Video on a DSLR

[crazzy88ss]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

The video itself is HD, but it's still going to be terrible if it's shaky and has bathroom sound. If you're going to shoot proper video, shoot it with a proper video camera.

Use a tripod or a VR lens like you would taking a picture in low light?

[Pasq]

Funny, I interviewed a very well-to-do and extremely popular local photographer.

One of my questions was where he thought photography was headed.

He said the merging of still and quality video into one piece of equipment. His reasoning, after taking the video, you can pull out those special stills and they would have the same quality or higher as today's dSLRs.

Interesting since I conducted the interview months before Nikon released and information on the D90.

[Elehd]

One big advantage would be the convenience for travel. Space is at a premium these days. It will be WAY out of my price range anyway.

[PHugger]

Originally Posted by Pasq

...after taking the video, you can pull out those special stills and they would have the same quality or higher as today's dSLRs.

If you exclude the Red DSMC camera that I mentioned earlier, most DSLRs will never capture video at anything higher than 1920x1080 (aka 1080p). There isn't much point in going higher. If you think your DSLR will capture it's full still resolution as video, you will be very disappointed. 1080p frames are a bit over 2MP in resolution. DSLRs can barely manage single digit FPS let alone the 24-30 FPS needed for video. It's an either/or proposition - still pictures at full resolution or video at 1080p.



PCH

[Sime]

so, we're 31 for to 35 against so far... Anyone else?

The RED's are very interesting... Some interesting developments on that front.

[Saralonde]

I never shoot video, so I'm not personally interested. I need all my attention focused on how to take a still photo .

[fletch]

If it doesn't distract from the camera's ability to take stills then why would you not want it? If you don't want it just don't use it! None of the D90 reviews have mentioned the video degrading the still picture quality or useability of the camera for traditional photography.

Did we not have the same discussion about live view about a year ago? A lot of people said they didn't want it but now every new DSLR has it and nobody complains.

Or am I missing something?

[Sime]

Originally Posted by fletch

Did we not have the same discussion about live view about a year ago? A lot of people said they didn't want it but now every new DSLR has it and nobody complains.

Or am I missing something?

probably, but live view and actually capturing video are two very different things.

[wulf]

I'd love to be able to use my DSLR lenses for capturing video. I've recently been playing round with video to produce various things for my church, like a short loop of notices to play before and after services. It is frustrating not to be able to twist a ring on the lens to zoom in, etc.

How much is the video facility adding to the price of the camera though? To be honest, it's academic for me as I'm content with the DSLR performance of my D40 for now and I still haven't scratched the surface of the video camera I'm borrowing (even though it's not a particularly advanced one).

Wulf

[fletch]

Originally Posted by Sime™

...live view and actually capturing video are two very different things.

I agree from a technical implimentation point of view. They do seem to share a lot of caracteristics as far as the "for and against" debate goes though.

- Both not traditionally on a DSLR
- Both found on every P&S under the sun
- Don't need either to take an excellent photo
- Neither get in the way of using a DSLR as an SLR camera (appart from when I acidentally press the live view button on my E510 with my nose!)
- Both are potentially useful some of the time. Live view for composing macro, checking focus etc. Video? Well im sure there is a time and place for it and until then it will just sit there waiting to be usefull.