they have to to get gear that gets the job done?

............... ............... ............... ............... ...............

.
By the way, I quoted your entire Original Post below, just to ensure that we have a record of it, in case you edit it later. . I just thought it would be nice to have a record of what you wrote when you first started this thread.
.

.

Thank you for "keeping a record" of my original post. Please note that I would like to change the last sentence in paragraph 4 to correct the word "rary"; I meant to write "rarely".

Also, thank you for your detailed response. I appreciate you clarifying for me the dual use of dslr's in today's market (especially the end use of snippets on blogs and wildlife photography). But, it seems to me that these examples are pretty much in line with my original thoughts; video portions shot with a dslr are secondary functions. The photographer might be able to enhance his end product for his clients by providing a bit of video, but the bulk, or primary job, consists of stills.

For example, I used to shoot wedding photography until maybe 2 or 3 years ago. My dslr's had the capability of capturing video, but it would have been a disservice for me to attempt to provide my clients quality stills AND video. The dynamics were completely different. Clients hired me for stills and hired a seasoned professional to capture their wedding on video. Could I have shot a video snippet or two to include in their digital album? Maybe. However, as a wedding photographer you work in an extremely fast paced environment and can't afford to miss key moments. Asking the couple to re-do a moment just so I could capture it on video would have been futile; capturing their spontaneity in that fraction of a second when it occurs in real time is crucial. You don't get a second chance.

I had the utmost respect for the video crew during weddings. I understood that they were true masters of their art of capturing video and editing their works of art. That was their job. That was their art. Mine was to capture stills. They had dedicated camera equipment designed for capturing video.

Just my $0.02, but I think there is going to be a big shift towards video over the next 10yrs or so, with social media being the driving force. It seems like the transition from stills to video is already happening. With modern cameras, aren't we already essentially pulling stills from brief moments of "video"?

Because of internet access and increasing bandwidth, in addition to platforms like YouTube where you can profit from content, people seek better quality video and more features than what a smartphone can provide. The majority aren't looking to make the next Netflix movie and therefore dont want or need a cinema camera. The DSLR is the only solution. Much of the hardware needed for video is already in place on today's cameras so it wouldn't make much sense for manufacturers to offer a stills only camera and a video only camera.

Supply and demand. DSLR's and moreover mirrorless cameras lend nicely to capturing video. Many people enjoy having both capabilities on the same camera. Especially mirrorless cameras have excelled in focus options for video to include face detection and object following. All of these features are especially luring to the content creator who is operating as a one man band to include filming him or her self. True cine cameras are a different animal, one that most folks know little about. Often times a cine camera will have two or three operators. One controlling frame, one controlling focus and yet another ensuring exposure. I have an assortment of cameras that will do video: DSLR, Mirrorless, Camcorder, action/mini cameras, and Cine. I have a use for all of them but by far prefer using the cine. Much greater light latitude e.g. 13 stops vs 8 (DSLR), raw files that lend wonderfully to color grading and yes manual control to include focus. All of which lends to more creative options in video. Having said that, if I'm doing a documentary, it's great to be able to set a camcorder on a tripod on autofocus and let it run while I run around with a cine on a gimbal. I have used my Z6 a number of times on a slider to take advantage of the focus tracking and maintain a shallow focus. They all have their strong points.

Edit/add......

Why don't we go to a video forum. Lol. Try to find one that is actually active. Latest post four months old. 90% zero replies. I don't get it but I guess cine folks just don't care to talk about it.

An interesting thread... Video just doesn't interest me. Decades ago someone bought me a cine camera as a gift; I confess that I shot a couple of times with it and forgot about it. Fine if you love video, but it doesn't grab me.

One point I have made before on POTN... I wish Canon would make a camera purely for stills photography, i.e. with no video capability. It would be less complicated, and would - presumably - cost a bit less. I've had my Canon R5 for five months now and the video capability remains unexplored. Am I missing something? I don't think so. Still photography (I call it simply "photography") has intrigued and entertained me for many decades and will continue to do so. Good luck to all you videographers. I'll leave it to you.

On the other hand, my little JVC camcorder will also do photos. Not very good ones, but they’re still photos.
But I’m pretty sure a pro cinematographer wouldn’t be using my little camcorder.

snegron wrote in post #19321745
.
..... it seems to me that these examples are pretty much in line with my original thoughts; video portions shot with a dslr are secondary functions. The photographer might be able to enhance his end product for his clients by providing a bit of video, but the bulk, or primary job, consists of stills.
.

mannetti21 wrote in post #19321753
.
The majority aren't looking to make the next Netflix movie and therefore dont want or need a cinema camera.
.

.
Two friends fo mine are contracted by the BBC to shoot video footage of wildlife for documentaries. . Most of this work is done with DSLRs and interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras.

One of these guys has also contracted to shoot footage for the Planet Earth documentaries. . He also shoots television and internet ads for one of the nations's largest chain of sporting goods stores. . He uses his $100,000+ video gear (RED cameras and dedicated lenses) and his DSLRs and mirrorless IL cameras interchangeably for these projects, with the DSLRs and MIL cameras getting more of the workload than the $100,000+ dedicated video cameras.

These guys are both buying DSLRs and ILM cameras primarily for their video abilities, with stills being a very distant, seldom-used secondary consideration. . If you want to hear one of them talk about this stuff on a podcast, I can find some of the podcast episodes that address using "still cameras" for high end professional video, and send you links to them. . Just let me know. . I think that after you hear professionals in the video field talk about their work and the gear they use for it, you will probably change your initial thoughts. . Not just change, but do a complete 180 degree turnaround on what you've been thinking.


.

Wait. What? My camera does video?

I began, getting back into the game by doing stills by for the last 5 years for my church. Events, services, etc. However their social media platforms and now our LED wall works well with small videos, (5-60 seconds) so now I will mix the 2 media during a daily shoot. The R5 is great for this. I shoot RAW/jpg, transfer their dailies for IG and a thumbnail for the study archive, then process the RAW files later. While on site I upload the MP4 4KHQ files to their desktop so it doesn't take me hours to do at home.

Why folks who are using photography gear must go to some cinematic forum?
It just ridiculous. The trend to use photography gear is so old now, it just odd to ask those questions now. Just learn, do you homework.
5D Mkii wilt wide, fast L was popular for video production decade ago. And then it was gradually replaced with mirrorless. Not so much different from what is happening in stills taking.

Videography/cinematogr​aphy and still photography are notably different endeavors despite sharing a number of similarities, namely that they are both means of visual communication. On a philosophical level, I agree with your contentions, at least in terms of perfectly good still cameras being subsumed and thus judged by their video performance.

When video first appeared on DSLRs, I was concerned that it could add additional costs and possibly even distract from development on the still side. It was blasphemous that an excellent still camera should get downgraded simply because of its video deficiencies. I now shoot an old film camera, but I still sympathize with those folks who don’t want video to became the primary function of what is a traditional still camera. Lecia’s decision to remove the video function from their M line rangefinders was welcomed and refreshing.

However, as Tom noted, expectations for all-in-one everything (including the photographer, not just the camera) have intensified, and those demanding photos are often demanding video as well. Moreover, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram have dramatically fueled usage of video at the mainstream level (although in many cases, a phone camera’s video will suffice). Additionally, from what I understand, still cameras are providing some of the better options for serious videographers, where, whether one likes it or not, video is the principal consideration in such cases. And manufacturers have to respond accordingly to compete.

It is sort of like all the hoopla placed on the photographic capabilities of a smart phone. If you’re that concerned about high quality and versatility, get a dedicated camera. However, the reality is that many folks don’t want to invest in a separate camera, but they do want the best quality possible out of their phones (and on a computational level, smart phones are arguably outpacing DSLRs/Mirrorless cameras).

But getting back to the broader, more abstract point, photography is its own distinct aesthetic medium, one that cannot be ‘replaced’ by video and vice versa. Personally, I would hate to be tasked with taking still and video at the same event (unless extracting stills from the video, but that’s a different issue). So just because still and video now share the same gear, it certainly does not mean that they should be viewed as the effectively the same medium, as this would be a disservice to both still and video.

I'm injecting another aspect worth consideration. What are you after? What is your motivation?

In my case it is purely for my enjoyment. Hobby only. I do not and will not accept any "work" for either my photo or video work. I will not turn the joy of these endeavors into a job. Given those parameters, my D850 is more than I need for photography and has a lot of untapped potential. It has some rudimentary video capabilities that I find pretty much useless as I have other cameras that will do the job much better. The Z6 is advertised as a hybrid and is just that. Not really great at either but nice to toss in the back seat to snag an impulse shot. It most likely will be usable although not pristine. A couple of Panasonic camcorders are great for general documentary work in video. All the controls lend to what folks call "run and gun" video. Cinema is just that. A look, a technique, different from documentary although it can be pleasing to mix the two. In that regard, stills also have a very necessary place in documentaries. I get why run and gun working videographers like one camera and that's all fine and good. When I plan a project it's based largely on the look and feel I want, not the demands of a client and I will bring whatever equipment necessary and take whatever time necessary. I have done visual production for others but only as a gift and on my terms. To me it's a ready made project to practice my art. I have been gifted post project but that was the decision of the folks I gifted with the production. Given my practice, I find this thread very interesting but entirely academic. I have tons of room to grow and have not "maxed out" the capacity of any camera I own. Right down the the lowly GoPro, I have seen plenty if interesting shots such as water powering into the bottom of a bucket, that I have not performed and would like to at some point. I do not feel at all threatened by the direction of the industry.

I’ve transitioned to mostly video over the past five years? When in doubt, record a video and extract an image.

Because of the dual iso and stabilization tricks, I generally get really good snapshots that way and I don’t have to choose between one or the other. If I have to deliver stills then I won’t do video. For the most part of living life, I lean towards video as I love the challenge it presents, so much harder to create compelling video.

Still love taking landscapes, harder to get out, and weather often an issue.

Charlie wrote in post #19322010
I lean towards video as I love the challenge it presents, so much harder to create compelling video.

It's also harder to watch attempts at compelling video. Definitely has a place for historical and commercial purposes, though.

Wasn't one season of 'House' done entirely on a 5Diii? It was a big deal back then.