Nikon D90

11 point AF.....hmmm...

I'm not too bothered about the movie function. It's natural progression, sure, but I bought my DSLRs to take photos, not videos. I had a video function on my old p&s and have on my mobile and don't use them so I don't think I'd get much use from the function on a DSLR.

michaelgreen78 wrote in post #6188079
I'm not too bothered about the movie function. It's natural progression, sure, but I bought my DSLRs to take photos, not videos. I had a video function on my old p&s and have on my mobile and don't use them so I don't think I'd get much use from the function on a DSLR.

Perhaps the reason you never used the video on your P&S and mobile is because they're both pretty god awful??

That's why I never use them on mine, but the D90's seems to be much higher quality. I have been toying with the idea of getting one of those little SD storage video cameras, to carry with my camera gear. But if I can have a device that combines the two, and also has pretty good quality to boot, I know what i'd buy..

^ Agreed.

hsma wrote in post #6187245
I dont see what the point is in having a video mode in a dSLR. Isn't the reason we buy dSLR to take pictures? Why not invest in a nice video cam instead if you plan on making videos. There are HD handycams that produce decent quality for the price of a mid-range dSLR.

I think the ability to use your 600mm telephoto or 100mm Macro (or whatever lenses you own) lenses would be a pretty nice advantage.

What about the $300 price difference? That's pretty big to me.

I see different markets for the cameras though. With the inclusion on movies, I don't see how "pros" will take the camera seriously, so I see it still being marketed to advanced amateurs, while the 50D, I think, is more of a pro body.

Someone said Canon wasn't being innovative. I would say a new sensor & processor that allows ISO12800, 14-bit images 6.3FPS and still on a camera of this price is pretty innovative.

The price diff. is actually $400, I made an error.

HaroldC3 wrote in post #6188863
What about the $300 price difference? That's pretty big to me.

I see different markets for the cameras though. With the inclusion on movies, I don't see how "pros" will take the camera seriously, so I see it still being marketed to advanced amateurs, while the 50D, I think, is more of a pro body.

Someone said Canon wasn't being innovative. I would say a new sensor & processor that allows ISO12800, 14-bit images 6.3FPS and still on a camera of this price is pretty innovative.

I bet a lot of PJs are pretty interested. Increasingly PJs are required to carry video cameras for web content. Huge cost savings for the photographer and/or the agency/media company.

http://chasejarvisandf​riends.com/

Damn Nikon for being trendy

It's a nice feature, look forward to seeing it in the 60D with AF support...

TheGreatDivorce wrote in post #6187236
I would much rather have the D90 than the 50D. Very little about the 50D is exciting. The gapless microlenses and extended ISO range (assuming good performance) are great, but evolutionary.

The D90's movie mode is revolutionary, which is what Nikon has been doing a lot of lately (unlike Canon). HD video on a large sensor with SLR lenses? Yes, please.

I love Canon, but Nikon has been absolutely dusting them in the innovation department. And the "we actually listen to our customers/pros" department.

Thanks for the funniest post of the week!!! Yes indeed....pro photographers around the world have been clamoring for a top of the line DSLR that shoots crappy video!

Woolburr wrote in post #6189191
Thanks for the funniest post of the week!!! Yes indeed....pro photographers around the world have been clamoring for a top of the line DSLR that shoots crappy video!

The thing is, pro photogs won't be buying D90--it's a different market. When you tell regular consumers that it can record short HD clips--it'll sell. I can see myself using it for fun little clips with my friends or kittens.

It should be neat to see the things you can do with the movie mode on a 1:1 macro lens or some primes.

Canon doesnt need Video options. It just needs a 2.1MP 24fps mode. and a 500,000 rated shutter life.
Think out of the box, guys.

Chase Jarvis has a great video: http://blog.chasejarvi​s.com …dvance-testing-nikon.html

I

Ive got to admit this,

Yesterday, and any day prior, the idea of Movies on my SLR were of NO interest.
I don't do Videos, I have no interest in shooting video, and I would not want it cluttering up my SLR...
Mostly, what on earth do you DO with Video? You can't print it and hang it on your wall,. I've no interest in huddling the family around the TV, it's just not my artform. .. etc..

So I've had nothing good to say about this, so I've not said anything.

Except,. that IF I were ever to shoot video, I would only be interested If I could use my Lenses. Canon has a wonderful solution for this, the XL series of Camcorders can and will use all EF/EFs lenses!!
But the XL cameras are pricey indeed. ( $5K - over $10K last time I looked )
So for someone interested in an occasional video,.. it's out of the question.

Now, today, suddenly, it occurs to me that if my EOS SLR could shoot reasonable home video quality, I would have that same functionality at no additional cost. Save $5K on something that would only be an occasional toy...

... and yet still be in a postion to quickly and without changing gear, go from shooting stills of a pack of linos in africa, to full motion video? Maybe the light is no good for agood Still, but the interaction is interesting?

I'm, all for it!
Just as we see with other innovations in the abilities of Digital Vs. 35mm Film, the sooner we forget the legacy and the roadblocks the legacy imposes, the sooner we take better advantage of the new media.

I completely understand that many ,. maybe even most DSLR shooters will not be interested in Video on their SLR, as I say, at first blush, and in fact at many times considering this, this was my own reaction.
But the option, if it won't interfere with the camera as a camera? It will appeal t a lot more people than I would have first considered, including my own self.

Consider 720 HD video taken of a Leopard yawning in a tree using your 500mm with IS...
There is no comparison here with a P&S shoot video with that dinky lens and low res.

Heck, I don;t even have a TV that can handle that HD resolution yet,.

Woolburr wrote in post #6189191
Thanks for the funniest post of the week!!! Yes indeed....pro photographers around the world have been clamoring for a top of the line DSLR that shoots crappy video!

Glad I could amuse you, champ. Your sarcasm is quite precious, too.

Last time I checked, photography (and photography alone) put food on my table, and money in the bank. And I would love HD video in my cameras. What leads you to the conclusion that the video is crappy? Are pros "clamoring" for it? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not, but I'd definitely take it if offered.

Having seen the video it produces, it's far from crappy. HD footage shot on a bigger sensor with nice 35mm lenses (think real, cinematic DOF) is fantastic. It's even better when you can carry one device to take top-notch stills, and quality HD video.

Yes, you could carry two devices around. But why would you if you don't have to? Especially if you're like me, and stills are your main focus, but video is an absolute bonus (and one more trick to add to my repertoire).

It's not like anything is sacrificed to add video, and no price is added, so I'm at a loss as to the mass quantities of Haterade being consumed here ... put the fanboi-ism aside and rationally analyze things. Brand loyalty gets you nowhere.

http://blog.chasejarvi​s.com …dvance-testing-nikon.html

oops, Timber beat me to posting Chase's link. Oh well, worth repeating

One of the real downers of the video is the lack of AF. You can lock the exposure but must focus manually... oh well, maybe Canon will bring an offering that offers AF video.