44% of those who own a Digital Camera with Video Never Use it
Over the last few weeks we’ve been asking readers whether they use the video feature on their digital camera.
While the largest response was ‘My Camera Doesn’t Have Video’ (35%) the break down between the other three responses was interesting. Here is the breakdown of responses from those who DO have the ability to take video from their camera (excluding the 35% that don’t).
I guess all up more people use the video feature on their digital camera than don’t – however there’s a fairly large proportion of those who have video at their finger tips who choose not to use it (some will use a dedicated video camera or perhaps a phone, others perhaps just don’t shoot video).
47 Responses to “44% of those who own a Digital Camera with Video Never Use it” - Add Yours
March 15th, 2010 at 6:46 am
I’d use a video camera and not my DSLR !
March 15th, 2010 at 6:56 am
that’s very interesting! i use the video on mine all, the time (canon eos 500d) because i love making films and it was half the reason i got a Dslr to be honest! interesting poll! just to say, i got a Dslr video, as you cant pull focus or change lenses on video cameras of the same quality and price, there about twice-three times the price
March 15th, 2010 at 7:31 am
most people use their cameras just to relax.
If you produce a video without thinking forst what EXACTLY you wanna obtain, results always as a crappy video. And also it takes a VERY powerful computer to edit it. so people gets bored easily and look to use it when it’s really necessary.
March 15th, 2010 at 9:23 am
Is it me or is “occasionally” spelled incorrectly in the pie chart? :)
March 15th, 2010 at 9:29 am
Yes, it is, Memoria. The quality of this blog is decreasing rapidly. First it started with daily polls instead of quality articles, then came “press releases” and now they don’t even correct typos. Way to go DPS! Bye bye
March 15th, 2010 at 9:31 am
“* results exclude those who answered ‘no’”
… so how do you get a category of “Never” with 44%?
That probably should read “results exclude those who answered ‘no video capability’”.
And yes, occasionally is misspelled in the chart.
I don’t shoot video with one of my cameras because it doesn’t have the capability, but with the other, I don’t shoot video because I bought it as a still camera. I’m not a videographer; I’m a photographer. As of yet, I’m not ready to put the time into learning the video trade. Still photographs still capture enough of my time. ;)
March 15th, 2010 at 9:59 am
I have the canon t1i and most say I really don’t use the video feature that much. Use it just to
play around sometimes nothing serious.
March 15th, 2010 at 10:27 am
I wouldn’t use the video feature if my camera has it.
March 15th, 2010 at 11:56 am
one big minus for shooting video on an DSLR: noise the lens makes during the shoot
March 15th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Hmmm I never use my camera phone. Great post! Love your digital camera review
March 15th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
I hate to use it because it records also sound from the zoom whenever I zoom in and out. And these sounds are very annoying. I have no time and expertise to remove these sounds along the 30 minutes or 1 our movie.
March 15th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
That’s not surprising. Seriously. Most people never use most of the functionality in anything. It’s nothing special for cameras or video.
Typical point-and-shoots come with a dozen different programmes, a large fraction of the users use precisely one: “Auto”. Many can record sound, perhaps 5% of the users ever do. If you’ve got a Canon, you can categorize and tag the pictures in the camera, I’ve never met ANYONE who does.
I’m sure, even for a major selling-point, say zoom, you’ll find that a large fraction of those who own cameras that can zoom, seldom or never actually use it.
March 15th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
I dont have video on my DSLR and would also not use it! My next DSLR will be a Nikon D700. It does have video thank god! Why pay for something you will not use?
March 15th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Good post, personally i never see the reason to shoot video with mine.
March 15th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Why no one talks about the mechanical failure due to hold the mirror up for too long? If those buying 2nd hand DSLRs are concerned about the number of shutter releases being invoked, the introduction of video function will inevitably cause more wear and tear than normal shutter releases as the mechanism that holds the mirror up will be straining more as people take videos.
I guess it is really not in the interest of users to use their DSLRs as video recorders but people overlook that fact because of marketing talk? In whose interest does the video function serves to allow DSLRs to take videos (yes I am advocating a bit of conspiracy theory)?
March 15th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
I’m one of those who never uses video – I don’t believe that video should even be included on a DSLR, although I do realize that there’s plenty of folks out there who will argue strongly against that statement. My feeling is, I bought the SLR to take photos with; if I wanted to take video, I’d have bought a video camera. I’d have preferred to see Canon put its time and resources into improving the camera’s capabilities, instead of jamming video in. I couldn’t care less that it’s included, wish it wasn’t, and won’t ever use it.
But again, I realize that there’s plenty of folks out there who love it.
March 15th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Yep, occasionally is spelt as such and not ‘occassionally’. :)
March 15th, 2010 at 11:21 pm
This place is filled with petty pedantic grousers. If you’re so offended by minor typos and the content of articles, why aren’t you writing and submitting better ones? If you’re so offended by the idea that some people aren’t as purist elite as you, start your own web community.
Le Sigh.
March 15th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
video on a SLR makes no sense to me. why would you want to take videos? you bought the camera to take good quality photos.
March 16th, 2010 at 12:21 am
@James: It only bothers me when it materially mistakes the intended message. I noted the error about which responses were excluded. That’s a major error that makes it difficult to interpret the results, especially if you’re a non-native English speaker. As far as the spelling of “occasionally”… yea, that’s pretty minor. Content trumps in that case.
@Mr Rowse: Please continue your work here. It is appreciated.
March 16th, 2010 at 12:31 am
I have a Nikon D300, so no video, but I imagine I would not use the video function often even if I had a D300s. Editing my photos takes a lot of time already, adding video to that work flow, not until I got a much more powerful computer at least. I think maybe I would record video, but never get around to editing it. However, maybe being able to use my lenses would be inspiring enough to give video a try.
March 16th, 2010 at 12:59 am
I read the “excluding those who don’t” as “excluding users who don’t have a camera with video.” So this pie chart answers the question: “Among ONLY those who have a camera with video, how often do they use video?” — then this makes perfect sense, and is actually quite a good way to represent the data.
March 16th, 2010 at 2:43 am
i use the movie mode on my Nikon D90 sometimes just as a novelty really.
March 16th, 2010 at 6:10 am
@alex gac I quite agree with you sir, or madam. I am just feeling a touch exasperated with what I perceive as a current of negativity and elitist snobbery around these parts. Photography is art, art is meant to be evocative, not everyone finds the same things evocative in the same way.
I enjoy a good discussion about a topic, particularly when others disagree with me. What I don’t understand is why bother to post a comment that consists of nothing more than “I dislike this technique or this application of such, therefore it sucks and is inferior.” This particular thread is not an egregious example of such, I just wanted to drop my two cents in. I suppose it was my turn to contribute to the negativity. :-p
March 16th, 2010 at 8:27 am
This is a meaningless result as the very fact that this is on a forum devoted to people with an interest in still photography will skew any result. It makes as much sense as asking a woman’s sewing forum how often they change the oil filter on their cars then taking that result as an indication of “average” maintenance practices within the general public. You can be quite sure that the marketing research used by camera manufacturers is not steering them in a pointless direction.
March 16th, 2010 at 9:57 am
@ alex
It only makes it difficult to interpret the results if you didn’t read the top paragraph properly. It’s not a major error if you did.
Yes, this could be difficult for people to follow who don’t understand English as a first language (or maths at all) but this is an English language site, after all.
I very occasionally use the video on my 7D (maybe five minutes in total since December) but hadn’t thought about the mirror lock-up wear and tear. I don’t know if there’s any validity to that argument, since I would think that the shock of firing the shutter at 100th of a second or faster would put a lot more strain on the mechanism than just locking it up; however, I admit I don’t know enough about how it works to say that with any authority. I’d be interested to learn more on that.
March 16th, 2010 at 10:39 am
I’d be curious to know whether people who use video are more inclined to own a P&S or a DSLR or whether the proportion is about equal.
Personally, I think that DSLR manufacturers should offer two choices for a given camera model: one video and one without video (at a lower cost).
March 16th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
@Brent: I support your view that we buy a DSLR for the sole purpose of taking still shots. The mechanism is designed for such a use and should purely stick to this use to ensure longevity of the product. After all, not all are born with a silver spoon in their mouths.
@Chris: You are right, there are more ’shocks’ since most of the common shutter speed is 1/125 of a second. But that’s the thing, the shutter is designed for such a use because upon taking the photo, the mirror goes back to resting position. I would also say that higher end DSLRs for sports photography will be faster and the ‘flapping’ of the mirror would be of higher frequency but still, it is designed as such and I would consider that as normal wear and tear during use.
In contrast to video taking, the mirror is held up, straining the mechanism further. I won’t be surprised that those who extensively use the DSLR for video taking will see their mirror get stuck or won’t come down from the ‘expose’ position.
@Cornell: I totally agree with the suggestion of providing a non-video DSLR model if the manufacturers sole intent is to get as much market as possible by introducing features into a camera that cut short its useful life. Perhaps a Nikon D300s and a Nikon D300sv to denote the differences. But i would very much like the idea of totally abandoning the video in DSLRs and would want the manufacturers to improve on the technical capabilities for still shots such as zero sensor noise at ISO 3200 and beyond, auto sensor cleaning in all the bodies or improve the post processing in camera. E.g. for nikon, their skin tones are not as good as canon’s so what are they doing to close the gap?
Other technicalities with regards to using putting video capability on the DSLR
- DSLR lens, with its one focus one shot method, it is not the best mechanism to maintain focus for video shots unless the camera is facing a stationary location such as a stage. There will be people who would be saying about continuous focusing like for sports photography. But imaging the amount of strain imposed on the lens focusing system for consumer lens.
- DSLR sensor resolution versus HDTV resolution- HDTV resolution is at 1080×1920 about 2MP camera sensor resolution versus the DSLR resolution that is at least 5 times as much. That means the DSLR is constantly downgrading the images for video shots; a good use of the sensor and image processor?
- Liveview is in a way, allowed the introduction of the video capability. since it uses the same methods to allow the sensor to be exposed for video. But with the same argument against video. And liveview, like how people uses the compact cam to take pictures, is the surest way to introduce camera shake and does nothing to improve basic photography skills but actually opens the way for more redundant features such as eVR into compact cams and use of VR in all DSLR lenses (thus another revenue stream?…yes conspiracy theory again)
Let’s get DSLR to do what DSLRs are meant to do. There are a lot of things to improve and video capability is not the direction to go.
March 17th, 2010 at 1:09 am
The only time I have used the video on my Canon 7D was to kill the battery during the first usage of the camera.
Since then I haven’t switched to video mode. I just dont have software (that i want to use) to do video, dont have the interest in video and don’t have an HDTV to even watch it later if I wanted to
March 17th, 2010 at 11:44 am
@Wilson
Fair point, I guess. :)
March 18th, 2010 at 9:48 am
Having done exclusively stills with the 5D II for the past year, I upgraded the firmware yesterday in the hopes of doing video. Being a novice, all I needed was simple, quick editing to get the video into uTube format. Alas, Adobe Premiere Pro CS3 still needs finaggling to get the output just right. I wish Canon would insert a uTube-ready format in the 5DII menu. 95% of all the video I do with the 5D II will go on my blog or uTube anyway, so why does video have to be so darn complex? My iPhone video is more useable.
March 19th, 2010 at 4:33 am
i used mine occasional since we usually have either my gl2 camcorder with us or my smaller hand held we tend to use the camcorder.
My small point and shoot takes lovely videos and is quick and easy to carry around with having really to worry about grabbing lenses.
March 19th, 2010 at 5:07 am
Thats why I have a JVC mini DV camcorder. To make videos. Because, it was made to make videos. And takes photos too. But.. for That I use my Nikon D80. It was made to take pictures. so, if it had video feature, I guess wont use it anyway…
and.. as i read before..
I spent a lot of time processing my pictures… i dont want to imagine how much time i could spend with video.
March 19th, 2010 at 5:55 am
For many years I have used SLR cameras and have thoroughly enjoyed the art of taking still photographs.
Then I had a period of no photography. But then I was drawn back to my love of the art, although I have to
learn the new concept of Digital Photography. I have thrown myself into this new world, even learning
Photoshop, now I want to upgrade and get better equipment so I read all the magazines that I can get my
hands on in Spain, but the main concern in all articles is how many frames per second the camera can shoot. I have got a video camera and I love using it but the two art forms only come together for the guys who are looking for that slit second shot like Photo Journalists.
I do not want to have to pay for that facility in my camera, but it seems that I do not have a choice,do I?
March 19th, 2010 at 6:20 am
I’m using the 5DM2 almost exclusively for video. There are plenty of forums explaining the advantages and limitations of this camera for video. While the camera does have its shortfalls as a movie-making device, there are also some stunning short films out there – check out Philip Bloom (who recently wowed George Lucas and Quentin Tarantino with his 5DM2 footage on a cinema screen at the Skywalker ranch); also check out cinema5d.com’s videolog for examples if you’re interested. Many professional productions have been shot on this camera.
March 19th, 2010 at 7:57 am
If I wanted to shoot video I hope I would have enough common sense to use a camcorder.
March 19th, 2010 at 9:58 am
I thinks it’s laughable that most photographers who have video-enabled DSLRs believe they can also make good short films. It’s far, far easier to create a wonderful photograph (possibly aided by Photoshop or Lightroom) than a wonderful movie. The two require much different skill sets, and the latter is bedeviled by numerous additional concerns such as creating a good story/script, incorporating music/sound effects, directing “actors” (even if they’re only friends and family members), editing and resequencing (in an artistic manner) various pieces of the video, etc. Sound editing is particularly important, too.
Have you ever wondered why most home movies are pure crap and boring as hell? Most of these photographers/would-be videographers should just stick to still photography. Seriously. The video feature is just a marketing gimmick…
March 19th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
This is what I hear WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH I am perfect you are not and I am going to point it out to the world. Come on people he mistyped or spelled 1 word, and it’s a huge issue? There is a huge amount of great info on this site and if spelling is that much of an issue YOU do it better and please send me the link.
And I occassionally use video on my point and shoot my dslr does not have the option, if it did I probably would not use it.
March 19th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
To Richard Eng. Photographers don’t use the video feature on their DSLR’s with the intent of making better films than videographers. Most, like myself, are trying to do it at a minimum level, not become experts. I wouldn’t even think of trying to do both. And no, photography isn’t far easier than videography. I know several videographers who take the occasional still photograph and they don’t even pretend to compete on the same level. As you said, the two require totally different skill sets, and to compete in either area requires the same dedication to your field as your competitors.
March 19th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
For marketing hype manufacturers will continue too othe add new features that have nothing to do with taking photos. Video is just the beginning and who knows in near future we will have dslrs which can send sms, play games and hook to the internet. And the sad thing about it is that when these new features come, pros and critics will claim them as cool and convenient as much as they did with video, sparking buying frenzy from ignorant customers whose old cameras take perfectly fine pictures.
March 19th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
@Myles..
agreed…there will be people who would say DSLR can make great films. And like still photography, it is not the tool but the person behind it. So put the DSLR video function in good hands and miracles will happen.
I would harbour a guess that Philip Bloom uses the 5DM2 as the ‘wow’ point for Quentin and George to check out his work. Imagine the ‘excitement’ he will get if he just use an off the mill semi-pro videocamera.
But that is not the point.
The point is what tools are being introduced to the DSLR genre but does nothing to still photography but actually make the camera more expensive because of the additional, ‘beneficial’ fucntion in the form of videography? In short it is marketing gimmick that makes the camera more expensive than it already is and yet does nothing in terms of value for OUR money.
As if that is not enough, the Liveview function actually causes one to hold the camera in such a way that the camera is not held on firmly, introduces image shake and then get people to think the solution is Vibration Reduction or Image Stabilization and pay more unnecessary money for the function in their lens and say kit lens is totally useless(see the marketing/sales conspiracy?)
For Philip Bloom to use a DSLR to film a movie is a double edge sword: either he is a pure genius by using the DSLR as the entry point to showcase his work or he don’t know how to differentiate the right tools to use.
Get the right tool for the right job and I for one won’t use a spanner to hit the nail into the plank.
March 19th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
@Wilson Wong:
as far as video cameras go, there is no ‘right tool for the job’. The 5D has many unique advantages for video – including its full frame sensor, low light sensitivity, interchangeable lenses, DOF, small size/portability – and in essence – the fact that it makes stunning footage that you can blow up on a 40ft cinema screen, rivalling far more expensive cameras.
Other prof or semi-prof video cameras have their limitations (e.g. sensor size).
From the point of view of the cinematographer, the 5Dm2 is a powerful, portable, affordable low light champion – not a gimmick. It’s being used for many ads broadcast on TV, and for example by DOP Rodney Charters on the TV show ‘24′. The bottom line is: image quality – and the 5D happens to be the tool of choice for many prof video productions at present.
Mr. Bloom has been in the business for 20 years so I think your comment that he doesn’t know how to differentiate the tools is rather absurd. Equally, it is not a mark of genius: there is a large community of film-makers using the camera to make movies.
I can totally understand your frustration as a stills purist since you have no interest in making films – however the market is going through a rapid period of evolution providing technology and applications that were inconceivable just a few years ago. In 5 years, the video/still convergence may take another route, offering more specialised tools – but then what can one do but grumble.
March 19th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
@Myles. About Mr Bloom, agreed, I am a frog in a well when it comes to such personalities so I apologise to those who are reading it.
Convergence is nice or else I wouldn’t have gotten myself a smartphone.
But you got to agree, there are better tools out there that trumps the Canon 5DM2 if one really wants to do video. Of course if the professionals think that it can do a good job why not…sometimes that’s how creativity comes about.
I do question why can’t we get cheaper bodies with better ISO noise control more pro functions? Why can’t purists have even cheaper cameras with out the video function?
If the 5DM2 is such a miracle machine for video taking, I guess the mechanism should be transplanted into a video cam instead and market it as a pro level video cam and leave the DSLR alone.
Or better yet, give us a choice to have or not to have the video function by coming out with 2 sub models instead of getting us still photographers to pay for something we don’t need in the first place.
My point is purely this: I want to spend on something that I can use and there are still a lot of things that still camera can improve and video is an area that shouldn’t be included in the first place and it is really an opportunity cost.
March 19th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
@Wilson
For the price, there is nothing that trumps the 5Dm2 for video – but it does demand a bit of creativity, expertise and a thorough understanding of its limitations (as well as a range of accessories) to get the most out of it. Thanks to its full frame sensor, tonal range, latitude, the 5Dm2 also trumps far more expensive pro video cameras in terms of image quality.
In terms of convergence, and the huge market for moving images in the media, there are quite a few photojournalists out there using the video capabilities of DSLRs. So for some, the camera is a hit.
However, I take your point – you don’t need any of these features and don’t want to have to pay for/ subsidise them – so as I suggested, maybe DSLR manufacturers will end up segmenting their product portfolio to cater for photographers, and ‘hybrid’ videographers – and potentially sell the VDSLR plus a lean & mean stills-only DSLR to the very same customer.
March 20th, 2010 at 2:27 am
I think most people expect the experience of video on an image camera to be similar to that of a video camera. Pop in a tape/disk, record, playback. The reality of recoding on image camera is … hold the camera out in front of you (as opposed in hand like a camcorder), record to SD card … now what? How do I get that video onto my computer? How do I play it? What video format is that? How do I share it with my friends/family?
March 23rd, 2010 at 6:34 am
I use the video feature on a digital camera much more than I used to now that I don’t have a video camera.
March 31st, 2010 at 7:49 am
I use video for kids sporting events. Basket ball specically. Also for some wild life – The deer eating my wifes rose bush for example. The quality is good enough for the kids to get kick out it and I do not have to buy and carry two cameras.
Leave a Reply