Photographers will now feel inadequate without a Movie function on their cameras.

[Anthony Reiss]

We are smack in the middle of a new age of photography. I'm so glad to be living in this era of merging technology. One day, if not already, Photographers will feel very inadequate if their cameras have no Movie function. This is it. This is the start of a new revolution for DSLR's and even Medium Format imaging: The era of video creeping into photography.
It started with camcorders offering some photography function. Still cameras answered back with their own video offering on top of their still images. It's like the digital age coming again. There was a time a lot of debate raged with film versus digital. All quiet on the western front these days. Video versus still images? No contest, both are one and the same! (every frame of a movie is a still image!).
My personal experience- I can't pick up a camera to go outing if it doesn't have a Movie function. The Canon 5D and Nikon D90 have become so essential with their Movie modes, it has become addictive.
I'm a Canon and Nikon junkie.
AR

[OldClicker]

Each to our own. I see zero use for video for me and hope that they don't compromise all the models. - TF

[Photo-John]

I see zero use for video for me and hope that they don't compromise all the models. - TF

Do you really think adding video is compromising cameras?

I confess, when it was announced that the D90 was going to have video, I had mixed feelings. But I do make videos for tradeshow coverage and to introduce cameras. So one camera that can do both makes sense to me. That's part of the reason I bought the EOS 7D. I get a better sports camera and a video bonus. I don't use the video nearly as much as I use the standard still functionality. But it's there for me when I want or need it. And I confess, video may be stirring up some new creativity for me. The process and approach is very different from shooting stills and being very much a beginner is exciting (as well as frustrating).

[Franglais]

...
My personal experience- I can't pick up a camera to go outing if it doesn't have a Movie function. The Canon 5D and Nikon D90 have become so essential with their Movie modes, it has become addictive.
...
AR

I've had the possibility to do stills or movies on my point-and-shoots for years and I can't say I miss it on my DSLR's. I'm not telling the same story with the two media:

- movies where the subject is in movement (dancing) or where the sound is important (family with voices, aircraft, music..)
- stills for irresistable killer instants that I print or put up on screen

Usually when I go out I know what I'm going to do and I take the right equipment

[OldClicker]

Do you really think adding video is compromising cameras?

I confess, when it was announced that the D90 was going to have video, I had mixed feelings. But I do make videos for tradeshow coverage and to introduce cameras. So one camera that can do both makes sense to me. That's part of the reason I bought the EOS 7D. I get a better sports camera and a video bonus. I don't use the video nearly as much as I use the standard still functionality. But it's there for me when I want or need it. And I confess, video may be stirring up some new creativity for me. The process and approach is very different from shooting stills and being very much a beginner is exciting (as well as frustrating).

I can't see how it could not compromise the photographic function of the camera. Every feature costs money to add (good video costs a lot) and that means that something else had to be left off to meet a price point.

I am not anti-video and if others like it, they are welcome to buy it. I just hope there are other models so that I don't have to pay for something I don't want.

TF

[mjs1973]

When video was first introduced I really didn't care. It's not something I had to have on my next DSLR or even wanted for that matter. If it was there fine, but I had no intention of using it. I felt the same way when LiveView was first added. Now I use LV all the time when working on a tripod.

On my recent trip to Grand Teton NP I thought it would be fun to take some video clips and create a video slide show from what I shot. My video camera of choice was my Canon G9. I really enjoyed shooting some little video clips here and there but at the same time, it got in the way of my still photography because I only had 1 tripod. If I wanted to to shoot video, I had to stop shooting stills, take my camera off the tripod put the G9 on the tripod and start shooting. I also had a shortage of quick release plates with me so I had to keep switching them back and forth. It seemed like no matter what camera/lens I wanted to use my quick release plates were on something else. If my DSLR had video this wouldn't have been a problem.

So if my next body has video, I'm sure I will use it but it won't be a very important feature that I'm looking for. The part about the video that I'm really not looking forward to is learning how to edit it...

[Photo-John]

The part about the video that I'm really not looking forward to is learning how to edit it...

Yeah, learning to understand the intricacies of video formats and how to edit is miserable.

[Franglais]

Yeah, learning to understand the intricacies of video formats and how to edit is miserable.

And the sound, which usually means music. All of a sudden you have to have a load of new skills and resources.

I just got back from a chat the neighbours. The husband is making a video from a wedding last summer. He's been on it three weeks already. I showed him the results from my fashion shoot last Sunday, which so far has taken me all week to treat. We are both hard at it learning skills - in different media.

I think our situation as amateurs with limited time to spend is rather like the hardware - either we are good at stills and can also do videos - or the opposite.

[gahspidy]

I think its probably a good thing to have the video ability in our cameras now, although i have not really used it yet. To have it there when you might benefit from having some video is a plus.
I seriously doubt that one will replace the other. No video in your camera is going to really substitute from having a good dedicated video camera and vice versa.
Its nice to have the benefit of a versatile tool but a "Jack of all trades" will not substitue a master of one.

[Frog]

I might be inadequate but it ain't 'cuz my camera doesn't have video.

[CaptainPenguin]

I am a photographer not a videographer so I don't miss not having a video mode on my DSLR and have never used the video mode on my compact

[Anbesol]

That is essentially like saying 'race car drivers will miss having their car dome light', the video cam features in DSLR is a novelty, and in my opinion, a wasted use of the main sensor.

Canon and Nikon junkie? Why not just one or the other, it seems pretty wasteful to have two different systems.

[Anthony Reiss]

I also use Macs and PC's. (and suffer the cross fires of both camps).

[Franglais]

I also use Macs and PC's. (and suffer the cross fires of both camps).

- Mac and PC
- Canon and Nikon
- Video and stills

You do what you like. Faced with two similar but different products I prefer to concentrate on just one and really master it - which is quite an achievement in itself. A professional can manage it because he does it all the time. As a humble amateur I try to make things easy for myself.

All of these things are tools for creation. When you're in the heat of the action you have to rely on your reflexes, things that you have practiced and you don't have to think about any more, you just do it. I would hate to mess up a shot because I used a technique that works when doing Canon DSLR video when I was shooting a Nikon still..

[BlueRob]

I can't see how it could not compromise the photographic function of the camera. Every feature costs money to add (good video costs a lot) and that means that something else had to be left off to meet a price point.

I am not anti-video and if others like it, they are welcome to buy it. I just hope there are other models so that I don't have to pay for something I don't want.

TF

Well said and agree all the way....I have never used any video feature on my cameras

[ipodman]

We are smack in the middle of a new age of photography. I'm so glad to be living in this era of merging technology. One day, if not already, Photographers will feel very inadequate if their cameras have no Movie function. This is it. This is the start of a new revolution for DSLR's and even Medium Format imaging: The era of video creeping into photography.
It started with camcorders offering some photography function. Still cameras answered back with their own video offering on top of their still images. It's like the digital age coming again. There was a time a lot of debate raged with film versus digital. All quiet on the western front these days. Video versus still images? No contest, both are one and the same! (every frame of a movie is a still image!).
My personal experience- I can't pick up a camera to go outing if it doesn't have a Movie function. The Canon 5D and Nikon D90 have become so essential with their Movie modes, it has become addictive.
I'm a Canon and Nikon junkie.
AR

For me, I have a differnt view. I do not want a DSLR that has a movie option. For me, aDSLR is a camera and should be used as such, Its like how Mobile Phones are now, they are now multifuntional such as music player etc - It wont be long before the DSLr will do more than we really need it to.