Video on a DSLR - Would You Use It?

Video on a DSLR – Would You Use It?


Nikon-D90-1Earlier in the week I posted that Nikon have released their new Nikon D90 DSLR, a camera which they are proudly publicizing is the first DSLR to shoot with HD Video.

In the comments on that post the main theme being discussed is whether video belongs on a DSLR.

We’ve long seen video on point and shoot cameras (and I see a lot of people shooting video that way when I’m out and about) but does video belong on a DSLR?

Video on DSLRs? The Debate So Far

‘It just sounds weird to shoot videos with DSLR camera, don’t you think?’ – Robert

“Now this is just wrong I think. Why would you need video on a DSLR? I’m pretty disappointed about this. I was afraid that this would be the next step from Live View. I hope Canon will not include this video feature in their DSLR’s.” – Horia

“I’m conflicted about the video. Kinda like the pop up flash. Once you get into advanced amateur or pro, it’s just not a good feature. or is it?” – Rosh

“I believe the feeling is if my 100.00 10mp P&S can take movies than how come my 1300.00 dSLR can’t? Granted you don’t have to use it if you don’t want to. I think Nikon is just thinking ahead and trying to grab more marketshare.” – Pete Langlois

“The fact that they added video to this body caught my eye… It’d be sweet to utilize the different lenses to make videos. Wide apertures.. manual focus… different angles… man… it’d be much more dynamic than point & shoot recording.” – Andrionni

My Thoughts on Video on a DSLR

I’ll have to admit – that my first thought when I saw this being touted as a killer feature of the D90 was to giggle. The thought of whipping out a DSLR to shoot video feels weird (to me at least). I’ve done video on my point and shoot and mobile phone and even found the fact that they shoot video to be quite handy – but a DSLR?

However – my mind then started to take over some of my feelings. As Andrionni points out above – the possibilities of shooting video through a DSLR are interesting. It would not be limited to shooting through a tiny 3x optical zoom than most point and shoots come with – you could fit any lens you like. Wide angle, macro, fisheye, super telephoto zoom…. While the quality will be undoubtably lower than a purpose built HD video camera – I can actually see times where it could be fun and useful to have the ability to switch my trusty DSLR into video mode and start shooting.

Would I be tempted to trade in my video camera for a DSLR – not any time soon – but would I use video on a DSLR? Probably – but I’m sure it’d feel weird at first and will get a few odd looks from others.

Does Video Belong on a DSLR?

What do you think? Does video belong on DSLRs? Would you use it? Let us know what you think in comments below. Looking forward to some good discussion.

Read more from our category

Darren Rowse is the editor and founder of Digital Photography School and SnapnDeals. He lives in Melbourne Australia and is also the editor of the ProBlogger Blog Tips. Follow him on Instagram, on Twitter at @digitalPS or on Google+.

Some Older Comments

  • amal paulson May 27, 2012 01:38 am

    is it bad for the camera in anyway?
    wht is the shutter mechanism used while shooting? does the shutter speed hav any influence on this other that exposure...taking long vids , r they bad 4 the DSLR?

  • Gordon Lane June 29, 2011 02:03 pm

    I have a D90 and does exactly what i need.

    Take photos for training manuals.
    Now inserting videos when actually training.
    Take photos of equipment failures.
    As I am in the coal industry have set the camera so use one lens all the time less chance of coal dust.
    Do a lot of travelling and can carry one camera to meet all my needs even video's.
    A lot of travelling on planes and trains and need to limit what i need eg Camera, Video, clothing, laptop, diary, external hard drives and cables for all this equipment.
    At times previously with point and shoot camera found was not able to get close enough to items to see the small data that was required for the above manuals and report of failures.

    Therefore the D90 meets all my requirement even if only used for point and shoot and do not get into advance photo taking.


  • james wood June 23, 2011 03:18 pm

    The improvement in picture size, encoding and lens options make it a great choice. love the article.

  • james wood - June 23, 2011 03:17 pm

    The improvement in picture size, encoding and lens options make it a great choice.

  • Sarah July 2, 2010 06:42 pm

    I think this feature is awesome. At the moment I'm looking for a digital SLR camera with video. It allows you to still use the same effects as taking a photo but you can use the effects in a video. Its the best thing since sliced bread I believe.!

  • Clark June 22, 2010 05:37 am

    @ robert: correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't all video camera's viewfinders based on a electronic viewfinder?
    you dont need an adaptor with the GH1, the viewfinder still works when video is recording, yes it is an electronic display, but I doubt a true optical finder will be available, when the mirror is up (recording) how the hell is the light supposed to hit the sensor and be reflected up into the prism?

    @stratman- for my kind of shooting the depth of field is important, I do more visual storytelling, so subject isolation is important to me, more important than deep focus, so for me (and lots of indie filmmakers) raw footage out of a camcorder isn't what we're looking for. It's only the 5d (FF) which has such shallow DOF, the 7d (APS C) and especially the gh1 (m4/3) have more depth of field, and if you stop down to say f11, or shoot wide angle, you get loads of depth of field anyway, and if you consider the fact you lose what 2 stops of light when using a 35mm adaptor on a camera that means you can get 2 stops more depth of field on a DSLR (in the same lighting), and you can stop down even more and just increase the iso (which, at least from footage i've seen, works much much better on even a 4/3's camera compared to a

    maybe i'm just in the 2% niche who's looking to break into pro level videography but happens to want a new SLR and doesn't have the budget or the will to purchase an EX3
    yeah i'm not denying that pro cam's are better for certain things, but SLR's are good for certain things too- low light, bang for buck quality, lens selection, compactness, versatility, of course the next generation of pro cams will mop up with the SLR's, and the SLR platform is fundamentally flawed

  • Robert June 22, 2010 03:09 am

    @ Clark - yes I am aware of the add-on viewfinder for the new four-thirds devices but it's still an LCD in there.

    I'd like to see Canon develop a true "LCD Free" TTL video solution just like TTL for stills. I vaguely recall Sony was working on a DSLR that included a dedicated video sensor up behind the viewfinder screen in the prism housing. Can't remember where I saw it though, it might have been a fake?

  • Stratman June 22, 2010 12:30 am

    @ Clark

    The specs of the XM2 are based on Canon's website as is using the video cam's built-in lens. Obviously if one would outfit the thing with a 35mm and a separate lens you'd have to account for their weight separately.

    When was the last time you saw your local TV station or CNN using a 5D Mk II for live outdoor broadcast? I thought so. And yes, I did watch clips of the season finale of the TV series House. The DoF in some scenes was unbelievably shallow that the camera man had difficulty in focusing on Hugh Laurie's face. It was a one time experimental thing.

    Let's see if entire seasons of TV shows like House, Leverage, 24 and the CSI franchise would be shot entirely with a 5D Mk II.

  • Clark June 21, 2010 09:41 pm

    @ robert- you can do TTL on the panasonic gh1

    and it has a flip out screen, full manual control, 60p- and is basically the best speck'd HDSLR at the moment (video quality of the canon 5d not withstanding)

    @ stratman-I think you forgot to factor in the size/weight of a 35mm adaptor, and L series lens onto your consumer cam weight
    and footage just looks better when it comes from a tripod/jib/dolly mounted cam- by forcing me to stabilise my shots, it forces me to get better footage rather than just be lazy and hand hold everything

  • Robert June 21, 2010 03:13 pm

    I do wish it could be done TTL though!

  • Robert June 21, 2010 03:06 pm

    I've gotten some very nice family videos from my 5DII.

    While playing with my 5DII video features I've had to review things I knew but almost forgot about photography. It forced me to think about some basic concepts from a different perspective which i found helpful.

    For example, while trying to solve the video focus issue, I had to review some old hyperfocal calculations I hadn't used in many years. I figured the lazy solution would be to maximize my depth of field so I wouldn't have to worry about where my subjects were in the frame.

    Then I started thinking about how I might have taken some recent shots differently. So in the end, I figure anything that makes me rethink and improve my photography can't be all bad?

  • Clark June 7, 2010 08:15 am

    "While the quality will be undoubtably lower than a purpose built HD video camera"

    Really, anything to back this comment up? In my experience the quality of those SLR's with their huge sensors and great optics are head and shoulders above consumer camcorders (even the ones which cost £1000 plus)- hell the SLR's are even better in some cases than the £8000 HD camcorders like the professional EX1 series, depth of field, portability, cost, variety- want to get depth of field on an EX1? Or want to use a telephoto/superwide angle/macro lens, better make sure you've got a 35mm adaptor then, and good luck handholding such a rig, and please enjoy the 2 stops of light you'll lose, which won't help you much since the tiny sensors in the EX1 arent very good in low light

    yes it has disadvantages, they're not very wieldy so you have to use a shoulder rig or use a tripod, you lose autofocus, but you wouldn't use autofocus for anything other than pointless videos of your children anyway, professional cameras dont autofocus

    you wouldn't pull out a panavision pl 35mm film camera to film your friend falling out a tree, and as such you wouldnt pull out an slr to film it either- HDSLR's are 'digital cinema', planning your shots, tripods, dolly's, jibs- if you haven't storyboarded it, directed your actors, and lit the scene, then you shouldnt be using a HDSLR

    this probably sounds like a rant, but i'm getting sick of photographers complaining that 'video on an SLR is just something to sell their product', it completely isnt- video on an SLR is a logical progression which brings affordable 'filmic' quality to indie filmmakers, and many people (myself included) are buying HDSLR's only for their video cababilities, I would be an idiot to buy a pro spec video camera (wouldnt need the features, and too expensive), and I would be an idiot to be a consumer grade video camera (too low grade, poor IQ), so instead of renting high end gear it makes sense to buy a HDSLR which bridges the gap between quality and price, and funnily enough it couldnt have come at a better time, as i'm just about to upgrade my pentax SLR

  • rhonda dorsett June 3, 2010 06:59 am

    I am intrigued with the comments made above. I have been using the Canon 5D Mark II since before it was released to the public. My company, The Phoenix Group, creates the Shooter's Insights for Canon that are seen on the Canon Digital Learning Center, and Cinema 5D. Our worst mistake was to use traditional video equipment on the shoot about Tyler Stableford using the 5D Mark II when it was first announced. With such spectacular scenery in the Red Rocks of Utah, I was kicking myself for not shooting HD video with my 5D. I have lots of stills, but not the same. After that production, we dumped the traditional equipment and have been shooting exclusively with the Canon DSLRs, including the 7D, 1D Mark IV and 5D Mark II. We have captured footage that would have been impossible otherwise. We set up over a dozen location shoots in LA with Vince Laforet in 2 days. Shooting from early dawn to late evening hours with amazing image quality at even ISO's of 32oo. Budgets are significantly impacted, in a very positive way. We also shot Paul Winter's 3oth Winter Solstice in St. John's Cathedral in New York City, the 2nd largest cathedral in the world! With no control over lighting, and no access on stage, we captured some wonderful footage that truly shows the High ISO performance of these cameras. There are of course some interesting aspects to get used to. It does not have the feel and hold of a traditional Video camcorder. But, also being a still photographer, I found it ergonomically friendly. The ability to use over 60 lenses provide the ability to create very unique "looks" to the footage that can not be done with video lenses, unless you have a Hollywood budget. And even those cinematographers are looking to DSLRs as VERY viable alternatives. No major lighting required, lens flexibility, shallow depth-of-field…I encourage anyone who hasn't tried them yet to take the plunge. Borrow one, rent one, buy one. They are changing the way we see the world through our cameras. It's a wonderful thing to be able to carry one camera and have both high quality still and video capability in a very portable package. As a matter of fact, I always carry 2 bodies and an arsenal of lenses and am still more portable than a video crew. [eimg url='' title='?p=25']

  • Len May 1, 2010 12:54 pm

    a video on a DSLR ? if this feature would not hamper or sacrifice in any way the quality of stills this cam is designed for, why not? after all, if you would not want to shoot video, you would not use it anyway, but if you do need to, at least this wonderful cam is equipped with it. but if the photos would suffer, hell, no, thanks for the video...

  • Chris April 30, 2010 02:23 pm

    Firstly let's consider the HD video format. I was surprised that the Nikon cameras were used as examples, as although they are indeed fine still cameras, they are only capable of shooting HD video at the lowly, bottom of the rung 720p, which is half the resolution of full HD. For that you need to consider Canon's EOS 5D II, 7D or 550D.
    Whether one would use a DSLR for video will depend on how seriously they take their video clips.
    The advantages of using DSLR's for video are many but I will concentrate on the main ones.
    Firstly, the huge sensor(by comparison to a dedicated camcorder), enables unbelievably noise free, bright, colourful and sharp video in low light situations. Then there is the shallow depth of field that can be achieved with an SLR, which camcorders can only dream of. This is followed by the different lenses that can be used to achieve creative requirements.
    It is true that a DSLR is not as easy to use as a camcorder, as it is larger, heavier and most can only use the rear LCD display for framing, as the eye level view finder is blacked out when shooting in video mode.
    DSLR's for video, have been widely adopted by professional videographers as a less expensive means of providing high quality clips, compared even to professional video cameras.
    The season finale of the TV series House, was entirely shot with a Canon 5D II, is only one example, and the Web is full of examples of professionally made videos, using DSLR's.
    Personally, I own both an HD camcorder and a full HD DSLR. My reasons for favouring the DSLR, is that I no longer need to carry two cameras and all their accessories when I travel. The DSLR fulfils both requirements.
    So, it comes down to personal requirements. DSLR's for video may not suit the casual shooter, but for those that actually want to make videos of the highest quality, there is no question.

  • Josh April 26, 2010 12:54 pm

    The quality is not "undoubtedly" lower than a HD Camera. I know, because recently a friend of mine purchased a high-end prosumer 1080p Sony Film Camera which cost... $8,000. When I showed him some footage of the Canon 7D on a DSLR, his jaw hit the ground.

    The filmic quality is amazing. The need for colour grading & post-processing is almost all but gone. Sure, both the prosumer grade camcorders & DSLR's have their different uses & limitations - focus, zoom, audio quality to name just a few - but the fact that a $2000 camera can produce such stunning video & save it to Flash (not mini-DV) is incredible.

    I'm certainly looking forward to what the future holds for DSLR's, I think they're going to become very, very popular for the amateur film-maker.

  • fiona April 23, 2010 06:49 am

    I wonder if I could shoot video using a heavy DSLR camera by hand... In my opinion, video feature would be great for lighter DSLR such as D90, but not for heavy sturdy body such as D300.

  • Stratman March 22, 2010 03:54 am

    IMO, video in a dSLR was more of an afterthought, made possible through the advances of digital sensor and image processing technology. It takes one manufacturer to start including video in a dSLR, and competitors - not wanting to be outclassed, followed suit.

    I'm not disputing the excellent image quality of such video capable dSLRs like the Canon 5D Mk II, 7D and more recently, the Rebel T2i. It's a matter of ergonomics, weight and handling.

    The shape and profile of today's dSLRs have not changed since the film SLRs of the 1960s. They are best handled with both hands, one on the body and the other supporting the lens barrel. But when you look at the shape of a traditional camcorder, it's totally different.

    For consumer camcorders, they are made as lightweight as possible, allowing them to be handled with the right hand. It's not necessary to support the lens end of a camcorder with the left hand. Your other hand is left free, e.g. to support yourself against a wall or a railing. Camcorders also have always had flip-out LCD screens in addition to the electronic viewfinder.

    Most dSLRs have fixed screens or at least, tilting ones like some Sony Alpha and Nikon models employ. Canon has yet to introduce a dSLR with a flip out LCD and so far it doesn't seem to be interested in such gimmicks.

    Just as the issue of handling and ergonomics, the issue of weight is another point of consideration. Consumer level, Canon camcorders are well under 1kg, including batteries. Let's look a the Canon 5D Mk II. Its body alone weighs 810g. Most owners are likely to fit an L-series lens on such a high end camera.

    OK, let's pick a good Canon zoom lens for the 5D Mk II, say - the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM. The lens itself tips the scale at a whopping 1.4kg. Add the body and lens, your total physical burden would be 2.21kg!.

    Now, compare this with the Canon's XM2, a semi-professional MiniDV camcorder. It costs about the same as the 5D Mk II's body. The XM2 camcorder, using with a fluorine coat used in L-series lenses, is a mere 1.12kg. It can be supported with one hand in conjunction with your shoulder to offset its weight..

    DSLRs are constructed in such a way that it has to be in front of your face. You can't rest it against your shoulder. Try to hold the 5D Mk II with the EF 70-200mm f2.8L lens steadily with one hand for just five minutes and not using a tripod. Unless you're built like Arnold Schwarzenegger during his prime years, your hand will start to tremble past sixty seconds.

    My issues is more with the practicality of using video-capable dSLRs to replace a real camcorder. When hand-held, they're good for short clips. Your arms will start aching after ten minutes with a good quality lens with large apertures to get that nice shallow depth of field and capturing in low light.

    I seriously doubt a 60-minute event can be comfortably filmed with a heavy dSLR and lens combination without mounting it on a tripod or a video rig. Which is why today, a dSLR has never looked like a camcorder and vice versa. The ability to record video clips is one thing, while but the basic design of a single lens reflex camera never had video in mind.

    Maybe camera manufacturers should include a built-in cellphone, a WiFi and wireless broadband netbook and and an FM radio/MP3 player into their dSLRs, if convergence of features is truly the future of dSLRs.

    Heck, if it also dispenses hot coffee, I'll be sure to be the first in line to buy one. Then I can take photos while listening to news, upload my images to Flickr without needing my laptop and at the same time, enjoy a steaming cup of cappuccino without having to go to Starbucks.

  • Ross Chapman March 21, 2010 06:32 pm

    I think it's fair to say that video on DSLR cameras were initially thought of as just an additional feature. Having talked to the guys in innovation at Canon, they were not prepared for the uptake of using these cameras as serious film making cameras - that's why some of the quirks, such as transcoding the h.264s and frame rates are only recently being fixed.

    I can't imagine where it's all going, but think of it like this - the Apple iPhone is a convergent device - phone, jukebox, games, calendar etc. - DSLRs that do photos and videos well shouldn't be shunned!

  • kaili March 6, 2010 11:36 am

    I think having video on a DSLR camera would be awesome! Instead of just having HD pitures, you can have a HD video plus pictures!

  • Geoff March 5, 2010 04:14 am

    Yes I agree with Susan I have a Canon SX10 that has video, and of course sterio sound! The video can produce images in low light that can hardly be obtained by still shots. The camera is also much more acceptable than my large digicam when filming musicians in a pub. The results are fine for the web, but I would like HD. I am saving up for a full frame DSLR camera and would like to have HD 1080 video as an option. I would also like a tiltable LCD screen on the DSLR similar to what I have on the SX10. I don't know whether that's possible or not.

  • Susan February 8, 2010 10:24 am

    I have been searching for a DSLR camera that also shoots video. Why does it seem strange for a DSLR to shoot video or you ask why would someone want that too. Well I take pictures and live video of local bands. I dont have time to switch between camera and camcorder. Ive had a point and shoot camera that does both but wanted something higher tech! This is a camera I am definately going to look at purchasing!

  • Julian Hebbrecht December 31, 2009 07:15 pm

    I am not interested in video. I bought the CANON EOS 7D recently because it's a superb camera, not because it has video.

  • Ernesto Comarca December 10, 2009 03:35 pm

    Well, no more words than check this HD video Vs and raise your own conclusions about having or not HD video, which according to clients, will make the next amateur photographer breed: The video amateur photographer whom to most clients will be a no brainer,"Only one person to shoot and record my wedding, one that clearly seems to know better about composition than a camera man"

    Now, about quality, Canon`s best all around camera since never, the 5D mark II at $2,500, Canon`s PowerShot SX1, Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX1, and Panasonic`s Lumix DMC-GH1

    DSLR video is not an option, is the way forward, the next standard, that why RED`s scarlet at $2800 (body) will get not a mere 1080p video only, but full 3000px video in RAW at 120 fps using Nikon or Canons lens system, now imagine editing videos in premiere with the versatility of RAW in lightroom.

  • Stratman December 4, 2009 07:55 pm

    @ ronneema

    If I could afford an EOS 7D, I'd be most likely NOT to use the video mode if possible. I treat dSLR bodies as expensive cameras and prefer to shoot stills, what they're really intended for in the first place. One would've expect Canon to incorporate stereo audio recording in their upscale dSLRs but for you get only a mono built-in mic.

    Even my 3-year old PowerShot S3 IS has excellent stereo recording (44.1kHz). Its fixed USM zoom lens is silent enough not to pick up noise from the zoom mechanism, therefore all PowerShot ultra-zooms can use the optical zoom in video recording mode.

    Obviously Canon doesn't want its video capable dSLRs to compete with its own digital video camera products, so there you have it. You can have a superb videocam that takes "just OK" stills or a dSLR that takes adequate videos...but not both.

    I don't know, this is like cellphone manufacturers racing against competitors by putting more megapixels in their camera phones. The Sony Ericsson W995 phone may boast of a 8.1 MP camera (I intend to get one) but I'll still prefer to use my 8.1 MP Cyber-shot DSC-W150 ultra-compact. A dedicated digicam always takes better quality images and offers more shooting flexibility than any camera phone.

    The problem is, no dSLR manufacturer is brave enough to produce two versions of the same model, one with video recording (for those who want such feature) and one that takes stills only . Obviously, the version without the video is expected to be priced lower. I wouldn't pay extra for a feature that I never wanted in the first place....therefore if the EOS 500D has a cheaper, alternative version without video, I'd buy that instead of the EOS 450D.

    BTW, congrats on your purchase of the EOS 7D! :-)

  • Ronneema December 4, 2009 03:29 pm

    I think that video should stay on video cameras and use the extra space to squeeze in more features into a dSLR, like maybe built in memory, built in wifi transmitter (so we don't have to keep fumbling around for a cord or card reader), or more processors to get those images recorded faster and better.

    I recently purchased an EOS7D. In general, the camera is excellent except for that video recording. I tried to incorporate video during my photo shoots and it just got too annoying and ate up my memory card space. Although it did record in 1080P, the audio is in MONO. So unless you have audio equipment to match HD video and someone to carry it for you, I don't suggest for anyone to use the video feature. I saw a photo of the 7D with a boom mic attached to the flash shoe--ALIEN RAY GUN.

  • Stratman October 2, 2009 06:07 am

    Darren, thanks for the very thought provoking article and an excellent one at that too!

    I'm a traditionalist when it comes to dSLR cameras. Some people might find dSLR cameras with movie capability useful, but I'm unfortunately not one of them.

    Everyone knows that dedicated video cams are never shaped like dSLRs for a reason - ergonomics.
    You might want to try out your heavy L-series lenses on your Canon 5D Mk II for example, but soon enough the camera would be heavy and tricky to handle compared to a real video cam.

    Having said that, I do own a Canon PowerShot S3is and a ultra-compact Sony Cyber-shot with movie recording capability, but I very seldom use the movie function on either camera. Even if I did, I usually record no longer than three minutes' worth per clip. They're light enough for one handed operation, but image quality wise nothing beats a proper video cam (whether analog Hi-8 or Digital Video format).

    On the contrary, modern digital video cams also have still picture taking capability but the image quality is usually sub-par compared to a dedicated digital still camera. It's for the sake of convenience in the absence of a proper digicam or dSLR. I doubt if a wedding video cameraman would use the still picture function to take pics - that's why we have wedding photographers! ;-)

    Even with the latest, HD capable EOS 500D (albeit at a sluggish 20fps), movie clips suffer from the "rolling shutter" effect which is absent in dedicated CCD based video cams. I would have bought the EOS 500D instead of the 450D if not for the substantial price difference (at least for me as a first-time dSLR user).

    What I admired about the new EOS 500D is its new DiGiC 4 processor, Face Detection Live View, Creative Auto mode, multi-level Highlight Tone Priority and the ultra-sharp 920k pixel LCD screen (absent in the EOS 450D) but thought absolutely nothing of the EOS 500D's video recording function.

    I still have my old Sony Handicam TRV-23E from 1998 and very seldom used it for the past 11 years. I am not skilled at video recording and have no interest in the tedium of post editing movies. I found out that I am much better at still photography to video recording because I like to take my time in composing my shots. I don't think I will buy another video cam again but will consider upgrading my dSLR body.

    Lastly, I do wonder if Canon didn't incorporate the movie function into the EOS 500D, it would have been priced more affordably than it is now.

    Just my two pixels' worth. I'll get off my soap box now. :-)

  • njck September 23, 2009 03:42 pm

    what kind of elitist dslr moron thinks video doesn't belong on a camera , only a meat head would limit your opitions ............ ps vote republican

  • Matt April 16, 2009 12:08 pm

    I can see why having video in the low end begginner SLR's is attractive to the amature photographer who woudlnt mind decent video so it saves the hassle of carrying around an SLR and camcorder. But i dont see why they'd want to put it into a semi professional or professional body. The Canon 5D MKII had full HD 1080p video but surly someone whos willing to spend that sort of money on a camera will be using that as a camera and will have enough money to buy a camcorder anyway? In my eyes all its doing is raising the price of the cameras which are already quite expencive for a feature most people will hardly use. This money could be put into development and research on improving sensors so we can get better quality stills from our cameras.

  • Ted March 31, 2009 02:35 pm

    I could be way off base, but all of you people who sound so offended by the idea of video on a DSLR remind me of the dinosaurs who 15 years ago said film will never die (of course there is still film, but it is gone from any meaninful mass market).

  • lesley February 26, 2009 12:32 pm

    no photographer should find it strange to shoot a video on their dslr camera-- in fact, it should feel completely natural. after all, you don't have to get used to new equipment or technology-- the only adjustment you make is getting used to working with motion. when i shot my first super 8 film, i wished i was shooting with my dslr-- the camera i was using was heavy and foreign; the viewfinder was too small and i had no idea if it would turn out. to all photographers making the shift into filmmaking, being able to shoot video on your own familiar dslr camera is ideal. we all know that to be good at shooting a moving image, you have to be good at shooting a still one-- most of the great cinematgraphers started out in still photography. the video quality may not be extraordinarily superb, but it is great for everyone who isn't a professional.

    (remember that technology grows at an exponential rate--a year from now video quality on a dslr could be quite astonishing).

  • kem February 6, 2009 05:38 pm

    I to do not think that a dslr is the place video. I say if you want to have video buy a P&S or a video camera. I for one want to see the DSLR stay the way they are. pure! they have come down in price now just about everyone is out buying one. so now P&S buyers want video on dslr. my mother bought one and does not understand any thing about one. she even trys to hold it like a P&S! I think that there are enough P&S people buying that the big three will do what the most want. it won't matter what us die hard's say in the end.

  • Rian Prestwich February 1, 2009 04:57 pm

    I believe that it defeats the purpose of having a DSLR if it has video compatability.
    A DSLR is a still camera, if you want a video camera buy one. If you want something with both than you will either buy two or fork out heaps for a dual non dslr.

    It would ruin the DSLR's everywhere to have it..

  • TedB January 18, 2009 01:14 pm

    The Dmovie mode on the Nikon D90 is one of the reasons I am planning on buying it over anything else in the market. It will be my first DSLR camera and combining the ability to shoot video is just to handy to pass up. The Canon 5D MK II would be my first choice. Its movie mode is much more functional but I don't have that kind of coin. If the D90 did not have its video capability I would probably be buying another point and shoot. I picture myself wildlife shooting (Whitetail Deer in KS.) with the Nikon D90 and the 80-400 lense getting the snaps I want then switching to movie mode to capture some video for my website. Awesome!!

  • Rico January 16, 2009 11:31 am

    Not many years ago those who suggested video on a DSLR were laughed at and considered crass. Of course its a good idea, though I'm surprised Nikon and Canon have taken the lead considering many of their customers are rather conservative.

    As far as I can tell, the only reason not to have video on a DSLR is to protect some feeling of superiority among those who like to consider themselves elite consumers (if not photographers). Those people should go back to their film SLRs, where they will be safe, and eventually cool again.

  • Bob Stein December 20, 2008 09:19 am

    First of all, I am an amateur photographer. I don't even own a DSLR, yet. I use a Sony DscH5. I supose you guys would call it a point n shoot. It makes a 7.1 megapixel photo and it shoots video. I just rolled over 10,500 pictures and videos. Each video counts as 1. So I have racked up quite a few shots with it. But I am still learning, that's why I am here. I anticipate getting a DSLR in the near future. I don't own a camcorder, so my trusty H5 has to record my grandchildren speaking in plays at school and church. I don't plan on sending these movies to u-tube or selling them to anybody, but someday when one of them reaches the top some news organization is going to want to see how they started out and hear their voices and see them move. Packing a camcorder in one holster and a DSLR in the other might look good in a cowboy movie, but I sometimes feel a little overloaded dragging my camera case, camera, tripod or monopod into a school or church. A camera is a machine. It records history or a piece of art or useless junk. It sounds like some of the folks on this forum would be in heaven if they could drive around in a horse pulled wagon with a two-foot box with detachable lenses and a few hundred pounds of poisonous chemicals to develop their works of art. Technology marches on. In a few years I expect we will have small wrist watches that do all the functions of cell-phones, camcorders, DSLRs and who knows what else and keeps time too. Right now I intend to learn more about the current technology which is trying to overwhelm this old man. Nuff said, my wife says I talk too much.

  • Larry Harrison September 22, 2008 11:11 am

    A YouTube mode has no business on an SLR. I consider it downright blasphemous, like spitting on a picture of the Pope--in a Catholic church, during Mass, on Christmas Eve.

    "If you don't want it then don't use it" totally misses the point. The point is this--not everything is meant to work like an iPhone. Not everything is supposed to be "jack of all trades, master of none" or a Swiss Army Knife. Just like you have Mexican restaurants or Italian restaurants that specialize in their type of food and NOTHING ELSE, and thus do it better than anyone else, so is the SLR.

    There is a place for the restaurant (if you follow my analogy) that serves all kinds of foods, so that a crowd can go and all are happy. Ryan's Buffet comes to mind. Then again, you can sure bet that the local Mexican eateries and Italian eateries make their particular type of food much better than Ryan's Buffet.

    No one (again if you follow my analogy) is arguing that Ryan's Buffet shouldn't exist, but rather that the "specialty" places should stick to what they do and not try and "divesify" just to make YouTube soccer moms and the ignorant iPhone crowd happy.

    People who say "if my $100 PS can do video why not my SLR" are ignoramuses with no knowledge of what an SLR even is. That's like saying "if McDonald's has a happy meal why can't this $35 a meal restaurant" in regards to that they steak restaurant they saw downtown at the San Antonio Riverwalk that has the most incredible steak ever. Or like saying "if my $5000 Ford Escort has a cupholder, why does my $80,000 BMW not have one?" Totally ignorant.

    NO NO NO to video on any SLR, I don't care how cheap it is. Get a camcorder and leave MY nice SLRs the heck alone.

  • Daria September 16, 2008 12:25 am

    This is a time bomb! Something gigantic has happened with D90 release. Just think that professional photographers can now compete with video guys. Olympics footage could have been so different than what we have seen. And having high quality video in your hands almost all the time just opens new ways to creativity.
    I think Flickr knew something when they have added 60sec video feature.

    I wrote about it a little bit on my blog

  • Brendon September 15, 2008 10:30 pm

    I don't see why adding video would be a bad thing. If the quality is "DSLR" quality, then it's a benefit. You don't have to use it, but it's there if you want to.

  • Pete September 15, 2008 04:41 pm

    I would definitely use it. I currently carry a little hand held 1080p video cam that shoots decent video whenever I take my SLR with me. It would be great to have just one device.

  • Rob September 6, 2008 06:10 pm

    I went to an air show earlier this year and had both my DSLR and a Fuji S5600 for video. Now I have some great images plus the sound of those thundering V12's. The best of both worlds but the Fuji couldn't zoom on record.
    It would be handy sometimes to have both..but thats all. I think it's better to have a good DSLR for the challenge of capturing a great image. Photography is about the challenge.
    Going on a turkey shoot with a machine gun doesn't appeal but they have their uses. I will still look for a DSLR for it's still image qaulities.

  • Jim September 6, 2008 12:01 am

    I have a small point and shoot that shoots video and I have 2 DSLRs. I have used the P&S to take videos a couple of times but frankly I don't use the camera very much. I can't stand how complicated the menu system is and the fact that most of the features have to be changed through some sort of menu system. The camera came with a printed 'beginners' manual and a digital 'advanced' manual. On my DSLR I go out to take pictures not videos. I like the sound of the shutter and I think that is all part of making a photograph. I don't think I would use a DSLR to take video. If I wanted that I'd buy a digital camcorder.

  • Shanti September 5, 2008 05:08 pm

    I'm torn about this and I'm glad you brought it up. I'm currently looking for a new camera and am planning to spend up to $1700. I am going BACK and FORTH between the new Canon and the new Nikon. Either I pay for more megapixels and SOFTWARE (with the Canon) or I pay for video and other cool capabilities, like their crazy no-noise big ISO numbers with the Nikon :D.

    I make videos often, for entertainment, for art, and for whatever. But I already have a webcam (for vlogs) and a Canon Powershot for small film. I also have a popular YouTube video channel that I post to often, but the videos are more me talking and not like FILM/movies.

    Do you have ANY way of recommending one camera to me over the other?

  • Dr.Sudhir K Sharma September 5, 2008 03:04 pm

    It is a marketing gimmic today,which soon will find a way to rich showoffs for flaunting a new gadget.
    and gradually the people in general will accept it,BUT
    any serious Photographer will feel nauseated.
    It is like tranporting fish in a luxury car from port to town.
    Few uses should remain exclusive-NOT all inclusive.

  • Dave September 5, 2008 01:26 pm

    This debate reminds me a bit of the old "I'll never go digital" debates. Not everyone shifts their thinking quickly.

    I travel in Asia a lot, and would LOVE to have video on my DSLR - cuz I'm not going to carry another gadget, but there are times when a still image just doesn't do a scene justice. (I'm also not going to buy a Nikon, so I'll wait for Canon.)

  • Sue September 5, 2008 08:26 am

    I think it is a fantastic idea and one that I embrace willingly. It expands your options totally and gives you much more control and flexibility.
    I really think this is the way of the future...

  • DonVega September 5, 2008 03:45 am

    I love the idea of the video on the DSLR. I shoot my wife's orginazations functions very useful and stills are what I want 99% of the time. Once in a great while, I need video. For quick speeches or performances. Fits my bill. Thanks Nikon.

  • canonKen September 5, 2008 03:36 am

    I use my Canon G9 video option a lot. It's nice to be able to switch to video for those moments that you want to capture action, and not carry around more equipment to do so. Putting video on the DSLR line only makes evolution sense.

  • Uri ZACKHEM September 5, 2008 01:26 am

    Why not? I think they are aiming to widen the scope of their customers. So you can have a single camera for your pro images and some videos of the family when you need them. Without having to carry your old point and shoot.

  • Mark September 5, 2008 12:56 am

    What a brilliant idea. . . finally.
    I haven't used my straight video camera since I got my digital Canon P/S. What I want is Zoom, Auto and Man focus, a real DOF, all the lenses and, get this, I want to be able to jack-in an external mic, a smallish stereo shotgun would be great. One body, one set of lenses, one tripod, one bag, one media format (SD please?),and one type of battery(AA's!). Where's my rose colored glasses?

  • cl September 4, 2008 11:03 pm

    i'd love it actually
    it makes it easier i dont have to carry another point and shoot just for the video features

  • HelenaN September 4, 2008 12:18 am

    I would absolutely love to have video on my DSLR. It's the one feature I miss from my simpler previous cameras.

  • Sydney Dioguardi September 3, 2008 08:27 pm

    I definitely would use the video feature in a dslr...I wish my D40X had one....

  • Siegfried September 3, 2008 06:16 pm

    As having video capability is more of a software extensionof LiveView than a hardware issue I do think it's here to stay.

    It is annoying that a 2000$ SLR cannot take a short clip of the children singing or fooling around, so I'd definitely lean in favour of a "movie-enabled" DSLR when upgrading.

    DSLRs won't replace dedicated VideoCams though, the form factor just does not work for shooting longer sequences, at least without some kind of shoulder support.

    DSLRs will also be missing viewfinders as do most modern compact VideoCams. That makes shooting in bright light pretty uncomfortable if not impossible.

  • Hans September 3, 2008 09:01 am

    I'd use it - who wants to carry around both a DSLR and a video camera on vacation? I think a combination would be great!

  • Mick September 2, 2008 08:25 pm

    For those who don't like the idea, at least they have a bazillion other dslrs to choose from. For me, the possibility of putting fast lens on my 'movie' camera and playing with a shallow DOF is just plain exciting.

    How could you resist sticking on a macro lens to record a spider in your yard munching on a freshly caught fly? It's more than creativity than most consumer camcorders can offer (as far as I know). I think most of us, with the exception of the real die-yards, will become more excited by the prospect when good sample movies are made public.

  • CW September 2, 2008 04:08 pm

    I would say why not? If you don't like it, don't bother using it but when you really need the feature, it will come it handy... isn't it? :)

  • PRH September 2, 2008 09:23 am

    how will video (and live view for that matter) affect the life of the sensor itself? I know this question comes from ignorance on my part since i have very limited knowledge on how the image capture side of things work.

    People have been talking about the sensor heating up and degrading the image quality of an image or video grab but how will this affect the sensor itself when repeated 1000s of times. Sure you can say don't use it but how long before they take away the optical view finder altogether and you have to compose all your shots with live view or an evf?

    I know this is not an issue for many who upgrade regularly but I like to keep my camera's for a long LONG time. I still own a Canon 300D and not looking to upgrade until the mid range dslrs have full frame sensor (I may be waiting a while). When I do upgrade, I'd like to keep THAT camera for a long long time.

  • Rolf K. September 1, 2008 09:39 pm

    The reason why (most) people by a dSLR is because it offers excellent image quality and manual flexibility without compromise. The still photo is in the high seat for most photographers (makes sense right?) and few really miss the opportunity to make movies as well. The Live-view was a good idea taken from P&S cameras, but I have the feeling that more bells and whistles Nikon puts on their cameras, the less image quality will be prioritized. Really good product are really good at only one thing...

  • Matt Ellsworth September 1, 2008 02:40 pm

    I'd use it and love it. but the fact that its not there just means that i need to take along a point and pray anyway and hope for the best.

  • Sunnyman September 1, 2008 08:25 am

    Seems like a hot topic - my own take on this is that my son has video capability on his very simple $149 digicam, and has fun making 10-second action video clips featuring his stuffed animals --- so why wouldn't I have fun with that new Nikon camera, if I ever got myself a new SLR digicam?

    I think it's neat not having to invest in a separate video camera if you don't have much interest in videos anyway.

    Just my 2 cents...

  • Anyia September 1, 2008 06:49 am

    I think it's a good feature for someone like me. I recently broke my point and shoot camera that had video on it, I'm just starting to get into photography and would like to get a DSLR, but I'm also starting a family and would like to be able to take video of my little girl and coming children and we can't really afford the money to buy two separate cameras. So in my current situation, I think it's a good idea

  • connar okeeffe September 1, 2008 06:15 am

    in all honestly i pretty much have never used the video on any of my digital camera's because the audio is always terrilbe that's what a video camera is for.
    one good reason for removing this from the dslr is that it might reduce the cost a bit. which i could see as being good. surely if you remove that then you should have a cheaper camera.

  • ryusen September 1, 2008 03:22 am

    Like Many, as long as the features i really need don't suffer, i don't see why it's a problem that they add other features. I might never touch it myself, but nothing wrong with more toys for others to play with.

  • jhermy September 1, 2008 12:39 am

    it will basically give people more options w/c is good. The thing is if you want to take videos use a proper and dedicated video cam and if you want to take pictures then use a dedicated camera. As simple as that...Some people don't believe in the power of combos...coz quality can sometimes be put in jeopardy. But why not I personally would like a HD video in my DSLR,it's handy and won't encumber you.

  • Jollence August 31, 2008 09:20 pm

    It is up to you, if you like buy the camera..if not don't even touch or look at it. There!

  • Big Bad Benny August 31, 2008 05:21 pm

    It's fantastic and long overdue!
    The logical extension of the "system" DSLR users have at their disposal. I will be using this feature professionally, as soon as I can - we need good quality video to use alongside stills. Currently I'm considering capturing video via HDMI from a D700. If this is too difficult I'll settle for a D90 or next gen FX Nikon.
    Owning a great selection of specialty lenses, macro, fisheye, tele and superfast primes - this development is a dream come true. Now anyone can be a cinematographer, as well as photographer.

  • Mark August 31, 2008 05:10 pm

    Would I use it? Probably, yes. Do I really want to see it on DSLRs? I'd have to say no.

    Feature bloat is a slippery slope, and part of what makes a DSLR desirable is its narrow focus-- given a good design, it allows you to do one thing very well. Additional functionality detracts (and distracts) from the simple effectiveness of a good DSLR.

  • Stuart August 31, 2008 05:05 pm

    This is a trend that doesn't excite me; I love still photography and I want to carry a piece of equipment that excels at taking stills. I have a video camera and rarely use it for my son's concerts but moving media just doesn't excite me and I don't want to have the extra weight and menu clutter around video ... it just doesn't make sense.

    Cell phones that try to be PDAs, cameras and mediocre GPS units very often fail at being a good phone. I worry that this trend will dilute the focus on making the best possible still camera one can.

    Nikon should perhaps tackle the market from the other direction - get into building a video camera which takes stills - that's more logical to me.

  • R. Scott August 31, 2008 10:34 am

    How long until the video is say.. 6 megapixel. That would be awesome.

  • testerx August 31, 2008 05:50 am

    At first sight I thought it was interesting (2 objects in 1) i used photo + video on my Canon S3 IS in past.
    Now i read you can only film 5min max in HD due to overheating of the sensor, to protect. So it's not interesting (now) maybe if later models can do it without heavy processor/sensor overheating, but at the moment Nikon's D90 is not interesting for the moviefunction. I have the Canon 40D + Panasonic SD7 HD Cam (also very compact). I read that the blueray writers from Panasonic will also support AVCHD format, you can just put your HD movies on a Blueray Disc from 30GB and play them raw :) no conversion or anything...

  • Scott August 31, 2008 04:49 am

    As long as the rest of the features don't get overshadowed, why not? Its a feature, not a requirement. And who know, there may be some times it just is nice to be able to. And, if it becomes a standard feature across DSLR's, there won't be any real feature a P&S has over a DSLR. In the end, its still a camera, and all those features should be improved and focused on just as much, but I don't think anyone should downgrade a DSLR for having video. I could imagine that soon video cameras will receive interchangeable lenses if this takes off. In the end, this move may just push cameras AND camcorders to the next level, which will be BETTER for consumers of either. If nothing else, it could be a fun diversion.

  • Vash August 31, 2008 03:48 am

    Unless they start making hard drives for dSLRs I think there will be an issue with free space for videos and photos.

  • jamie August 31, 2008 03:08 am

    Heck yes I'd use it! I was just at a party last night with my D40 and there were several times when I would have liked to be able to take video. A photo cannot capture words spoken.

    Think about this: you may never use the feature, like the pop-up flash, but if you need it it's there. It doesn't detract from the camera itself.

    Let's on a DSLR will be higher quality than a P&S, you can use different lenses (real zoom!), you no longer will need to carry a P&S or dedicated video camera for the chance you will use it...what's not to like? It's not going to bulk up the camera body or anything.

  • Bruno August 31, 2008 01:59 am

    Why not? Excellent idea, if I got $1500 L Lens on my DSLR why not to use it as a video?, and HD even better!. I question few years ago, why video-cameras aren't design to support SLR lenses, and they gave 1000 excuses. But it should be possible.
    I'm Canon user, and I'm thinking I went for the wrong path, Nikon is kicking ass with good sense technology. One example is the possibility con control flash guns without the need to have a trigger. I't all in your camera.
    That tiny flash on top of the D90 is excellent for some fill when you don't feel like take too much stuff.
    Also the have HDMI output, great!, Canon is staying behind on tech, why?
    Well done NIKON.

  • Robert August 31, 2008 01:25 am

    I quit messing around with video a long time ago. If I want to shoot video I will be a video camera. Don't add more clutter to an already complex piece of equipment. And I certainly would not want to pay more money just because it had video capability.

  • Christian Wilmes August 31, 2008 01:23 am

    The D-movie feature of the upcoming D90 is interpreting an happening and will continue I predict.

    "The fusion of digital photo camera and video camera". I am really excited about this. But at this point I really have
    to test the D90 out before doing any in-depth critics and comments. This is why I am surprised to read the negative comments about the feature, please try it.

    I mean at the end it comes up to create something amazing with a good intuitive and innovative tools never mind if is it a camera, a phone, or webcam.
    The case of a DSRL shooting video is just outstanding.
    Why? Because it is a DSLR!!!
    A lot of todays devices can do both photo and video but the quality is just not outstanding. Think about what makes a video look good.
    DEPTH OF FIELD. What are DSLR are all about? Depth of field. so potentially the D90 is producing amazing footage with a film look depth of field.(I am using the word potentually because of course as a first generation you might have all kind of issues like codecs, compression?...)

    You can find several DOF (depth of field) adapters for video cameras to obtain that certain depth of field look) You can check out
    Videographers are bagging to have a less video look and a more film look with their cameras. And beside all the 24p and calorimetric stuff it really comes to the depth of field.
    Also please realize the potential you have to shoot any kind of situation with all the variety of lenses available, fisheye to tele lenses, real lenses not adapters.

    So again if you step back and think about the device that shoots HD, with interchangeable lenses at a pretty low price, this is a fantastic alternative.
    If you look at the other side of the bridge you will find cameras such as the RED that will produce amazing still, but this has a price.

    Back to a photographers point of view. Why would I want a video mode? First of all, why would I be against a feature as longs as it is not compromising any regular photographic one.
    Then, why not being able to shoot video during a photo session for example, behind the scenes videos are more then fashionable at the moment, having one device make things faster and more compact.
    A lot of photographers take a video camera with the to scout or just have a video feeling of the location. It allows you to capture just more information.
    So basically thanks to Nikon for this, oooo man I want to surf the web with my camera like I can with the Iphone have weather forcast on my camera..............

    If I look the photographic camera market I am really sad to see such a week innovation in terms of alternative cameras. All the cameras are the same, they all produce good images, very clean, very neutral.
    To much neutrality in fact, I want fisheye cameras, I want digital cameras producing polaroid looking images, lomo camera. Just little bit more fun.
    Anyway, going off track right now. Please Nikon ,Canon, Fuji, Sony, Pentax, Olympus,... please created alternative cameras! Fun cameras! Not only by the design or packaging and marketing. I am little tired to have as only photographic discussion the comparisons of ISO, Mega pixel and dynamic range from one camera to the other. Grand public wants to have fun and great images out of the memory card and this doesn't mean only to give more saturated images.
    Any of you Nikon ,Canon, Fuji, Sony, Pentax, Olympus,... can contact me and I will suggest you my ideas to have a future real dynamic and full of variety photographic market. Thank you.

  • Pete Langlois August 31, 2008 01:02 am

    The D90 is my next camera with or without video recording. I may end up using it but it's not a reason why I'm buying the camera. I think this is just a marketing ploy to get P&S users to bump up into the real money making side of the camera business.


  • Claggy August 31, 2008 12:45 am

    I actually think this will create a lot of cool and fun ideas. I also think that it would be cool to have video on a DSLR for like.. if you wanted to show people how you shot what you did, having video on the actual camera you're shooting with would be an interesting way to record how you did your shot. If that makes any sense. I'm kind of out of it so that probably doesn't make any sense.

  • dialac1 August 31, 2008 12:38 am

    Okay, this is just utterly pointless...A DSLR's main purpose has always been for pro-amateur and professional shooters...I really dont think this is a necessary feature and as the author wrote, this is just a smart marketing strategy to grab the attention of newbies who are looking into buying a they know little to start with, they will easily jump at this Nikon over any other DSLR brand just because of the video option and they will lose sight of other features that may be absent but necessary...this can be likened to the way camera makers produce point and shoot cameras with a lot of megapixels and this tricks the lay people into thinking that the more megapixels makes the camera better...I use a Canon 40D and I am looking into buying a fullframe soon...if the new Canon has video option, I will not even consider that fact because I know I will NEVER need the video option on my DSLR...its only for professional work...Like I said before, this is just a smart marketing strategy and I respect the person that came up with that idea...but I'm not buying it :-P

  • August 31, 2008 12:16 am

    I can see this new D90 feature as being great for family's for one example. Personally I couldn't say that even if I were interested in the D90 that I would use it myself. I'd rather see a variable angle rear LCD feature with the Live View. IMO that would be much more useful to me, but can also see the same being useful for those interested in the video feature.

  • tracy August 31, 2008 12:08 am

    call me a purist, but i wouldn't want video on my dslr. i'd rather they use that technology to improve the still photography features. also, you can get a fairly inexpensive flip cam to shoot video and it to your gear bag.

  • MParis August 30, 2008 11:37 pm

    I guess I would be extremely indifferent to video in a DSLR. I wouldn't be against it, but I really wouldn't use it. If that extra comes with an exorbitant price tag, then I would most definitely pass on that camera.

  • Chris August 30, 2008 11:30 pm

    If it's there, someone will want it, someone will use it - whilst others maybe will not.

    That's kind of the way of so many things, right ?

    If you have a preference, hug it to you real close. After all, it's only your own opinion - ;-)

  • Ken August 30, 2008 11:01 pm

    Having video on the SLR may seem weird now. My hunch is that 5 - 10 years down the road most all cameras will be dual purpose and it will seem weird to have a camera that only does stills or only does video.

  • Lauren August 30, 2008 10:26 pm

    I ONLY use my DSLR camera - both for "my" photos and as my family memory catcher. And for the latter purpose, let's face it, it's not the most convenient piece of equipment... add the camcorder onto that and I start feeling like a sherpa - chasing a two-year-old around with two cameras sucks.
    My next DSLR will be one with video for sure.

  • Mindy August 30, 2008 09:50 pm

    I agree with Patrick, seeing asthough I carry my camera with me EVERYWHERE; it'd be nice to take a funny video of my kids every now and then when a picture just wouldn't cut it :).

  • Robert August 30, 2008 06:06 pm

    First time when I heard about Nikon releasing dslr with movie recording mode, I made a big smile and thought it was a joke, a stupid idea... then when I saw the sample movies, I wondered why this feature is introduced so late. I can make movies with my digital camcorder, but in cheap ones You have DOF to infinity and that looks awful. Movies from D90 looks incredibly good... if 5D mk2 will have recording feature, I will go for it.


  • Leproda August 30, 2008 04:11 pm

    No, i wouldn't use it.

    When I want to film some thing, I would use a cam, because the handling is tuned to use this thing to film something.

    A DSLR is tuned to use it to make a picture.

  • Robin Capper August 30, 2008 03:54 pm

    For travel yes! I took photos of the Hanoi traffic but even the low res video on my Ixus captured the scene & atmosphere far better.

  • Dave August 30, 2008 02:27 pm

    As a bonus feature I would play around with the video. All my videos are of the kids and the DSLR camera is more handy than the video camera so it might be helpful. If the resolution is better than the video camera and storage is convenient I'd consider replacing the video camera with the DSLR.

  • Jollence August 30, 2008 01:26 pm

    I think its a great idea with video.
    check this one out. The video from D90

  • Adam August 30, 2008 01:15 pm

    I would usually just say no. However, that was before I saw that it was 720p. That I would use. My little P&S does everything it should and more. Waterproof, shock proof, etc. Also does video. Decent video at that.

    So you take a few dozen shots of whatever it is use you are shooting and think. Id like to see this in motion.

    Maybe its that amazing piece of wildlife and a high def shot of it doing whatever it does would just add to the amazing photos. Imagine the shot clips you could make. High def with integrated stills. I think the possibilities are endless.

    Tack on the GPS and I'm sold.

  • Natalie Norton August 30, 2008 01:02 pm

    I'm sure there are advantages for some. . . but it's not my thing. I wouldn't use it.

  • Doc Holliday August 30, 2008 12:48 pm

    It really annoyed me when Flickr added video - here comes the You Tube clowns and there goes the neighborhood.

    I really can't see any advantage to having video on a DSLR. It's just more to deal with and one more thing to break that I would have to pay to fix.

    I have a friend who has a P&S with video and it is completely useless and eats up memory fast. Complete waste, IMHO.

    BTW, I wouldn't give up my Canon, so it's a moot point.

  • snowypeach August 30, 2008 12:40 pm

    I would LOVE video on my DSLR. I have a child and I have to carry around my DSLR and my point and shoot just for the video aspect. Pain in the rear to carry both. Of course I already bought the D80 before they came out with this.

  • Gary August 30, 2008 10:21 am

    I remember talking to a friend a couple of years ago who said serious photography would stay with film. I graduated from art school in 1990. We got our first dedicated graphics computers that year but everyone but a small minority said no one would ever do art on a computer. We make art with tools, and the tools we use now are far beyond what we could have dreamed of 20 years ago. The age of digital photography has just started. Technology is going very fast and I believe cameras will drastically change within 7 years; dslrs shooting super hi-def video with autofocus, built in cinematography, liquid lenses, sync shooting with multiple cameras and who knows what.
    I was going to buy the 50D because I have some good canon flashes and lenses, but will definitely be looking into this.

  • Rose August 30, 2008 10:02 am

    I think it's a wonderful feature. Since I stopped using P&S cameras, I only take my SLR with me. (Why carry 2 cameras?)

    I do miss the video feature on occasion. I have wished many times that I could take video to capture something. (i.e. I used to take little videos of my niece & nephew when I saw them do something silly. Also, recently I was watching masses of pelicans dive into the water for food & wished I could capture it in full motion.)As another user pointed out, if a P&S camera can do video in addition to images, why can't my SLR?!

    I can see that most professionals wouldn't care much about this feature (although who knows, maybe it could end up being a little bonus for customers at weddings, special events, etc.), but for hobbyists at least, it fills the small void left behind by switching to SLR.

    I think it would be fun to play with, different lenses and all. Also, I need a new SLR camera (I'm becoming more serious in photography & my old Canon Rebel is no longer reliable), this feature is plus for Nikon, and I will more seriously consider the Nikon because of this feature.

  • Ryan August 30, 2008 09:52 am

    I personally don't think I'd use this feature much. I can think of lots of situations though where it would've been much more fun if I had an extra video camera with me, instead of only my trusty DSLR. But as I'm not really a film maker, though the field surely is interesting to me, I would be lying if I said that I'll by the Nikon D90 just because of the video filming ability.

    That said, I still don't understand why it would be wrong to put said video filming ability in a DSLR like Nikon did. Sure, it feels weird. I mean literally, holding the D90 the way you hold a DSLR to film video just doesn't seem right—at least to me!

    But then again, it's just an extra feature of the camera. Now, I don't know all the specific details of the camera's abilities and specifications, as I'm a Canonite myself, but from what I've heard, the D90 is supposedly a good camera. (Plus it can shoot videos too—though I don't know if it includes audio as well …)

    So what I'm saying is: as long as a DSLR delivers what is expected of a DSLR in a certain price category—and I'm sure the D90 does that—then I don't see what's wrong with that. I for one salute Nikon for taking this step forward.

  • Noir August 30, 2008 09:10 am

    Why is everyone talking as if it would \replace\ a P&S shooting video? If I can remember well it can only store between 5 and 20 minutes of video in different qualities, so it's clearly pure marketing because with so little time there's not too much you can do [besides short notes], plus, will it be capable of shooting clip after clip withouth buffering time? Will those clips be noise-free? Let's remember that the sensor will get HOT, so is REALLY probable you will end with tons of white pixels in your video.

  • Patrick August 30, 2008 07:56 am

    I think a lot of people aren't thinking about the useful possibilities with having video.

    1. How many times have you wanted to record a note to yourself about the shots you're taking without having to take out a notepad and pen to note the time and picture ID?
    2. How many times have you wanted to capture a short video clip of something in motion because it would add something beyond a still photo?
    3. How many times have you wanted to capture some audio that you could use later on with still photos?

    That fact is, this is great for those times when you would be trying to juggle a DSLR and compact P&S for video. I know I would have loved having D-Movie for my vacation trips.

    Notice that Nikon didn't market this camera as a DSLR + Camcorder all-in-one. It was marketed as a feature. I'm pretty sure no one is under the impression they can use a D90 instead of a $5,000 video camera.

  • David August 30, 2008 07:33 am

    This is an interesting subject. So much of what I do is for the web and the biggest trend on the web is going to video. You see this trend in the blogging world also. There is a difference between the way that the image is processed for video and still. I have never had a point and shoot with video product the same quality as even a low end digital video cam. The same goes true the other way. I'm sure there would be some fun uses and that the quality of the video on a digital SLR would be better than a low end digital video camera (I would hope anyway). But what about audio? Or doesn't audio matter? What I want is a medium priced video camera that takes SD or CF with the ability to use a plug-in boom mic (something like the Panasonic AG-HMC150 but around the $1,200 price point). That way I have my DSLR for still images and get a decent video camera for my blog!

  • zacco August 30, 2008 07:25 am


    we need to find out what they have left out , to me the step up from th d80 is a good one , no noticable "left out" diffrence on fact reviews from the d80 to d90 , only added features.
    if certian things have been left out i might change my mind, but until then i think nikon has done very well in adding hd vid.
    ty sty for reply

  • dan rydell August 30, 2008 07:19 am

    I don't understand why people would be against video. For me, this is a worthy, worthy successor to the D80 without the video. Pretty much sticking the D300 sensor in a D80 body guaranteed a winner. If you don't like it, don't use it. The D90 would have cost the same without it, and there wouldn't have been any new features (really, the D90 has pretty much all the features we expected it to have). Adding video would be selling out if we lost out on other features, but I really don't think we did.

    For the people who would want to use the video, there are some nice advantages. Camcorders in the same price range don't have interchangeable lenses, don't have the depth of field control that the D90 has (!!!), and have smaller, worse quality sensors that don't work as well in low-light situations. I'm sure amateur filmmakers will take advantage of it.

    So why worry?

  • Styggiti August 30, 2008 07:19 am


    I don't know specifically what they decided not to implement in order to add video, but being involved with product development, I can tell you that is how things work. There is a long list of features that are candidates for the next product version - more features than can be implemented based on time, price-point and other factors. From there, they decide what goes in and what is left out. In order to do video, it came at the expense of other features - and you do pay for it.

  • zacco August 30, 2008 06:44 am

    Styggiti what have they cut from development to progress to video?
    the nikon d90 is a prime dslr, not a vid cam, but again the option is there.
    all you people who dont like the idea can go for the d60 d700 d300 d3, those who like the idea can go for d90.
    we live in a world of options, opt out ,opt in ,your choice.
    im personally glad nikon has made this choice.
    if your phone has a camera , or tv or video player brill,as long as it dont effect the phone who cares.
    same here , as long as it dont affect the dslr add what you want nikon.
    why is it ok to add wifi , live view etc, to a dslr and not video,isnt a video made up from " in this case" 24 photos per second ?
    jus as the old heads didnt like the change to dslr from slr, i see the same here , old dogs cant learn new tricks it seems?

  • Bob August 30, 2008 06:44 am

    Unless it has the full functionality of a quality HD video camera, I cannot see paying quality DSLR prices to get a half-assed video camera out of it as well. The interchangeability of the lenses is a good selling point. But, then I would want better quality. I guess there is no pleasing me. *rolls eyes*

    More to the point, would you want a surgeon to perform heart surgery on you using a pair of pinking shears just because they came attached to his surgical forceps?

  • Roy Davis August 30, 2008 06:29 am

    I believe the same things were said when camera's went digital from film. Most people don't like change from something that they feel confortable with.

  • Elizabeth Caldwell August 30, 2008 06:22 am

    I'd use it. Even if it only worked as well as a cell phone's video, it still beats carrying around ANOTHER device. God knows I have too much to carry around now.

    There's just been enough times I've said "oh, I wish I had video too..."

  • Brent August 30, 2008 06:11 am

    I can't believe all the people moaning about how it "feels" wrong. Did it feel wrong when cameras started capturing color, or when they got auto focus, or when they moved to digital? A camera is a tool that lets you capture moments, so why do we need separate devices to capture still vs moving images(other than technical or quality concerns)? Why would you want to limit your creativity? I hope that Canon follows suit and realizes that the vast majority of their users would prefer to have more creative tools at their disposal. It is a natural fit to add video to a dslr. You already have a great low light sensor and a whole host of high quality lenses. Why not use what you already have to capture video that in many cases you could never get with a consumer (or even pro-sumer) camcorder? I do question whether Canon will introduce video in the 5d (I hope they do) as they could possibly see it competing with their video products. Eventually competitive market forces will make them offer it, but only time will tell how quickly this happens.

  • Peter Phun August 30, 2008 06:02 am

    I can appreciate having just one camera that does it all, but I don't think there can ever be the kind of convergence of video and stills everyone crazes. Anyone who's shot still only won't understand how important audio is. And anyone shooting video alone, won't be able to compose but in horizontals. Being primarily a still shooter and just dabbling in video, I can't imagine being good at both. At least not simultaneously. Will this camera be the answer? Probably not because of the mono audio.

  • Mike August 30, 2008 05:59 am

    Seems a bit unnecessary for a DSLR..

    But then again, what if you're out on a shoot and something amazing happens, like a UFO crashes close by, or big foot makes an appearance. Bet you'll be glad that you have that video feature, eh?

  • Styggiti August 30, 2008 05:38 am

    I think what I find disappointing about the addition of video to dSLR cameras is that it has to have come at the expense of features/functionality that would genuinely be useful to more photographers. In order to add video, they had to cut other features from development. Saying that you don't have to use it if you don't want to misses the point.

    For some, having both video and still available in the same camera is going to be useful, but for many, it's just going to be another feature you've paid for that you'll never (or rarely) use.

    Besides this, has anyone really thought through the ergonomics of the whole setup? Hand-held video cameras are shaped a certain way for a reason - they are comfortable to hold in that position for an extended period of time. I don't think we can say the same for a dSLR when shooting in movie mode - especially for one handed shooting.

  • Tom August 30, 2008 05:25 am

    My first answer is no. Video doesn't belong on a dSLR. It's not right and never should be right. Then I think about it a bit. Yeah, I've been looking into semi-professional HD camcorders to practice stringer work, and other photojournalism, but why not combine the two? Surely, it won't be as good of quality, but since I'm a photographer first and a videographer second, it might be a fun, easy, and cheap way to experiment.

  • Horia August 30, 2008 04:45 am

    I still don't think it is a good idea to incorporate video capabilities into a DSLR camera. A DSLR is a photographic tool and is bulit to act this way. I agree, the prospect of great quality video does seem tempting but it seems unnatural to me. I want to hear the sound of the courtain when I press the shutter releas button. I am (want to be) a photographer not a film maker. I just don't feel this is right. I feel that my camera is something special and it hold some kind of power that the video camera doesn't have. That is all the charm a photo camera has over a video one. I agree with some of do not have to use it...that's true but it still doesn't feel right...sorry.
    I think Nikon did it for the market share and that is surprising beacuse Nikon was always more reservated than Canon. Canon was more marketing oriented and it surprised me to see that Nikon were the firt ones to implement something like this. I hope that Canon will not do it....I really do.
    I'm just wondering what is the next step? What will they put next on a DSLR camera? A phone maybe? An MP3 player?....this is just wrong...serioussly

  • Jesse August 30, 2008 04:42 am

    I think a major feature that is being overlooked is how this will allow for depth of field control.

    All consumer camcorders HD or not and most Semi-Pro Wedding type camcorders have small chip sizes of around 1/3 of an inch, some a little bigger but almost none bigger than 1/2 inch.

    Nikon APS-C cameras on the other have a diagonal chip size of about 1.3 inches (Full frames are almost 2 inches... think 5DII?).

    So given a similar angle of view (or 35mm focal length equivalent) the bigger camera chips will need a much larger imaging circle and given the same aperture/degree of view as the small camcorders they will have a much shallower depth of field. Which is of great artistic value to budget cinematographers. Not to mention it's wide range of lens types. So while the DSLR has too awkward shape and a lack of audio options to ever replace a dedicated camcorder, it could be used well as a specialized tool for B shots or for very unique perspectives.

  • Amandalynn August 30, 2008 04:28 am

    I have to say, I don't really see the point in having video on a DSLR. To me, a DSLR is for photography - I didn't buy a $1200 camera so I could get video on it, and for me it seems to pull away from the purpose.

    However, I am admittedly rather biased on the subject - my husband is a film maker - we both kind of feel like if you're going to shell out the money for a camera that can take video, get a video camera.

    I do however admit that this is a smart move on Nikon's part, it's going to attract consumers in a big way, I see this as being specifically luring to people who want to get decent pictures and decent videos on the same camera, like a super point and shoot, 2 for 1 style.

  • Stefan August 30, 2008 04:23 am

    I carried both my DSLR and a Canon video camera on a recent vacation. The camcorder was small enough to fit in a pocket and takes good video. I never once wished that the two devices were combined. In fact, I don't even like video on a P&S. Video also adds a huge amount of complexity--menus, buttons, modes, light. More importantly, the video itself is low quality because the device is primarily a still camera. If I take video, it's not for YouTube, so I want at least broadcast quality. I prefer buying a very nice still camera and a very nice video camera rather than a mediocre combo.

  • Richard X. Thripp August 30, 2008 04:17 am

    I like this idea. As long as it doesn't make the regular photography features harder to use, and it doesn't add much to the cost of the camera ($50 maybe), I could see using a camera like my Canon Rebel XTi for video. Memory cards are fast and large so we have the space, and being able to use any 35mm lens is a great bonus.

    I laughed at live view at first just as people will laugh at video on a DSLR now. But since switching from the PowerShot A620, which had a swiveling LCD screen, to the Rebel XTi, which has no such screen and no live view, I miss it. There are a lot of times where it helps, like when you hold the camera above your head or down low looking up. It's hard to get it right without seeing what you're doing. Just as it will become hard to have a DSLR without video capabilities.

  • Jamie August 30, 2008 04:01 am

    There's plenty of interest from the pro photojournalism side. Video is getting more and more popular, and multimedia is the wave of the future. There's something to be said for putting an HD video camera in an SLR body. If it's well-executed (which the D90 appears to be), it's a good thing.

  • Heather Kay August 30, 2008 03:56 am

    I'm against the idea in general. There are positive points to the technology being used in this way - the optics for one - but the form factor of an SLR body for shooting video just doesn't work.

    Another thing: stability. Is the system going to rely on lens stabilisers? I find it darned hard to hold my Canon still with the long lens without a tripod. Imagine the video footage that would give =oD

    Eons ago, Canon produced a Hi8 camcorder called the EX1-Hi. It featured interchangeable SLR type lenses (and an adaptor to let you fit standard Canon SLR lenses), and the body was SLR style, with a side grip and "shutter" button. I had two. They were great. In Canon's current semi-pro DV camcorder range, there is still the interchangeable lens feature, so it's something a high-end videographer would want. Still not sure it's the right thing on a DSLR, though.

    I'm seriously hoping Canon don't fall for the feature creep, because while it's a good idea, I think it's currently too gimmicky for most photographers. Of course, I may well be wrong. ;o)

  • Lewis Walsh August 30, 2008 03:23 am

    Until the D90 was revealed I had told myself that I would wait until Nikon upgrades the D80 and then consider it. I wanted to see how much better it would be than a second-hand D200.

    720p video, through any lens I choose to put on has swayed me. I'm almost 100% certain I will buy this camera. As an upgrade from a D40 I think this is a great camera, but video is huge for me.

  • Fost Golan August 30, 2008 03:15 am

    I would like to try it. Personally I would never buy a video camera simply because people act strange when you point the camera on them. But (because it is always a but) sometimes you really want to catch something in motion (your kid blowing a kiss, your wife blowing a kiss – to you or not :o) ) and then I think that this feature on this camera can become handy. Just my opinion.
    Actualy I'm just changing film on digital and I really don't know what to buy: a D200 or this. Any coments are welcome.

  • Laura August 30, 2008 03:12 am

    I bought my DSLR to take high-quality pictures of my family. So of course a five-minute clip of my kid singing a silly song or my husband solving a Rubik's cube would be wonderful. For those things, maybe the high-quality image isn't that important, but the convenience of having it on the camera I take with me would be worth it.

    Then there are family vacations where we spot wildlife in the distance... a video of the deer jumping over the fence would be fun to capture with a good zoom lens.

    On the other hand, I have home videos from my own childhood where your eyes hurt watching it because someone's trying to manually focus the videocamera. That may work with 1980's quality video, but with HD it would look terribly out of place, IMO. I'd wait for autofocus if I was still in the market for another DSLR. I do use manual focus for still shots, but I'd hate for someone else to have to watch while I get it right...

  • tyler August 30, 2008 03:11 am

    I no longer own a video camera. I use a little point and shoot for all that stuff. It's convenient, and I am typically picky about quality, but hey it's video, and it's more about the linear quality than the image quality for so many things. If I want details and resolution I'll shoot a photo. If I want dialog, audio and motion, I find resolution to be less of a concern. I would buy a dslr with video, but i am waiting out the 5d like so many people. I have been using my 20d setup for a while now, and find no compelling reason to replace it.

  • rachel August 30, 2008 03:09 am

    it did seem totally crazy at first, but I really think it is a great feature. You don't HAVE to use it, it hasn't upped the price point anymore. And being able to use manual focus, different lenses and effects is such an amazing feature! I think it's great. It's not like it's decreasing or taking away from any other feature on the camera.

  • jonny carroll August 30, 2008 03:02 am

    oh, and because I know it's coming.. yes, I know about the Canon XL series which records onto DV and the eos lens adapter. but that's huge, non consumer based and you start to approach 5 digits in $$$$$.

  • kk+ August 30, 2008 02:59 am

    why not do still on a video camera instead? ;)

  • elloco August 30, 2008 02:57 am

    All I can say "is why not ?". Too many times useful things have been left out pro and semi-pro equipment just to justify a "pro's don't do that!" attitude some of the high-end consumers have. If the video hardware doesn't cripple the rest of the camera and doesn't hike up the price too much, the option can only be useful and I most certainly welcome it.

  • jonny carroll August 30, 2008 02:57 am

    I just can't figure out why anyone would object. If you don't like the feature, don't use it. And it's not making the price any higher, this feature is targeted at the consumer level, and consumers are the ones buying like a storm, making the prices go down for those of us who are pros. simple economics.

    With features like this, it makes you wonder why in the world they are still shaping and designing cameras like 35mm cameras. There's not two spirals anymore or film to expose onto. It's just traditionalism, they we've all strayed so far from "traditional" already.

    Honestly, the idea of shooting films using my lenses that I've invested thousands and thousands of dollars into makes me giggle with joy. The only problem is, all my crap is Canon.

  • Sule Bryan August 30, 2008 02:53 am

    I think it’s great, if you’re going to carry around a dslr you’re not gonna want to carry a video camera as well.

    I can’t wait to see some of the results from this camera with a tilt-shift lens. The possiblities…

  • s August 30, 2008 02:53 am

    I think it's great, if you're going to carry around a dslr you're not gonna want to carry a video camera as well.

    I can't wait to see some of the results from this camera with a tilt-shift lens. The possiblities...

  • Lamarr August 30, 2008 02:48 am


    I have a D80. I also have a Sony HD camcorder. I have zero interest in video on my DSLR. I'm a bit tired of the trend we are moving to with "all in one devices" again. Sometimes a camera should just be a camera.

    I have an Amazon Kindle. It's for book reading. I don't want it to be a camera, display tv shows, video, etc. I just want it to do what it does best, display ebooks.

    I just feel like you lose something when you cram more than one feature into a device. No upgrade for me; when it comes to expensive devices like this I like things separated.

  • David August 30, 2008 02:47 am

    The problem with amateur video is that it is mostly bad. Adding the ability to shoot HD amateur video using your semi-pro dSLR doesn't do anything to improve the actual content.

    Nikon found that it had the hardware to deliver this enhanced product, and can now claim it as a 'feature' the you need on your next camera to 'remove the need to have both a video and a still camera with you on vacation.'

    Fine and good for Nikon. I won't get it, and wouldn't purchase a camera with it in it.

    2 reasons:

    Cost goes up because you have more stuff in the camera.
    Complexity goes up and that means more repairs to fix the thing.

    Sorry, marketing won this round in the dSLR war.

  • AJ Hawks August 30, 2008 02:46 am

    Hell yes video is fine on an SLR. It's like (someone) said, if my cheapo point & shoot can do it, why can't my SLR. Plus the SLR would give you the ability to shoot video with multiple awesome lenses: wide angle, telephoto, lensbaby, image stabilized, etc. It grants you WAY WAY more control than most camcorders, and for near the same price as an HD camcorder.

  • zacco August 30, 2008 02:32 am

    i agree with "Pete Langlois"

    good on nikon to be the first to think about this,
    you dont have to buy it ,
    you dont have to use it ,
    but it there if you need it ,...
    im thinking of swaping my ole trusty d200 for one,
    look at the tec diff's

  • joel August 30, 2008 02:20 am

    I'm new to this whole arena and still thought...yuck...why? I already hate the idea of having still-picture capabilities on my video camera (why waste the effort...and my money).

    But after some thought...I hate my $700 Sony video camera. It works for certain times but with almost zero control. have the control of a SLR...for video. Could be fantastic.

    Like everyone else said, questions would be audio and format.

  • Frank Carey August 30, 2008 02:16 am

    I have had numerous occasions where I could have really used a DSLR with video capability. Even though the D90 video capability is limited, it would still allow me to take video on the fly when the need arose as opposed to putting down the DSLR and whipping out my Ulta Flip Video recorder, assuming that I had brought it with me. I would seriously consider buying the D90 just for this feature.

  • Greg August 30, 2008 02:13 am

    With many indy filmakers using 35mm lens adapters to convert their current HD cams to give them selective focus control, I'd say that this was a very smart move for Nikon.

    I'd venture to say that many indy filmakers who haven't already built their DIY 35mm lens adapters will be spending their budgets on D90's instead.

  • Mathew August 30, 2008 02:06 am

    I just don't understand whats wrong with having video on a DSLR. It feels weird? That's hardly an argument. If you don't want it than it's not a problem to have it on the DSLR is there? As long as it doens't mess up other features or get in the way of regular photography than I don't see anything wrong with it. But for me personally, it's not a dealbreaker as Nikon have advertised it.

  • Ku Mays August 30, 2008 02:04 am

    Video on my SLR? Hell to the yes! I'll be getting the D90 ASAP.

  • Damian P. Gadal August 30, 2008 01:46 am

    Yes, and this feature alone is tempting me to get a D90. I can use this feature to get items up on YouTube, and a host of other items that will be of a great help to me.

  • dannyrich August 30, 2008 01:40 am

    I have just pre-ordered a D90, two main points;

    1. I can get the same price for my D80 as i paid :P

    2. It has the better sensor and video.

    Heres my logic, in July i had my camcorder stolen and the insurance co paid cash to me. I banked it and didnt replace the item as i only took short small clips of my daughter and never took them off the HD (think it had a 30/40gb hdd). In not doing so i lost some 9 months of video of my daughter growing up.

    D80 sld for £300 D90 = £700 diff = £400. It would cost me that for a HD camcorder which i probably wont use as i dont like carrying both SLR and camcorder.

    Im thinking adding the clips to the card mean im guaranteed to take teh short clips off the memory too.

    I want to experiment as i have a fisheye and a good few lenses however i am seriously sceptical about manual focus. Im kind of hoping i can compromise with some focus to infinity settings and plough through.

    Sounds good and im going to enjoy learning it. I learned my D40 and enjoyed that and now im making progress with the D80 im thinking if i move the bar it will help me learn and get further faster.

  • azlan August 30, 2008 01:37 am

    Actually the concept is not exactly new, there has been already ways to add DSLR lenses to video camcorders, i guess Nikon has taken the idea further and incorporating it into their camera bodies.

    Check this out for some proof of DSLR lenses on video cameras.

  • Mick August 30, 2008 01:30 am

    Olympus & Panasonic announced the Micro Four Thirds standard a few weeks ago which also includes the ability to take movies. See

    No product announcements have been made that I am aware of yet, so it is hard to compare with the D90, but the intent is obviously there. With both Nikon, Olympus and Panasonic offering DLSRs that can shoot movies, I think it is just a matter of time before all the main manufacturers do also, including Canon.

    The Micro 4/3 standard looks to be targeting the serious amateur market as Olympus & Panasonic will be continuing R&D into the current 4/3 standard and the new Micro version in parallel.

    I honestly can't understand why this evolution is so upsetting to some people. If you don't want to take movies on a movie-enabled DSLR, then don't. Problem solved.

  • Becky August 30, 2008 01:28 am

    I'm new to photography and just bought my first DSLR about 10 months ago...the D80. I have to admit when my husband first started talking about buying a DSLR, I wasn't sure I was interested because of the fact it didn't have video. My main purpose is to take photos & video of my children, so now I may be VERY tempted to trade-in my 80 for the 90!

  • Stuart Mackenzie August 30, 2008 01:19 am

    for my 2 cents as long as by inlcuding video they aren't compromising the quality of digital stills I can take then what the heck....Its just another bonus feature that I can take or leave (there are already settings on my DSLR I don't use!!)

    and it is quite a cool bonus feature and as said above if you have it, at some point you will find it useful..even if not often and the creative possibilities of shooting thru leneses is a neat thing.

    My last video camera had the ability to take stills but that didn't stop me buying a DSLR it was just another extra (but not really important) feature to weigh up when making a buying choice. I see this as the same but with the technolgies reversed......

    put it this way if someone sold me a car and gave me a pushbike for free with my purchase....I'd still keep the bike...even if I didn't ride it! ;-)

  • Frederik August 30, 2008 01:09 am

    I would really enjoy having a video option on my slr.
    I used to use the video feature on my Ixus quite a lot for short clips. I don't have the need for a dedicated camcorder but this alternative would be fantastic.
    It doesn't even need to be HD...

  • Rosh August 30, 2008 01:08 am

    After reading other points of view on various blogs, I'm still conflicted.

    But, the argument that if a client wanted a little video for the web as an add-on hit a positive nerve. Or some quick video of my shoot for promotion was not a bad idea.

    But, again, I think video camera would still work just fine.


  • Josh Lloyd August 30, 2008 01:06 am

    Like the author, at first I thought this sounded ridiculous too. But after thinking about it, I know there have been times I have been shooting, and wanted to have the video option.
    I think most professionals would find it as useless as when they put night vision on consumer video cameras. But more people have DSLR's than ever before... moms, students, every day Dick and Janes! So life is in motion, and sometimes when we're shooting our kid's birthday parties, it would be nice to have that option, regardless of what the quality is. Let's face it, it's not going to replace any of our video cameras. It's just handy when you need it in a pinch!

  • Mark August 30, 2008 01:03 am

    I think video on SLR cameras is a great idea for those of us that use our SLR cameras often in non professional environments. Say you take your SLR with you on vacation but don't really feel like taking along your video camera as well. But sure enough, when you are there, a moment occurs you wish you had a video camera for. That is one reason they added this feature to P&S cameras and it also makes sense in an adv-amateur DSLR. That said, I would only use it if AF worked as I would be using it only for short clips to save a moment & thus I wouldn't be using it in place of a high end video camera.

  • The Wallbanger August 30, 2008 12:51 am

    The ability to record High Def with a range of lenses and improved low light range is absolutely ground breaking. Nikon placed the video feature EXACTLY where it needed to be in their line-up; for the advanced amateur. Photo purists can trade up to a full frame body if they're so repulsed by the convergence.

    As much as I'd love to dive in on this camera, I am compelled to wait for additional features offered on the next iteration. Once refined, the addition of stereo sound recording and auto focus should earn my money.

  • Patrick August 30, 2008 12:50 am

    I would love video on a DSLR. I just bought the Canon 450D. If the D90 had been available at the time, this would have been a feature that put me in the Nikon camp. The ability to indulge my photography habit and take the occasional video of my kids is a perfect fit for me.

  • Megapixelicious August 30, 2008 12:29 am

    If the new 5DMarkII rumors are true and we can film in HD (1080p please!) with it it is going to be a killer feature, at least for me! I do a lot of urban exploration and wildlife photography and sometime there are things that just look better in motion.

    The real question is what would the file format be? Any compressed format would suck and destroy the whole benefit of filming with L lenses.

    All that being said, as I pointed out on my blog, it is not something I really think Canon would do for the newer 5D. If they wanted to add this feature in a SLR, it would have been added to the 50D...

    Anyways, one can hope!