1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

To Converge or Not?

Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by Zou, Jun 1, 2011.

  1. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    What with all the latest cameras being able to shoot video at a fairly good level, I was wondering how many are taking the opportunity to learn a new style of shooting/lighting, and how many are happy to ignore any video features on the camera. As more and more indie and mainstream filmmakers embrace DSLR video, how long will it be before they abandon the consumer models in favour of dedicated video cameras featuring large sensors (ie a dedicated tool for the job rather than a jack of all trades)?

    I can see myself using a camera for video but it wouldn't be its primary purpose, just something to play with. If I were looking to shoot video I'd be looking for a m4/3 / APS-C video system, not a DSLR.

    I suspect that most on here hate video on the DSLRs but I am sure there are a few who embrace it. If so, for what reasons, convenience, cost, aesthetic or other?
     
  2. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    I know a BBC cameraman who uses a 7D just because the video is so good. Personally I have little use for it and begrudge paying for it.
     
  3. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Why? :confused:

    I've had a lot of fun with it, both on APS-C and on full frame - but the latter is a lot more fun, because you can play with the extent of focus so much better.

    What's good about DSLR HD video? Well, the fact that I've not had to buy and carry around a separate camera is one massive advantage, as is the quality and aesthetics (as above) and the sheer range of lenses available. The only real downside, and that's addressed by several models, is the lack of a fold-out screen. Must say I can't for the life of me see any point in a separate video camera now.
     
  4. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    I have no interest in video whatsoever and would always prefer to buy a dSLR without that complication. However that seems increasingly difficult and I think my Sony a900 is probably one of the last of a breed.

    In the unlikely event of needing video I'd probably, as you say you would, go for a dedicated camera and that would most likely be the Sony Handycam as all my dSLR lenses would fit.
     
  5. Roy5051

    Roy5051 Well-Known Member

    Video on DSLRs is an anathema to me - if I wanted to take video, I would buy a video camera. The video camera that I have is about 15 years old, and hasn't been used since the grandchildren left primary school, about 7 years ago.

    I must admit to taking the occasional short video with my compact cameras, but it is the exception rather than the rule.

    I am now in the market for a new DSLR, but those without video are few and far between, and not in the lens mount I require. OK, I don't have to use all the functions provided on my DSLR, like I never use Manual, rarely use Shutter Priority and do not have an external flash. I just wish the manufacturers would concentrate on getting the best still pictures out of DSLRs, but I suppose, with the likes of Sony, Samsung, Panasonic (primarily electronics manufacturers) joining the list of still camera manufacturers, I may have to be disappointed.

    One other point; video cameras are shaped to be held correctly for videography, whereas DSLRs are not.
     
  6. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    One of the huge advantages of a DSLR for video. It tends to force you to use a tripod, and not move the camera about as much. Result - much better video.
     
  7. LargeFormat

    LargeFormat Well-Known Member

    Video on full frame could be quite interesting with a shift lens. Converging verticals that just don't work bother me and unlike with still photography you can't put it right on the computer.
     
  8. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member


    As I've mention elsewhere the Sony a850 and a900 are probably the last of a breed. Pure dSLRs - no video, no live-view, no pop-up flash. Just a top end 35mm SLR with a sensor instead of film. Unfortunately from here on expect more and more gadgetry :(
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2011
  9. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    ...and if you want to move about? One of the better things about modern TV is the mobility of the cameramen compared to days of old (just a shame many programmes aren't up to par anymore). You could buy a Dolly or a steady-cam thingy I guess, but it's more stuff to cart about.
     
  10. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    I see video as an added bonus but don't use it much....although did yesterday but on my compact. Have only spent a few quid on a LED ringlight for macro videos so far but wouldn't mind more lights.

    Whatever you think on video if it's well implemented it's easy to use but completely unobtrusive.
     
  11. Norman

    Norman Well-Known Member

    I don't think you're paying anything for it. It comes practically free now that DSLRs have 'live view'.

    I like having the option and will probably now sell my Canon camcorder. The only downside I can see is the how many high capacity, high speed memory cards will be required for a days shooting.
     
  12. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Indeed. It's nonsense to talk of it having an additional cost.

    They don't have to be that quick, in all honesty.
     
  13. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Like most - I use a still camera for "stills" and have no real interest in video and would always have imagined that a dedicated video camera would be better than a video mode on a still camera. I think the press market is driving this at the top end and that the presence of a video mode on compacts is driving it from the bottom. Certainly I have seen family having a lot of fun watching video shot on a compact -family moments and the like. Basically once the chip is designed it comes for free so don't expect to see any new camera without it.
     
  14. Norman

    Norman Well-Known Member

    Resurrecting this thread to comment on the notion that cards don't have to be particularly fast to be OK for video.

    I've just purchased an external microphone so that I can begin using the HD video capability of my DSLR (Canon 1D4). My CF cards are mostly Sandisk Extreme III 4.0gb. Not state-of-the-art but not the slowest either. They will only record about 5 or 6 seconds of HD video before the buffer fills. Even if I could fill the card with a single 4.0gb shot (the largest file size on any size card) it would only be about 12 minutes.

    Looks like I'll be needing to upgrade my cards if I'm going to shoot HD video.:mad:
     
  15. IanJTurner

    IanJTurner Well-Known Member

    I seem to be in the majority with regard to this issue. My camera has HD video, and in the six months I've had it, I've probably used the video mode twice. Just for fun.

    It's not that I'm not interested in video - it's just that there isn't room in my brain to learn and explore that as well as photography!

    I would like to see lower and mid range dSLR cameras produced with no video capability, but perhaps with improved performance and quality in it's place. I have no idea how market driven product development works, but I suspect this isn't going to happen!


    EDIT:

    I didn't spot that before - it makes sense though. In a funny sort of way, I'd still prefer not to have video on my stills camera. I'm just awkward, I suppose.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2011
  16. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    A card that operates at 55x is all that's theoretically required, although I use what are still not particularly fast Kingston 32GB 115x cards with my 5D II with absolutely no problem.
     
  17. Norman

    Norman Well-Known Member

    Just popped back in to add some info and saw your reply Nick.

    You're right, my Sandisk Extreme III 4gb cards are OK although 12 minutes of video a card could be restrictive.

    My problem was that my camera can take CF and SD cards and I usually have a 4gb CF and 1gb SD card in the camera. This allows me to simultaneously capture raw to CF and small JPGs to the SD (for web use etc.) When shooting video the video goes to whatever card you have selected for output, which I thought was the CF card.

    I've set my output to CF card and re-tested with no problems. I'll probably still get some 16gb cards though, but which ones? Suggestions welcome.
     
  18. AlexMonro

    AlexMonro Old Grand Part Deux

    There are actually different technical details of the design of flash memory for recording continuous data streams and random accessed files - i.e. video and stills. Sadly, you rarely see this in the advertised specifications, though I would hope that cards advertised as "video" would be designed for continuous streaming. High video write speed does not imply fast still writing, and vice versa.

    If you do find detailed specifications, look for the continuous or streaming write speed and compare with the random or burst write speed.

    To get back to the original topic, I personally have no interest in shooting video. I have a friend who's a videographer and still photographer, and from what I've gathered from her, there's an almost completely different skill set involved in producing good video.

    Also, I think that adding video to DSLRs is not without its drawbacks for still photography. To get the required frame rates for HD video requires that more of the sensor chip area has to be given up to readout logic and interconnections, which could otherwise be used to increase photosite area and light gathering. Additionally, I understand from videographers attempting to use DSLRs that the basic design of a DSLR body is not very convenient for video use.

    Overall, I do believe that videography and still photography are related, but separate, disciplines, and forcing "convergence" on them is a bad idea, foisted on us by marketing.
     
  19. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Presently they may well be relieved that you have not humiliated and embarrassed them through their adolescent years. Later they may regret the lack of moving pictures of their youth. I agree that a serious videographer should buy a video camera but for the family recorder who's hobby is still photography what's wrong with with DSLR movies?
     
  20. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Sandisk Extreme Pro. The data rate for video is probably tiny compared to how much data your 1D4 will be trying to stuff onto a card when shooting full res RAWs at 10fps.

    I think the 1D4 supports up to UDMA 6 so I'd use those.....and do in my 7D.
     

Share This Page