Why all the resistance to a movie-mode, to meet the D90?

I've been doing as much research as I can into what Canon may have in store to answer Nikon's new movie-mode, but it seems everywhere I look, canon users are clamoring to not include such a thing.

Personally, being able to shoot video through these awesome canon lenses is the stuff dreams are made of. Sadly, I haven't even come across a rumor of a rumor that Canon plans to include a similar feature, nor have I seen much enthusiasm among the various forums.

Does this mean if I want such a mode within the next 3 years, I should be looking into Nikon?

Also, why would so many people not want this additional feature. It seems like it would be non-intrusive and an optional mode (stating the obvious here).

I think there is a concern that in order to accomodate video, something on the still side will be compromised.

I know that 720P @ 24fps and mono sound is not of a high enough quality to be really useful much beyond email or YouTube. Now if it could do 1080p @ 30fps w/ stereo sound at least you're at a quality level that's worth considering.

The one catch that I (and others) see is that Canon sells video cameras so why rob Peter to pay Paul as it were?

D90 uses M-JPEG encoding and mono sound, at 24 fps. This is a good -better than nothing- type thing, yet not the standard by far any of these photo companies would like to be.

Personally I think we will see it, probably not in this upcoming generation of cameras (Photokina), but by the next one -Next March?, who knows- both brands should be incorporating it to their prosumer and consumer level cameras.

I give Noink the thumbs up for innovation, and so forth, but if Video mode has not been worked out with the 50D, the full frame version will almost surely not have it, hence my thoughts for the next generation.

And for the record, HD images is not the same as HD video. Standard for HDVideo is 50-60fps.

Also as said above, to get an HD Canon red ring camera, XHA1, I paid $5000 in 2006. I am sure Canon is not feeling guilty about my inability to maintain that piece of gear, and saying "oh c'mon, let's do it for Mario, he'll be able to video HD without spending that much money!!"

just get a camcorder that accepts alternative lenses and get a canon mount fitting for it. problem solved

Maybe some fear it's leading to a future where cameras that have a mechanical shutter and mirror don't exist. No more SLR; just electronic shutters and digital view finders

PhotoJourno wrote in post #6257207
And for the record, HD images is not the same as HD video. Standard for HDVideo is 50-60fps.

That's what I get for being on the production end of the video chain and not the middle or end. Spending 20 years in the SDTV realm doesn't help either...

You're absolutely correct about the 1080p frame rate...

Canon currently have over twenty camcorders on the market, most are priced less than you'd give for a half decent DSLR lens and produce quite amazing results. So just buy a cheap camcorder if you want video.

What bugs me is that I have a friend who can produce brilliant high def action stills from his camcorder.

I think the question really should be: Does the inclusion of a movie mode make my pictures better?

No, it doesn't. Subsequently, it's irrelevant fluff in my mind; Live View does at least help for some things, like macro, etc.

A lot of the hostility may also be a genuine desire for features that do infact enhance the picture-taking experience, and a worry that working on fluff like a movie mode will divert resources from more "worthy" projects.

I agree with many of the posts in this thread, i also think the resistance to a movie mode is coming from people who see it as a hook for people coming up from the p & s crowd and will further lower the "photographic IQ" of DSLR users as a percentage.

I feel, like some here, that movie mode is fluff, but to be honest i carry a little $100 samsung p&s just to shoot crappy quality videos for youtube. if movie mode was on my DSLR, i'd have one less thing to carry, though i wouldnt care to trade that for some other upgrade that would actually benefit my photographic (non-video) experience.

But of course Canon will have to answer the movie mode, at least in the xxxD line - its a matter of dollars and cents (or Euros and cents, or Pounds and Pence)

It's 3 kinds of gay and 9 kinds of stupid if you ask me!

/useless post

Really...I figure their resources are better spent elsewhere since I would never use it in a professional manner. If I'm not shooting professionally, well my wife's little p&s has it, I used it one time I think....

When the world was announced to be round and not flat, people called it madness and silly. When the right to vote was given to women it took a while to accept. When any change happens, people resist that change. It is a natural way of evolution, if we accepted all change open handedly, then we wouldn't know whether the change should be welcome in a good or bad way.

In this sense I think the market will speak louder than the words on this forum, and nature will take care of itself.

I believe movie mode does not take away from any photographic element, that is just non-sense. It is an nice extra. Just like the 'print button'. It's there if you want to use it, but many of us don't, but the fact of the matter is our pictures aren't worse because of the button.

Now obviously movie mode is more than print button. The fact that we can use our exisiting gear to shoot video is great. The spirit isn't to capture frames from the movie to use professionally. It is more of a: "ok I'm a pro/amateur, I'm on vacation with the family and am taking my camera, I can shoot really cool videos while I'm out there without having to take an extra camcorder, dv tapes, cables, etc..."

The fact of the matter is that there are other camcorders out there - yes. But to be able to get the depth of field, wide angle lenses, and all lenses to use with an slr, is simply an evolutionary process. iPod + Phone? hmmm...

Movie mode now in 720p, mono sound? not so great right? The question is where do we want it to be in 10 years? You have to start with those specs to get to 1080p 60fps 5.1 surround in 2012 no?

Bottom line, people always resist change, fear that it will detract from the performance of the main reason such an instrument exists, market will decide, and guess what I have a strong feeling movie mode will prevail.

resistance to movie mode on this forum is because the feature has not been released by canon. If it was, you'd only hear praises and how great of a brand canon is
(Unfortunately then cannot get around simple SLR feature evolution like proper weather sealing, so, no need to mention really innovative features)

I think that to put a toy-ish feature as is the movie mode in the same league of the right of vote for women is .... well ... an overkill? (sorry, couldn't resist)

I don't think is "resistance to change" but more "I don't give a rat *** about it"

My personal believe is that unfortunately we pay for this things (and I include the print button in here) development time, lost of focus and, bottom line: money that comes out of our pockets for something that most of us doesn't "need/use" (mark my quotes please)

Anyway, I will upgrade to the 50D with or without movie mode

producerism wrote in post #6257164
Also, why would so many people not want this additional feature. It seems like it would be non-intrusive and an optional mode (stating the obvious here).

Absolutely agree. I would love Canon to incorporate a movie mode into their upcoming dSLRs.

I've engaged in countless debates over this and it seems pretty evident that most arguments against it are pretty ignorant (IMO). You have the people who hold onto the unwavering mentality that a dSLR should do still photos and absolutely nothing else, which logically doesn't introduce much merit towards the anti-side. Does the inclusion of a movie mode make a dSLR any less of a still photograph camera? No it doesn't. Don't need it? Ignore it. Simple. The last time I checked, the D90 still takes photos. Then you have possibly the worst group, who are against simply because they hold their dSLRs as some sort of elitist trophy. Why introduce a gimmicky P&S ability onto dSLRs, I hear them say. Finally, you have the people who are simply resistant to change, even though there is no logical basis behind such a resistance.

I remember all of this going on when LV was coming out. Personally, I didn't give a damn (and still don't) about LV, but seeing that it was just another feature I didn't personally need, there was no need to rant on protectively about it.

I think that's rather beside the point. It's not about price, it's about convenience. I'm pretty sure the majority of consumers who prioritised video would actually just go out and buy a camcorder (since, like you said, camcorders do an excellent job at that). But there's also a large percentage who prioritise still photographs AND also desire the ability to take some cheap and nasty videos on the go. Right now, your suggestion implies I should own two devices for this - a dSLR and a video camera. The ability of the dSLR to do both can't be underestimated.

Definitely agreed - which is sad since I'd argue this sort of mentality stems from inherent insecurity. Yes, so the output-average for dSLR users would undoubtably decrease, but I fail to see why any reasonable photographer would care so much. No amount of P&S users who 'upgrade' themselves to being a dSLR-newbie is going to make my own photos any worse. As far as I'm concerned, other people can do whatever they want when it comes to consumer behaviour.

mandozilla wrote in post #6257696
I don't think is "resistance to change" but more "I don't give a rat *** about it"

I definitely comprehend what you're saying, but alot of the issue here is the fierce resistance against it. Almost like as if it was a crime, if you read some people's responses in the various internet forums. If you don't care for a feature, then the appropriate thing to do is to ignore it. But when you hear a good lot talk down the feature like as if it was a holy sin, one cannot help but wonder if it's more than just "I don't give a rat's ***".

I'm also with you regarding the development costs too, but I'd argue that with regards to the movie mode, the bulk of the cost for that would have actually been developing LV. At the time LV was announced, I found myself predicting the eventual implementation of a movie mode, since it would not cost much to leverate the technology upto that.