Digital SLRs With Video

[Photo-John]

Canon and Nikon have both announced digital SLRs with video now. The Nikon D90 was first and now we also have the Canon EOS 5D Mark II. What do you think about the addition of video capture to digital SLRs? Is this something you would use? Is it something you've been expecting or hoping for? Or is it something you'd rather not have?

Vote in the Quick Poll >>

And then tell us about it here. I'm very curious about what people think of the new DSLRs with video.

[Dylan8i]

i voted im interested just because every now and then i want to take a quick video clip, which i could do with my p&s. but now that its broke and i only have slr... but yeah it wouldn't get much use, def wouldn;t buy that camera for that feature.

[Sebastian]

Full HD with a 85mm 1.8? SOLD.

I voted "awesome."

[Dave Smith]

I voted "Don't Care".
I have a nice video recorder. Don't need another.

Truth is I don't like video, but if I wanted a digital video, I would use my Fuji.

[Frog]

I'd rather they spent the effort on better dyanamic resolution or other than video.
Once in a while I'd like to shoot a video but I can buy a camcorder for that or use a p&s with video. I'm interested in photography, not videography.
I do think this will attract a lot of consumers though.

[Mr Yuck]

heck yeah!

The lenses available for DSLRs....that'd be awesome.

I still want a consumer video camera, but DSLR video...brilliant.

[starriderrick]

Imagine shooting a HD video with a 8mm fisheye lense.Wild. Rock the vote. Awesome!

Looking at a D90 myself...

Rick

[Franglais]

It's not something I need badly but it would be nice to have.

Most of the time my desire for souvenirs is best satisfied by still photos. A face, an event - a single image at the right moment that I can stick on the wall or look at on-screen is the best medium.

But - on Saturday its the Techno Parade in Paris and with a bit of luck there will be Batala (Brasilian drum band). When they do their drum roll and suddenly swing into the rhythm it's quite magnificent, a combination of sound and movement that I have in my mind but just doesn't come over on a single image. I must take my little F40 point-and-shoot - I can do video with that.

[EOSThree]

I am not sure what I think of it. I voted I don't care, but I do care some. I have had P&S cameras with video for years now, but I rarely use it, I doubt I would use it much on a DSLR either. Is is something that makes the camera better? I guess, it adds a feature. Does it degrade from the still frame performance? I guess not, although we'll see. Does this mean the end of a shutter and mirror box eventually(Panasonic G1)?

[another view]

Right now I say "no thanks", but Seb's idea of shallow DOF in video could change that opinion. I won't buy a new DSLR to get it, but if I had it I'd play with it to see what it would do. Maybe...

[Photo-John]

At first I was also thinking I didn't care. And for the most part, I don't. But I would like to be including some short hands-on video reviews with our digital camera reviews. And maybe having an SLR with video functionality would make it easier. On the other hand, I have point-and shoot cameras right now that can shoot video, so maybe I should just start using those. I don't think it's going to make much quality difference on the Web.

Someone on another site mentioned the paparazzo. They would definitely benefit from video because they could shoot stills and video and in some cases video would definitely pay more.

I was thinking action beginning sports photographers might like it. I know lots of kids who are growing up thinking and shooting videos of mountain bikinng, bmx, skiing, snowboarding, etc. Some of them are also interested in still photography. It seems to me a good DSLR that can do both might be really good for that kind of shooting - especially if you've got to pedal or do any kind of backcountry travel where having just one camer would be good. I can even see myself possibly using the video feature in that kind of situation. Although, again, I have point-and-shoots that can capture video and I'm not using that funtion with them. Truth is, I'm just not much of a video guy.

Thanks for commenting and voting on this one. I think this is one of the more interesting things to happen with digital cameras for a while. This and the new Micro Four Thirds format.

[Loupey]

If it has it, great! I'd definitely use it - or rather the wife would take it and use it

Seriously, if there were two similar bodies, one with and one without, I'd pay for the video version because our video camera is about 10 years old and the wife has been asking for a new video camera for a couple years now. Besides, how convenient it would be to have both in one package. Like now smart cell phones can have GPS, email, web-browsing - I'm all for carrying less these days.

Plus, there are times when I shoot N&W when I have thought "this would be nice as a video". But how quick and easy it is to switch from video to still would be important for me.

[Canuck935]

I voted "I don't care." Like John, I'm just not much of a video guy. I would probably only rarely (less than 1% of the time) use the video function. Thus, the inclusion of video is not a factor in my choosing a DSLR, or even a compact for that matter.

I can see how it can be quite useful for people that have an interest in capturing video, and the idea of using some of the unique SLR lenses is quite intriguing. In the end, it'll attract a broader range of people to the DSLR world.

[Sebastian]

I don't understand how anyone that cares about creating powerful images can consider themselves to not be "much of a video guy." (Not picking on you Canuck, you're just the last post above this one as I type this reply.)

Moving images have just as much impact and creative potential as still images, just in a different way. The same lighting and compositional ideas apply and adding the dimension of time removes a huge limitation for creative expression. And isn't it ultimately about creative expression?

As for whether or not it degrades photo quality: it doesn't. That's a fact. The sensors have been able to record video since the days of the D1s and 1Ds. It's just that now the CF cards have gotten fast enough (UDMA) to support the huge amount of bandwidth that's required and sensors have gotten high enough resolution to be able to hide the noise that's generated while still recording HD. If anything, we should all be complaining that all our current cameras lack the feature, even though the sensor likely has the capability.

I was wondering when this would happen ever since Canon started sticking CMOS sensors in their "prosumer" HD-cams.

Seriously, the D90 and the 5DII are giving us nice upgrades to our SLRs for slightly less than what comparable models cost a few months ago and then on top of that blow the creative doors open by letting us use our great lenses to record motion. This is nothing less than a huge win for creativity and having as many tools at our disposal as possible.

[Frog]

As a technological moron, I'm wondering if a piece of video is shot, can you then freeze a piece of that video and use it for a high quality photograph? That would sure help in the capturing the moment category.
I'm guessing probably not or we'd have many of them floating around.

[Sebastian]

Frog,

Of course you can. But to get video moving at a high enough frame rate there is a lot of compression being used, much more so than for a still frame. This compression creates artifacts that are invisible to us when watching the video because of how quickly each frame replaces the one before it. You could freeze a frame but you'd have a frame with much more compression and much less resolution than what you'd get out of a still camera, so in a pinch it's usable, but hardly ever desirable.

[Canuck935]

Not only is compression an issue, but also pixel count..

Take the Canon 5D mkII for example. A full size still capture is 5616 pixels wide x 3744 pixels tall. A 1080p HD video is 1920 pixels wide x 1080 pixels tall. So you give up a heck of a lot of pixels..

[drg]

I voted I'm interested, not because I want to shoot video but there are times it would be handy to not have to change cameras.

This was going to be saved until this weekend and I'll still post about it separately, but I worked on a wedding recently where the entire deliverable was to be in HD.

Yup, they wanted all the photos in a HD slide show format. It was a 5 figure deliverable to boot!

There was a videographer who was supposed to get things like the procession/recessional, the tossing of the garter and bouquet, etc. There were some tech difficulties and it was another company and I haven't found out if it all worked. Should have been easy, right?

With any kind of video in the main camera, when it was appropriate the ability to shift to that might be very important. The CMOS framing rates have been high enough for some time(years) to produce high quality(much higher than HD) product. Look at IMAX digitization tech as one example. Yes, they have to shoot attached to a external computer, but I do that with plain ol' Canon DSLR's a lot of the time now! Now it is just become easier to produce work in different and more portable way.

At this time I still don't think it is more than an occasional option or a way to shoot a very fast piece of footage for journalistic reasons. I've had point and shoots that produced good video, if only for short duration or in small formats.

About video being a different ballgame than still photography, that's an entirely separate discussion! More, later.

[xystren]

I voted interested.. It's not something that I think I would use a whole lot, but with the Sony P&S I have used the video on occasion. Having the flexibility of lenses I think would be very interesting to play around with, especially like Seb mentioned with a f/1.8 lens.

But still, if I was planning on doing anything serious, I'd probably go with a proper video camera. It would be a nice feature, but it wouldn't be a make or break decision.

[brmill26]

I voted stupid. Reason being, I think it's stupid on the level of camera it's on. I think it would make much more sense on the lower end cameras that are aimed more at parents and generally amateur users. And certainly those cameras will have the capability in a model cycle or two. I just think it's dumb on a pro-level SLR because the entire idea of such is to focus the device to excel on every reasonable point of photography. Adding in functions that do not forward that purpose are in the least clutter and at worst inhibiting to the real purpose of the tool.

Point being, if I want pro video, I'll get a pro video camera b/c that's what it's designed to do and I'm quite confident it will do it better than even the best DSLR. If I want pro photos, I'll get a pro DSLR, because that's what it's designed to do. I have a Canon Optura 60 video camera that takes both video and photos. The video and audio is excellent; the photos are mediocre at best. Frankly, it's just several extra buttons and menus that get in the way of the purpose of the camera.

It's not that I can't see the point of video on any SLR, it would make sense further down the model line where you want to appeal to a wide market, but I just don't understand the point of it being on such an otherwise highly specialized professional tool.

[Sebastian]

Brad,

One word: journalism. Many news photogs these days carry a video camera and an SLR. That's why it's on a really capable camera.

[Loupey]

...It's not that I can't see the point of video on any SLR, it would make sense further down the model line where you want to appeal to a wide market, but I just don't understand the point of it being on such an otherwise highly specialized professional tool.

I don't think the video capabilities add very much to the manufacturing cost of the camera (mostly just programming modifications to the CPU) so I would think the manufacturers, at this point, are going to put it in just about every new body coming out.

Besides, HD quality videos, up to 30 minutes of recording, and HDMI output - that's no slouch


(although where are the microphone(s)?)

[drg]

What's "real pro video" in this era?

Look at the vast amount of video being shipped on the net by the 'real media' and the quality of that product. A lot of them are far more limited by the bandwidth to deliver the material than what they can actually produce.

Journalists are now working for conglomerate news organizations that serve print, radio, television, and the internet. If their performance and ultimately pay will be evaluated at all on the breadth of their 'spectrum response capabilities' they want to be able to shoot video and audio!

Look at the audio recording functions in some 'pro' DSLRs, get your image of the people and have them record their name left to right in a posed shot, or give you a quote that is attached directly to photograph! Or the journalist/photographer (or vice versa if you prefer) who uses that function to make a quick note to self while shooting an unfolding scene. Now press a button and go to video (or Live! with appropriate tethering) for a particularly eye catching set of events, then back to stills for establishing shots or other distribution media.

This may become 'standard' on any of the new cameras without an optical viewfinder, and soon.

[Skyman]

From a video perspective, I like to do both, but rarely at the same time. I am interested. I see this as the future. 6 years ago at uni associated press was talking about dumping photographers and video people and sending out 1 reporter with a video camera, laptop and using that to send to print web radio and possibly even television. I guess the camera just got smaller. I have yet to see a camera that offered serious production capability and good still images but this is a question of when not if. I guess it isn't really feasible to connect an xlr mic to an slr not to save video in an uncompressed format. As for lenses, well Canon have let you put their lenses on their video cameras since the days of the XL1 and in terms of video lens quality the standards are different, but you can still get interchangeable lenses and f1.8 although they call it an iris not an aperture. also your aperture and shutter speed are fixed for an slr (well at least you need to stop shooting to change it) a good video camera is going to have to allow you to change both on the fly. They will get there one day though.

[another view]

I don't understand how anyone that cares about creating powerful images can consider themselves to not be "much of a video guy." ......And isn't it ultimately about creative expression?

You can pick on me too, I said almost the same thing but maybe not as directly. It's a good thing from the standpoint that it sounds like it will help people get what they're seeing recorded - and it sounds like the majority would like to have video available for creative expression.

But I don't really plan to use it. Play with it maybe, but not really work with it. I rarely watch TV, movies, etc - plenty of other things I'd rather do. The still image is what does it for me. It's what I remember from seeing others work (thinking of such major events as 9/11, there are a few stills I'll never forget). That one specific moment was when it all came together. Look at what Bresson saw and photographed. Most of what he saw would be lost on video. And it's that 1/500 or 8 second single frame that makes me pick up a camera. I'm certainly not comparing myself to him, just making a point. I'm also a big fan of a hard edit. If you can say it with three shots, having eight only makes each shot less meaningful. Just IM(probably unusual)O...