Damien Demolder
Tharg the Mighty
Reged: 22/08/2001
Posts: 1004
Loc: Essex born and badly-bred
|
|
So, what do you think? Do you like the idea that the Nikon D90 can shoot movies as well as stills? Is that what you want from a DSLR? Is it wrong? Would it put you off buying one, or do you think it's a brilliant idea?
Will all brands introduce this kind of feature, or is this one-off?
Head to the home page to let us know: Would you like movie mode in your DSLR?
Thanks for taking part.
Damien
--------------------
.
See my photographs at www.wordsonpictures.com
.
|
Fen
BAD WOLF
Reged: 12/03/2002
Posts: 20845
Loc: Currently Unknown!
|
|
I don't see the need for it. Surely if you want a video camera, you buy a video camera!
If I was buying a new camera then it wouldn't be one of the factors in my buying decision. But as long as it didn't detract from other 'features' it wouldn't stop me from purchasing the camera. It would just be something that didn't get used.
--------------------
Fen .......... My Galleries - My Blog - My Flickr
|
sjaszczak
A Real Gentleman
Reged: 08/06/2005
Posts: 1117
Loc: York
|
|
I voted "No"... not because I think it's a completely pointless idea...it's just not something I would use.
That said, it wouldn't stop me buying a camera...but it certainly wouldn't convince me to buy a more expensive camera over a less expensive camera that was equally good at still photography.
--------------------
Steve
My Flickr
|
Ephemeral
addict
Reged: 21/07/2007
Posts: 649
Loc: North East England
|
|
another no vote as if I wanted video I would use a video camera
--------------------
The Ephemeral Moment - www.ephemeral.co.uk
Random Goldfish - www.randomgoldfish.com
|
OneTen
'Two Breakfasts'
Reged: 23/06/2003
Posts: 2523
Loc: Devon
|
|
I voted NO. It's not something I would use but as has been said, if it didn't detract from handling and other functions, it wouldn't be an issue. It's certainly not something that would sway my decision whether to buy a camera. Shove it on the entry level dSLRs with all the other bells and whistles and keep enthusiast cameras simple.
I would prefer to have a camera without all these extra features; M, Av and Tv would do for me and ditch all these scene modes that clutter up dials. Only shooting RAW with no in-camera wizardry would reduce the number of buttons and menus.
It's never going to happen though. 
--------------------
Richard .......... My Website - My Blog - My Flickr
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4877
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
another no vote as if I wanted video I would use a video camera
My sentiments exactly. Having video capability would tend to put me off because there's bound to be some compromise in there.
|
chris000
veteran
Reged: 30/11/2005
Posts: 1271
Loc: Wiltshire, UK
|
|
Definitely no, but I rather suspect that 'convergence' will continue until we are able to do everything equally as badly with just one tool. Another step backwards in the name of progress?
--------------------
Chris
The most beautiful thing under the Sun is being under the Sun - Christa Wolfe
www.chriswaldrenphotography.co.uk
|
Roger_Provins
Made-it Man
Reged: 22/10/2005
Posts: 3016
Loc: Gloucester, UK
|
|
Quote:
Shove it on the entry level dSLRs with all the other bells and whistles and keep enthusiast cameras simple.
I would prefer to have a camera without all these extra features; M, Av and Tv would do for me and ditch all these scene modes that clutter up dials. Only shooting RAW with no in-camera wizardry would reduce the number of buttons and menus.
It's never going to happen though.
100% with Richard! Just keep a mid-range camera simple ... not even live view ... please! 
--------------------
Rog
|
Terrywoodenpic
A whiff of silicon...
Reged: 21/01/2006
Posts: 348
Loc: Saddleworth UK
|
|
Quote:
Definitely no, but I rather suspect that 'convergence' will continue until we are able to do everything equally as badly with just one tool. Another step backwards in the name of progress?
That sound so true...
Though at one time I used Cine cameras professionally, I was never tempted to use one at home. It is a totally different area of interest.
--------------------
63 happy photo years from amateur to professional and back to amateur
|
Mojo_66
Rain Kat
Reged: 25/05/2006
Posts: 3360
Loc: Lancs
|
|
Quote:
I would prefer to have a camera without all these extra features; M, Av and Tv would do for me and ditch all these scene modes that clutter up dials. Only shooting RAW with no in-camera wizardry would reduce the number of buttons and menus.
It's never going to happen though.
The Sigma SD14 only has PASM, no scene modes, and only shoots either raw or Jpeg. One of the reasons I bought one.
--------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mojo_black/
|
Mojo_66
Rain Kat
Reged: 25/05/2006
Posts: 3360
Loc: Lancs
|
|
I think if a DSLR had a movie mode on it I might use it now and again, but it wouldn't influence my purchase, and I'd rather use a video camera, it's what they're designed for.
--------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mojo_black/
|
gollum
enthusiast
Reged: 18/12/2007
Posts: 271
Loc: Kent
|
|
A definate NO!
--------------------
People too weak to follow their own dreams, will always find a way to discourage yours
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22119200@N08/page1/
|
sjaszczak
A Real Gentleman
Reged: 08/06/2005
Posts: 1117
Loc: York
|
|
Quote:
I think if a DSLR had a movie mode on it I might use it now and again, but it wouldn't influence my purchase, and I'd rather use a video camera, it's what they're designed for.
I saw someone with a video camera a couple of days ago on a nice family outing (so it appeared)...possibly on holiday with said family...something he felt should be recorded as a moving picture.
And do you know what this chap was filming? He was filming the facade of Castle Howard....
...I was left thinking.... "What a pointless exercise...the building has not moved in hundreds of years...what possible advantage could a moving picture possibly have?"
...and it leaves me wondering now..."What pointless little videos will a movie mode on a DSLR trick people into shooting?"
I would much rather learn to take a creative photograph of something with my DSLR...I have a compact for the times when I'm drunk and need to take a photo of a friend throwing up.
--------------------
Steve
My Flickr
|
NorthernNikon
Bulls Hitter
Reged: 16/12/2005
Posts: 6051
Loc: Harrogate, North Yorks
|
|
Quote:
I don't see the need for it. Surely if you want a video camera, you buy a video camera!
But I don't want a video camera but sometimes I'd like the ability to capture video. At the moment we just use my wife's compact, but having video function on a DLSR would enable the benefits of control over focal length and depth of field.
Looks like I'm in a minority on the forum, but I can see that this USP will sway many a buyer moving up from a p&s towards the D90.
--------------------
www.BarneyAllen.com the new home of ComicShots.
|
AGW
Reged: 03/10/2003
Posts: 7717
Loc: Ayrshire
|
|
Market sectors?
I kind of think that when you get to the point where you decide to move into SLR land, you are buying into the concept of buying a tool specifically for a purpose. Still photography.
I would suggest that it is obvious that the same people would research and buy a decent video camera if the decided that they wanted to take video footage. Its the nature of the beast.
The other possibility is that Nikon are taking into consideration the number of press togs who are now shooting video and grabing stills...and doing some testing in a lower end camera prior to rolling out the facility higher up the line?
Graeme
--------------------
AGW (BSRIPN)
Blessed are they who see beautiful things in humble places where others see nothing. (Camille Pissarro)
|
Nigel Atherton
WDC Editor
Reged: 16/05/2006
Posts: 268
Loc: Ministry of Magazines, London
|
|
I'm surprised by all the 'No's here. I'd have thought for anyone with kids the answer would be a resounding yes.
As a medium for recording the kids growing up and the key events in their lives video can't be beat but enthusiast photographers currently have to additionally buy a video camera for this purpose (or use the inferior movie mode on a compact) and then there's the dilemma of which to use.
When it comes to sports days, school concerts, family holidays etc I usually shoot stills and give my wife the video camera, or if its just me I try to juggle between the two. How much easier it would be if my DSLR could shoot video. It would save the expense (at least £200-300) of having to buy an additional device, plus keeping it charged, carrying it around etc.
This feature is likely to appeal to millions of people with families who may want a DSLR for their own creative photography but have to justify it, financially, against the needs of the family.
What do the rest of you family guys and gals do: not shoot video at all, or have a separate video camera, or do you see your partner as the family archivist?
|
parisian
Over the hill and far away...
Reged: 10/02/2002
Posts: 7721
Loc: Môn mam cymru
|
|
Another compromise to satisfy the new toy freakery that constantly invades our consiousness.
Since the onset of digital capture we have had to settle for compromise on quality (until VERY recently).
Now we have parity with film capture and suddenly another gizmo arrives - what a surprise. Manufacturers should concentrate their efforts on reducing the problems still apparent in the majority of their wares rather than adding another pointless function to already over-functioned machines.
Having used and handled Nikon for over 40 years I am disappointed.
Bah! humbug.
--------------------
Hells pensioner - born to be mild
Edited by parisian (14/09/2008 10:10)
|
Roger_Provins
Made-it Man
Reged: 22/10/2005
Posts: 3016
Loc: Gloucester, UK
|
|
Quote:
I'm surprised by all the 'No's here. I'd have thought for anyone with kids the answer would be a resounding yes.
As a medium for recording the kids growing up ...
Maybe, like mine, their kids are long grown up?
In my experience people who are passionate about still photography as an art form are seldom interested in using video. Those who like to take family "snaps" are the people who also like video clips - and few of those will want to pay DSLR money for something that, in their eyes, a little compact will do - and will go in their pocket or handbag.
One person likes to record moments and sequences in time, the other is trying to make a work of art Neither is better - just different uses of photography.
--------------------
Rog
|
Nigel Atherton
WDC Editor
Reged: 16/05/2006
Posts: 268
Loc: Ministry of Magazines, London
|
|
Quote:
In my experience people who are passionate about still photography as an art form are seldom interested in using video.
Even as a record of their own family?
I think that the problem is that when you have young kids you don't have much time for creative photography, its not a lack of desire. But I've often found that a lot of serious creative photographers never photograph or video their own families. They see 'snaps' as their partners job.
Possibly because you need two different devices for these purposes. Until now.
As for creative photography vs family snaps, its perfectly possible to combine the two and strive for artistic documentary photography of the kids/family.
|
Terrywoodenpic
A whiff of silicon...
Reged: 21/01/2006
Posts: 348
Loc: Saddleworth UK
|
|
I saw this on another site...
It looks like movie functionality is already built in to the Canon 40D, it is just not activated into firmware. so it looks like we will get it down the line anyway.
It also looks like the following functionalities are built in as well.
Live view contrast AF
AF micro adjustment
Total shot counter
see http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/40D
--------------------
63 happy photo years from amateur to professional and back to amateur
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
