Video on Slr's..is it really needed

tiercel

tiercel

Messages
51
Edit My Images
No
Dont know if this has been brought up before, probably has, but here goes, Why do the manufacturers have this big bee in their bonnet about video in SLR cameras and now we have this push to 4k plus.
When you see reviews its all about video, video video.
I use my cameras as still cameras, but i do have a canon video camera should i wish to do video, or my phone!!
Are the video features pushing the price of new releases up, im looking at getting a Nikon D500, great camera it seems..and it does great video, but i will never use the video features.
I wonder how much cost is involved in video within cameras and if the manufacturers were to produce an alternative camera with high specs but with out video would it be more popular and cheaper.
I know there are those that use video and i guess it has its place on some SLRs, but do we need every new model that comes out to have it, wouldnt it be nice to have a camera like the D500 but without the video !!
 
A lot of the technology in a modern SLR is often there more to "sell" the camera than make it a better camera at actually taking pictures.

Specifications are what make a lot of people buy cameras rather than something that will allow them to take better photos.
 
That is the reason I bought a baby Nikon DSLR, for convenient HD video as well as good IQ images. My phone dies pretty quick when I do video :)
 
I don't do video myself but assume that it's a must on modern cameras which probably wouldn't sell without it and if omitted on a camera it would probably cost quite a bit more due to lower sales potential.
 
DSLRs have a lot of issues for video that make them a bit painful to use.
Lack of optical anti aliasing.
Stills lenses not being parfocal.
Having to add firmware to get zebras, peaking, waveforms etc.
No phantom power.
Poor ergonomics.
Low bitrate encoders.

All fixable, but not easily. You can get good video, but it takes time.
 
robmac said:
i`d be very happy if Nikon/Canon offered a stripped down version without video.....never needed it or used it.
Click to expand...

Agreed, my record button can be reassigned to something else for all I care
 
Let's try to debunk this.

When camera manufacturers added live view (required because idiots believe you have to hold a camera at arms length), they realised they'd had to invent everything required to record moving images. All they needed to add was the software to record and control it.

Then some movie makers started buying DSLRs because they could record video that looked lots better than cheap camcorders, of course as above, it's far from perfect, but it does look great for a lot less money than pro video kit. That's pushed the manufacturers to promote and refine features for video.

All the people who say 'I don't need video, I resent paying extra for it' haven't grasped they're only paying about £5 for it.

If you don't want to use it, no-one is making you, but don't get fooled into thinking its a big deal, it really isn't.
 
Last edited:
I'm happy to be corrected here, but doesn't it benefit stills users if companies are pushing for better, faster memory and sensor production to handle video (and in turn stills buffering) and the need to improve jpeg engines/colour production (again useful for stills (...in before "I only shoot raw")). Even Sony's desire to push video ISO limits in the A7s range has given still shooters cleaner high ISO images. Not necessary for everyone but continues the development of cameras.
 
robmac said:
i find it very hard to believe it costs 5 quid to add video....
Click to expand...

Considering how many units are sold, and the fact that video is truly just a case of having a cpu quick enough and the right software, it might be as little as that now.
Still cameras already need a decent cpu, these power all the image processing that goes on, the operation, the works. All the software framework for each iteration of a camera is probably based on the previous one. Pro features might drip down the range, but ultimately there is not always going to be a huge amount of development work per camera.
For the manufacturers adding video is it almost for free.
 
Well, its introduced a lot of people to the dslr world, using your chosen camera system, encouraging manufacturers to invest in lens and accessory development, meaning more users of system X Y and Z, leading to wider selection of new and used cameras, lenses and accessories. The development of video technology has probably helped the development of the camera, with many of its systems benefiting those who just take stills.
 
tiercel said:
I use my cameras as still cameras, but i do have a canon video camera should i wish to do video, or my phone!!
Click to expand...

Mmm, or you could use your DSLR for video, and shoot stills with your phone.

tiercel said:
Are the video features pushing the price of new releases up, im looking at getting a Nikon D500, great camera it seems..and it does great video, but i will never use the video features.
I wonder how much cost is involved in video within cameras and if the manufacturers were to produce an alternative camera with high specs but with out video would it be more popular and cheaper.
I know there are those that use video and i guess it has its place on some SLRs, but do we need every new model that comes out to have it, wouldnt it be nice to have a camera like the D500 but without the video !!
Click to expand...

I don't think prices are changing much, well, decent cameras are considerably cheaper today than they were years ago. But from one to the next now, I think everyone knows roughly what the price is going to be of the new version.

Developing two separate cameras may push up R&D and production prices (though I doubt it, seeing as the video capable Camera B would basically be the stills only Camera A with a different firmware).
 
I see the responses are varied, i guess like all modern tech, there are always things on devices that some will never use, smartphones for instance, yes i have one like most folk these days.
I currently own a D300 and a D7100 coupled with good glass. Im just an enthusiastic chap with limited funds looking to get the best i can afford. The main reason for looking at getting the D500 is for the new AF system, if it is as good as they say, not to worried about silly high ISO, may need it at some point, who knows. I shoot alot of raptors and want something responsive, if im honest here, i get better results from the older D300 on AF tracking and hit rate over the D7100..
My question was purely hypothetical, its very unlikely that the manufacturers would ever strip out the video features and market a photographers camera, but interesting to here peoples thoughts.
 
I wouldnt pay out that for that ugly impractical thing, guess i will have to keep up with jones's and get the D500 with its wonderful video!!
 
tiercel said:
I wouldnt pay out that for that ugly impractical thing, guess i will have to keep up with jones's and get the D500 with its wonderful video!!
Click to expand...
You've fallen into that 'all opinions are valid' hole created around forums.

There might be a variety of responses, but you can believe me when I tell you that the 'wonderful video' on the D500 is costing you literally pennies. It's purely a side effect of implementing live view, you can go back and check when live view appeared and when video was added for yourself if you need confirmation. ;)
 
If the sensor and processor can do it then it seems a waste, and all that nice glass to shoot through, I enjoyed the time I shoot film, would do it more but oddly I forget it's there...
 
Don't use it but can see why people do. If you like vblogging and taking pics it makes sense to have something that can delivery both with very good quality.

It's like using your phone as a camera or MP3 player instead of carrying a compact camera or dedicated mp3 player.

I don't think adding video has taken anything away from photographers, but has added a whole new dimension and market for the trusty DSLR.
 
It doesn't detract from any of the cameras other features so why not? The camera wouldn't be any better of the video mode was disabled.


Steve.
 
I suppose its a bit like your phone, as in having a phone that makes and receives phone calls, no camera/video/text/internet/etc.
 
dizidav said:
I suppose its a bit like your phone, as in having a phone that makes and receives phone calls, no camera/video/text/internet/etc.
Click to expand...
A phone is not generally a tool with a primary function of making voice calls any more. The time I spend making calls on my phone compared with other tasks is probably less than 1%
 
st599 said:
DSLRs have a lot of issues for video that make them a bit painful to use.
Lack of optical anti aliasing.
Stills lenses not being parfocal.
Having to add firmware to get zebras, peaking, waveforms etc.
No phantom power.
Poor ergonomics.
Low bitrate encoders.

All fixable, but not easily. You can get good video, but it takes time.
Click to expand...

Phil V said:
Then some movie makers started buying DSLRs because they could record video that looked lots better than cheap camcorders, of course as above, it's far from perfect, but it does look great for a lot less money than pro video kit. That's pushed the manufacturers to promote and refine features for video.
Click to expand...

I used to work in the post production market. DSLR's were used for a number of reasons
Size - tiny compared to normal cameras, which meant they could be easily mounted in limited spaces, such as cars, cockpits etc. It was also easier to take out in post production.
If you look on the original Captain America film, you'll spot the 5D mk3 strapped with yellow gaffa tape by the headlight
CANON-EOS-5D-MARK-II258C2A-300x190.gif


Cost - a 5Dmk3 plus decent lenses are a fraction of the cost of the normal film cameras
Editing suite improvements - professional editing suites could easily cope with multiresolution footage and convert all to the same.

Environmental - Things like ice road truckers was filmed a lot with go pros mounted on the trucks, hence the number of angles. They mounted several cameras as they'd lose about 200 each season. It gave them the ability to record footage that would have been difficult or expensive using traditional cameras.


On the magazine side, many of the photojournalists starting shooting video clips, behind the scenes of the shoot etc as a value added addition to the days shoot. Essesntial for magazines that had a web presence.
 
Phil V said:
There might be a variety of responses, but you can believe me when I tell you that the 'wonderful video' on the D500 is costing you literally pennies. It's purely a side effect of implementing live view, you can go back and check when live view appeared and when video was added for yourself if you need confirmation. ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah but I never use Live view either (or for that matter various other features) so canon should have created a DSLR that only has the features i need and that would be cheaper..... except it wouldnt because the economies of scale for each specific user set are farfewer than creating one model that meets multiple different markets

Its like back in film days I never used eye control - but it didnt worry me if it was on the camera as i just didnt use it
 
boliston said:
A phone is not generally a tool with a primary function of making voice calls any more. The time I spend making calls on my phone compared with other tasks is probably less than 1%
Click to expand...

A camera is not generally a tool with a primary function of taking stills anymore.

Technology will always change and devices will all become smarter, more integrated and do more.
 
There is a lot more potential in our PC/Mac's than any of us use, there is a lot of stuff on your phone you dont use, there are lots of things that microwave ovens do that we dont use, etc etc etc..... In fact most people dont use every function in most software. Its how it is and if it doesnt imapct on the stuff you do use I dont let it bother me.
I also take the point some have made about stripping out and selling cheaper alternatives but in all honesty that would be a very niche market and though we may think that these companies are developing new technologies just to keep us happy there is also a greater emphasis I should imagine on adding sales potential. They are businesses when all is said and done.
 
I think it all went wrong when they invented roll film. Glass plates are the only way to take real pictures!
 
Sejanus Aelianus said:
I think it all went wrong when they invented roll film. Glass plates are the only way to take real pictures!
Click to expand...
Modern witchcraft, should be heligraphy
Drawn by Light exhibition at the Science Museum had an interesting selection, drawn by light as a coating of bitumen of Judaea was hardened by sunlight on metal plate and then the excess washed off, leaving an image looking rather like it was produced from a wooden engraving.
 
Adding video to a camera actually makes it cheaper. With video it will appeal to more buyers. The more you strip it down, the more niche it becomes. And the fewer they sell, putting the price up.

Many people don't want to carry 2 cameras around, when one will do both jobs.
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
I used to work in the post production market. DSLR's were used for a number of reasons
Size - tiny compared to normal cameras, which meant they could be easily mounted in limited spaces, such as cars, cockpits etc. It was also easier to take out in post production.
If you look on the original Captain America film, you'll spot the 5D mk3 strapped with yellow gaffa tape by the headlight
CANON-EOS-5D-MARK-II258C2A-300x190.gif


Cost - a 5Dmk3 plus decent lenses are a fraction of the cost of the normal film cameras
Editing suite improvements - professional editing suites could easily cope with multiresolution footage and convert all to the same.

Environmental - Things like ice road truckers was filmed a lot with go pros mounted on the trucks, hence the number of angles. They mounted several cameras as they'd lose about 200 each season. It gave them the ability to record footage that would have been difficult or expensive using traditional cameras.


On the magazine side, many of the photojournalists starting shooting video clips, behind the scenes of the shoot etc as a value added addition to the days shoot. Essesntial for magazines that had a web presence.
Click to expand...

DSLRs were used for cheapness - but they don't even count as HD for most major broadcasters. If they were re-doing that shot today, I'd expect an Alexa Mini to be there.

Go Pros are OK for what they are.
 
ecoleman said:
A camera is not generally a tool with a primary function of taking stills anymore.

Technology will always change and devices will all become smarter, more integrated and do more.
Click to expand...
A camera is a tool who's primary function is to take stills. Unless it's a video camera. I'd bet 99% of dslr owners shoot a lot more stills than video.

You can't compare the functionality of a smartphone to a dslr.
 
Last edited:
st599 said:
DSLRs were used for cheapness - but they don't even count as HD for most major broadcasters. If they were re-doing that shot today, I'd expect an Alexa Mini to be there.

Go Pros are OK for what they are.
Click to expand...

They weren't used for cheapness, they are used due to space, size, ease of post and flexibility, not as a disposable camera if things go wrong. Cinematographers love DSLRs.

It's more than good enough for crummy HD broadcast. If they're good enough for cinema screens it's ok for the lounge :)

Recent films shot with DSLRs as part of the camera setup;

Mad Max Fury Road
Batman V Superman
Avengers Assemble
End of Watch
Elysium
Drive
Rush
Thor 2
Iron Man movies

...and many more.

Lots of high budget 24 shows utilised DSLRs too, such as 24, Dexter etc particularly Canon 5d 2 and 3's.

Remember though, shooting DSLR video is easy for a cinematographer, who's shots will be pre measured with a focus puller to hand when not mounted on something.
 
Last edited:
I do have a Camcorder already, well two to be exact and one of them does video in pretty good quality, just that it uses tapes. A Camcorder is pretty awkward to use, and they normally do very very poor still photos. But a DSLR does both and in good quality, so I opted for a DSLR instead. I did used to do most of my video clips with my phone, but my phone started to play up as it is old. A low cost DSLR was the cheaper option for me, rather than buying a new phone or Camcorder..:)
 
odd jim said:
A camera is a tool who's primary function is to take stills. Unless it's a video camera. I'd bet 99% of dslr owners shoot a lot more stills than video.

You can't compare the functionality of a smartphone to a dslr.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry but obviously you can. Manufacturers have added video functionality to cameras so its primary function is no longer just shooting stills. It doesnt matter what percentage of users use the video option.

Just like phones evolved from a primary function as a phone to a device that does it all.
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
I'm sorry but obviously you can. Manufacturers have added video functionality to cameras so its primary function is no longer just shooting stills. It doesnt matter what percentage of users use the video option.

Just like phones evolved from a primary function as a phone to a device that does it all.
Click to expand...
No you can't. A dslr does two things, shoots stills and videos, a smartphone can do hundreds of things!

You can't say a dslr can "do it all"?

There's no way you can compare the two in anything other than its camera function.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top