# Is video still needed in DSLRs?



## jeffa4444 (Jul 6, 2015)

Futuresource predict that pro video users are moving away from DSLRs to CSCs or dedicated cameras such as the BMs, GoPros for video mainly because they are easier to use and that the ground-breaking days of the Canon 5D MKII are behind us. 
The Nikon Df is one example of a high end camera without video and I know personally Ive never used any of my Canon DSLRs for video, I would much sooner use the GoPro or my Sony video camera ergonomically both are easier. Clearly some people love this feature but does that mean every model should carry the ability to shoot either HD or 4K?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 6, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> The Nikon Df is one example of a high end camera without video...



An example which doesn't really help your argument... 

I don't shoot video with my dSLR, but as a feature it's here to stay.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 6, 2015)

When I have the time to set up properly and need high quality.... out come the DSLRs.... mostly because of the lenses....


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 6, 2015)

I, on the other hand, have zero interest in shooting video and don't think it was ever needed in DSLRs in the first place. I stopped using Instagram once they added auto-play videos. Bah!


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 6, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> When I have the time to set up properly and need high quality.... out come the DSLRs.... mostly because of the lenses....



+1. The first and last dedicated video camera bought was in 2007. It wrote to HDV tapes and could do up to 1080i/720p. Now, I use the EOS-M with the EF adaptor (or 5D III) and my EF lenses. Larger format, less noise etc. I'm much more likely to upgrade my cameras than a dedicated video camera. I don't take many videos and using the DSLR/MILC to handle the video duties works just fine.


----------



## Tinky (Jul 6, 2015)

I do video for a living, DSLRs are one of a selection of tools that I will use. They have their strengths they have their caveats.

I'm glad video is there. But I'm also glad that Canon are making more stills orientated cameras such as the 5Dr as well.

I don't get the folk who get all vitriolic about the presence of a video mode. When they put in live view, it was virtually just a case of adding a record button... 

If you don't want to use it, don't use it.

I don't use spot average metering. I don't use picture profiles. I've never used PIC modes.

Some people have maybe never used their stop down preview button or flash exposure lock, or full manual.

But it's a massed produced product, not a tailored bespoke solution unique to each of our individual needs.

I do not buy at all that video development is to the detriment of stills development, or that videos inclusion negates the effectiveness of the stills operation.

It's here to stay. Some folk will graduate onto better video rigs. Some folk will get on just fine with what they've got. Some folk might never ever use it ever.

But it's going nowhere.

And the Nikon DF was a terrible example. Style over substance. The best laugh of all was the specially developed retro 1.8G with no aperture ring....

Yeah, I'm a real photographer. With my Billingham bag and chrome topped camera. Yeah. Aritsan, like.

Unless I'm paying you £1500 to shoot my wedding, and they turn up with an original digital rebel with kit lens, I care not a jot what kit anybody else uses. Show me your images. Let them do your posturing.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 6, 2015)

A large market selling DSLR accessories for video had developed over the past few years. Most users are not pro video makers. but home enthusiasts.

I generally do not do video because I don't want to spend the time to do a decent job, and its difficult for me without autofocus.

As soon as a FF DSLR with good video and AF capabilities appears. I might occasionally shoot a clip. I'm still on the fence about that. I'm waiting to read real world reports by unbiased testers of the A7R II using Canon lenses, but I'd have a hard time convincing myself to buy a Sony. Sony electronics have a poor record of reliability, and their time to service a camera could use up a entire season.


----------



## brianftpc (Jul 6, 2015)

If you aren't using your dslr to shoot video then you are missing out on half the money you could be making with your camera. The low light and glass on my 1Dx WOULD have saved me from spending 4,000 on another video camera but sadly it has no continuous auto focus on video. I basically only got to use it for interviews or stationary closeups of bride and grooms exchanging vows. Hopefully the 1Dx mk will have a video feature set that makes it relavant to someone who isn't shooting a damn movie.


----------



## Tinky (Jul 6, 2015)

Autofocus and contiguous moving pictures do not mix.

Autofocus can be as precise as is scientifically and technically possible, it can be as seemingly instantaneous as one could want.

On a consumer small sensor camcorder you might just get away with it for most of the time. On a large sensor with fast lenses you will not.

I'm appalled at the arrogance of stills users who think they can become cameramen by virtue of hitting record.

The apparatus may be identical, the terminology may be similar, but they are worlds apart in terms of technique and approach.

I've spent 20 years as a hobby photographer and I think I'm at a stage where I'm alright. I've worked professionally in video for 12 years and did a university degree then a 2 year vocational course after that.

I would never consider doing stills and video on the same job (i'd be unlikely to do stills on any job unless as an unpaid favour) they are totally different.

The folks who think AF will solve their issues aren't even scratching the surface.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 6, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Autofocus and contiguous moving pictures do not mix.
> 
> Autofocus can be as precise as is scientifically and technically possible, it can be as seemingly instantaneous as one could want.
> 
> ...


AF works surprisingly well on the 7D2 video. It is nowhere near as good as manual focus, but for a DSLR, surprisingly good.

I should search out a video I shot of a fiddle player with everything in automatic mode.... Auto focus and auto level.... She was wearing a white shirt with a dark vest and a dark fiddle. The AF tracked her arm perfectly.... of course that meant that the rest of the image was going in and out of focus every time the arm moved..... but hey.... it tracked the arm! The auto brightness was doing the same thing.... arm moves left... everything gets darker.... arm moves right... everything gets brighter.....

I think it is a perfect video to show why you don't want auto anything in videos.....


----------



## Tinky (Jul 6, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> I think it is a perfect video to show why you don't want auto anything in videos.....



Exactly.

Somebody stands in the foreground how does the AF system know if thats a motivated character movement or somebody who hasn't noticed you recording...

AF works great in stills because you only have to be in focus for a moment. Video is sucky unless you are in 'motivated' focus always.

Auto jerking is not the same thing.


----------



## Tugela (Jul 6, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> Futuresource predict that pro video users are moving away from DSLRs to CSCs or dedicated cameras such as the BMs, GoPros for video mainly because they are easier to use and that the ground-breaking days of the Canon 5D MKII are behind us.
> The Nikon Df is one example of a high end camera without video and I know personally Ive never used any of my Canon DSLRs for video, I would much sooner use the GoPro or my Sony video camera ergonomically both are easier. Clearly some people love this feature but does that mean every model should carry the ability to shoot either HD or 4K?



Yes. Because most of the cameras in question are bought largely by enthusiasts or wannabe pros who can't afford the dedicated cameras.


----------



## Tinky (Jul 6, 2015)

Tugela said:


> Yes. Because most of the cameras in question are bought largely by enthusiasts or wannabe pros who can't afford the dedicated cameras.



Thats becoming more true.

But historically, 2009 to 2011 say, there were no large sensor cameras for video other than DSLRs, CSC, or the uber expensive Reds or Arri's.

BMD have really shaken things up. A serious capable complete 4K camera for the same prices as a 5D3?

My main camera in 2011 was still an ENG. I don't miss the weight, not just of the camera but of the pags, of the tripod...

There are also some areas where compact form cameras like the CSCs win out - aerial use, crash cam, etc.

Yes, the c series camcorders are better, and some of the Sonys even better still, but feature films and tv shows have been shot on 5D3's. I've had about a third of an hour long programme broadcast shot on a 550D..

There is no blanket one size fits all assumption to make. Everybody is doing different stuff at different ability levels and with different needs. There are a class of wealthy hobbyist who is poised to jump at a click of Philip Blooms fingers. I prefer to listen to the likes of John Steele, or John Aitchison. And I don't jump for anybody.


----------



## benperrin (Jul 7, 2015)

Yes video is still needed in DSLRs. Even if most people don't know how to use it video can come in handy and it's easier to have everything in one body. If you are serious and want quality and features you'll want to go with something like the gh4 or a black magic camera or better but the quality of dslr video is good enough for most people. I don't get why people complain that it's a feature of modern dslrs and I also don't get why people expect a stills camera to include 8k internal video.


----------



## Pixel (Jul 7, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > Autofocus and contiguous moving pictures do not mix.
> ...



The 7D2 AF tracking is pretty phenomenal for this class of camera. When it comes around to the 5D4 and 1Dx2 it will probably be world class.


----------



## Tinky (Jul 7, 2015)

Yep. I didn't use that exact superlative. I'm sure of it's type it will be world class. It's the type thats wrong though.

Folk who fancy doing video commercially need to learn how to manually focus I'm afraid. You need to look. You need to think. Your fingers need to be able to do what your eye tells them. 

I can't think of another way to say it.


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 7, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > When I have the time to set up properly and need high quality.... out come the DSLRs.... mostly because of the lenses....
> ...



+2. I even picked up a 2nd M to use as a dedicated home video rig. Toss on a flash bracket for good two hand support, external mic, magic lantern and it's a great little tool for capturing the occasional goofy thing kids say. I love photography, but even I recognize that I need to capture occasional family moments with a little sound and motion.


----------



## syder (Jul 7, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Autofocus and contiguous moving pictures do not mix.
> 
> Autofocus can be as precise as is scientifically and technically possible, it can be as seemingly instantaneous as one could want.
> 
> ...



^^This. If you're worrying about video (which means running sound as well as image) you're not taking stills at the same time. You just can't do both justice on your own. In fact just doing the image and audio simultaneously is bad enough, which is why most video crews will have at least two people. 

DSLRs have a place for video, and it includes niches such as crash cams (Mad max, Avengers etc - they're practically disposable, small and will be easier to match to your A/B cameras than a GoPro) and prosumer video where being able to spend money on one device that does still and moving images makes economic sense.

For most professional video though, I'd be hard pressed to choose a DSLR over a dedicated cinema camera, even an entry level model like a C100. The ergonomics, built in ND filters, and XLR inputs just make life so much easier than using a DSLR if you aren't on a big crew. And if you're on a big crew with a decent budget you should be able to use something in the FS7/C300 bracket. In 2008 that wasn't an option, you had the 5DM2 or a Red One. Now there are a range of dedicated cinema camera that fill most of those spaces.

As an aside, I've only ever had horror stories about the Blackmagic cameras from DoP's. So many people whose opinions I respect told me that they had bought the internet hype bought or rented one and ran screaming after they lost footage, crashed mid-take, or lacked basic features they'd assumed would be there that I've stopped paying much attention to their annual new camera announcements. And as someone who is mainly interested in documentary, the BMCs high ISO material looks awful compared to the competition. They make cameras which are adored by internet gearheads but appear hated by DoPs. Which seems to be the antithesis of Canon, who were told by hundreds of Internet experts that the C300/C100 would fail horribly as they were hopelessly underspecced, and yet both went on to sell very well and are still heavily used for tv.


----------



## that1guyy (Jul 7, 2015)

I'm pretty sure its here to stay but I don't think Canon cares about prosumer video as their video features are crap on DSLRs.


----------



## Tugela (Jul 7, 2015)

syder said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > Autofocus and contiguous moving pictures do not mix.
> ...



You are assuming that the only people who shoot video are professionals. In fact most people who shoot video are amateurs and I would guess that 99.9% of them want a camera that can shoot stills and video equally well. They don't want to carry two separate dedicated cameras around with them, they only want one. That is why consumer camcorders are all but dead.

That is why pretty much all cameras which are in any way targeted to the consumer market are going to include a video function as well. It is necessary to maximize potential sales.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > The Nikon Df is one example of a high end camera without video...
> ...


Its not my arguement its Future Source


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 7, 2015)

Everything from ASOS fasion catalogue walk to camera video clips to "In the Heart of Sea" now basically use dedicated video cameras we hardly ever rent a DSLR for video. We supply hundreds of commercials annually, hundreds of TV dramas and numerous Features Indie & Major. These shows have had 4K GoPros, C300s, BM pocket cameras, Codex action cam very rarely DSLRs since the demise of the 5D MKII. Now Arri have the Alexa Mini, Canon the C300 MKII I see even less reason for mainstream Features, TV or commercials to use DSLRs. Preston (focus, iris & zoom controls & motors) are constantly on back-order, auto-focus tools exist but are rarely if ever used and Red push into fasion photographers to combine the two disaplines has met a mixed reaction.


----------



## DomTomLondon (Jul 7, 2015)

I work as a photographer and videographer in an international publishing company and have been using two 60D canon cameras for the last 4 years to shoot still and video for web and print. Apart from the lousy compressed MP4 video that comes out of the cameras, it is still a very good option. I now also use a BMCC to shoot video, but not a fan of the crop factor, and larger body size. 

I love the fact that my 5D3 can shoot video, especially RAW 14bit video at 1080p on a FF sensor. And I can use all my Canon glass with it. How many other cameras can do that for just over £2K?

Yes you will need to manually focus your lenses, but I wouldn't want it any other way. Just like I wouldn't put my 5D3 on Auto mode to shoot stills. I want to be in full control.

If you want to video a child's birthday party use an iPhone, it auto focuses in video mode.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 7, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...



Did they provide the poorly chosen example of the Df, too?


----------



## gary samples (Jul 7, 2015)

I can't say I haven't used video on my camera before I have hit the button by accident ! :


----------



## Zeidora (Jul 7, 2015)

I can buy the argument that consumer cameras are used by consumers for do-it-all. 

However, I am still surprised that Hi-end-SLRs have video function. The people who go high end either way, will be happy to have two systems; high end photographers even have multiple cameras for specialized purposes. Re not everybody uses every function, true. But there may be some more germane functions that could be swapped for video in high-end SLR, such as GPS.

Re quality canon glass on SLR, even as a non-video person I can appreciated the f-stop/T-stop difference. But putting pricey Canon/Zeiss cinema lenses on a dSLR is like putting a Ferrari engine into a beetle/2CV. Makes no sense. 

Cameras are tools. Multifunction tools are not as good as dedicated ones. e.g., spork


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


No I did clearly your superior to everyone else who posts the key was in the word "example". Can I suggest a good anger management school?


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 7, 2015)

I use video... Here and there. When I bought my Canon xs, I was disappointed that video capabilities weren't included... But I do use video in my mkiii. I shoot at 60 fps and make slow mo video for sports...


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 7, 2015)

Zeidora said:


> I am still surprised that Hi-end-SLRs have video function.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> there may be some more germane functions that could be swapped for video in high-end SLR, such as GPS.


I'm surprised that you're surprised: once you have "Live View," video is free: you just record your live view image. Video is also a driving force in some body improvements, e.g. heat management and power consumption.



> Multifunction tools are not as good as dedicated ones. e.g., spork


The fact that I can use a screwdriver to dig out weeds in no way diminishes its utility as a screwdriver. I have yet to year a compelling argument (though some good speculation) as to how inclusion of video could negatively affect stills.

Summary: video is, as far as end-users can determine, a free add-on to stills. (I reject the idea that an extra button is a big deal)


----------



## veng (Jul 7, 2015)

Video is a zero (or nearly zero) cost add for DSLRs. It's not going anywhere, even if no one uses it. Am I going to buy a DSLR for the primary use of video recording? Of course not. However, always having a video camera on me when I bring my DSLR means I'll take some videos that I wouldn't have taken otherwise.


----------



## gsealy (Jul 7, 2015)

The DSLR, in particular the 5DIII, offers a cost effective and light weight means to capture great HD video. We use them as part of multi-camera shoot that includes camcorders and DSLRs. The 5DIIIs allow us to use various lens to create variety and interest into the overall program. Most of our work is documentary style shooting, that is, there are no do-overs. We have to capture as much as possible the first and only time. So we need at least 3, and sometimes as many as 5, cameras shooting. We want overall views to establish context and we also want closeups with isolation on individual subjects so that we get their expressions and reactions. Then we put it all together in post to produce the program.

So yeah, I am very interested in DSLR video capability.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 7, 2015)

I wonder, as the technologies for both still and video imaging improves, will there be a point when trying to make one body do both will result in a less than optimal system for either?


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 7, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> I wonder, as the technologies for both still and video imaging improves, will there be a point when trying to make one body do both will result in a less than optimal system for either?



When we can shoot stills at video framerates we'll just shoot video, then pick out the still frames later. Also, "less than optimal" does not mean "mutually exclusive." As long as neither appreciably impairs the other there's no reason they can't co-exist.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 7, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> When we can shoot stills at video framerates we'll just shoot video, then pick out the still frames later.



This is a common misconception. The optimal shutter speed for shooting video is double the frame rate (1/60th second for 30 frames per second). This might be fine for some purposes, but for anything moving you won't get a sharp image. In fact, the slight blurring that occurs when shooting at the slower shutter speed is desirable for video as the eye fills in the gap. Doesn't work for stills.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 7, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> No I did clearly your superior to everyone else who posts the key was in the word "example". Can I suggest a good anger management school?



1) Perhaps if you'd linked to your (future) source, it would have been more clear. Your statement, "_ I know personally Ive never used any of my Canon DSLRs for video, I would much sooner use the GoPro or my Sony video camera ergonomically both are easier,_" certainly suggested your support for the argument. 

2) As others pointed out, the Df was a poor example. It was a marketing gambit by Nikon, we've seen how well it turned out. Of course, there are many reasons for that, but excluding video was likely part of it. 'Pure photography'...phthth. 

3) Superior? No, although I can usually at least manage to use you're vs. your properly. 

4) I'll pass on your offer of a recommendation, although your offer to recommend a good one (as opposed to a poor one) implies personal experience with such institutions.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 7, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > When we can shoot stills at video framerates we'll just shoot video, then pick out the still frames later.
> ...


You assume we'd shoot video-for-stills the same way we shoot video-for-video; in fact, what I describe is nearly true now for sports, especially for some of the new mirrorless offerings. Also, there's no reason to believe it won't be possible to shoot stills-quality at 60-90 fps, then use software to simulate the slower shutter appearance of 30fps video: it's already possible to create videos that morph between two still images, so why not do that for every frame? 

You may be right, but I think it's safe to assume that new technologies will lead to new techniques.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > No I did clearly your superior to everyone else who posts the key was in the word "example". Can I suggest a good anger management school?
> ...


Thankfully not and I see no point in carrying on this conversation you clearly like belittling people and being holier than thou.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 8, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> Thankfully not and I see no point in carrying on this conversation



Yet you felt the need to carry it on anyway... Or maybe you mean you wanted to have the last word? Or maybe this means you're ready to stop posting personal insults to me, when this started out as a criticism of your chosen example, and not the level of personal attack to which you brought the thread.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 8, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> Everything from ASOS fasion catalogue walk to camera video clips to "In the Heart of Sea" now basically use dedicated video cameras we hardly ever rent a DSLR for video. We supply hundreds of commercials annually, hundreds of TV dramas and numerous Features Indie & Major. These shows have had 4K GoPros, C300s, BM pocket cameras, Codex action cam very rarely DSLRs since the demise of the 5D MKII. Now Arri have the Alexa Mini, Canon the C300 MKII I see even less reason for mainstream Features, TV or commercials to use DSLRs. Preston (focus, iris & zoom controls & motors) are constantly on back-order, auto-focus tools exist but are rarely if ever used and Red push into fasion photographers to combine the two disaplines has met a mixed reaction.



I tend to agree with you here....

Also, when you look at ergonomics, DSLRs really don't cut it. They are designed to be best held while looking through the viewfinder... not at the rear screen. To shoot video, you really need a tripod as it is almost impossible to hold them anywhere close to steady and look at the rear screen.... and operating any control (even on a tripod) produces noise and shake.... very unlike those ancient Beta ENG cameras which were so easy to handhold steady....

However, we have to remember that it is the masses who determine features of a camera.... not the photographic and videography elite. Most want a single tool that does everything and their answer is a DSLR with video mode. As long as they don't screw around with the form factor and there is only one or two extra buttons we photographers shouldn't complain.... the increased sales due to this feature helps keep the prices down and Canon profitable..... a small price to pay.

The masses leave everything set as the default "auto" and press record. They use the built in microphone. Sometimes (rarely) they use a tripod. When they take stills, the camera is in "green box" mode.... As a professional, or enthusiast, you move beyond that. You realize that the sound alone is a production and add external mics and then remote mics.... You move into studio lighting and discover that colour balancing your lights is another job just on it's own. You realize that AF is your enemy..... it isn't just realizing you should turn it off, it's the realization that almost all DSLR lenses were designed for AF and that the 1/4 or less turn on the AF ring to go from near to far is much too finicky to do the job and you wish that it was a full turn (or more)... and then you realize that keeping focus on a moving subject is a full time job.... and with LOTS of practice you can do those three or four jobs at the same time... and this holds true for whatever box you are using... you learn and grow.

Ergonomics? With the exception of a GoPro.... darn near everything has a better user interface for video than a DSLR... but there is some great video being shot on GoPros.... often it is the right tool for the job and it's strengths (size, cost, portability, remote control) make up for the lousy ergonomics.... and the same hold true with a DSLR.

So should it stay as a feature on DSLRs? Yes! As mentioned above, it helps with sales and keeps costs down. It can also provide some good quality video IF you learn to use it well. If you REALLY want to get into video, it is a great starting point.... but be prepared to leave it behind.


----------



## benperrin (Jul 8, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Zeidora said:
> 
> 
> > I am still surprised that Hi-end-SLRs have video function.
> ...


Yes, the only extra resources for the video is the firmware/software side of things. I don't understand why people want it to be excluded when it is just an option that you can use if you wish. It would be like saying I don't want live view magnification for focus purposes as I only ever use autofocus. Sure some might only use autofocus but wouldn't you prefer to have the option if you needed it?


----------



## Tugela (Jul 8, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > When we can shoot stills at video framerates we'll just shoot video, then pick out the still frames later.
> ...



This is another common misconception. Setting shutter speed at double the frame rate is only important at low frame rates where there is rapid movement. The resultant blur gives the impression of fluid movement. At higher frame rates it is unnecessary, nor is it necessary if your scene doesn't have rapid movement. Most TV sets nowdays have some sort of frame doubling or quading going on, on those sets slow shutter speeds is more of a detriment than an advantage.


----------



## Proscribo (Jul 8, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> When we can shoot stills at video framerates we'll just shoot video, then pick out the still frames later.


I somehow doubt this. While it may be true for very fast action and at some point the equipment does allow that, shooting video for stills (let's say video means at least 30fps, however this could be way up too) will in most cases just produce way too much data for us photographers to work with. Heck there's been multiple times when I've just deleted a bunch of photos of a single burst because they all looked good, I don't have time to pixel-peep every single photo I take. And this is with my 70D that has only 7fps and doesn't always produce perfect pics... but ofc there are times when I (and many others?) could use video-like 30fps speed but simply put, it's just not worth the work most of the time.

Equipment will get faster and faster but people mostly don't. However I do wish picking out those just-right frames later would be that easy.. it would ease up things already. 

PS. I hope you people understand what I write here.


----------



## Kmccarthy (Jul 8, 2015)

The original appeal of the 5DII (for video) was the large sensor, high quality lenses, in a light weight, cost effective package. Nothing like that existed at the time. The fact that it was also a DSLR was not really a factor for most videographers. Now there are several dedicated video cameras that meet those requirements, along with better video ergonomics and features. Videographers now have better options than DSLRs. 
However, video should continue to be supported in DSLRs for semi-pros and amatures that want an all-in-one solution.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 8, 2015)

Proscribo said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > When we can shoot stills at video framerates we'll just shoot video, then pick out the still frames later.
> ...


Let's say I want to shoot video at 30FPS..... I want my shutter speed at around 1/40 second. If there is action, every one of the stills extracted from the video will be blurred. When we watch it as a movie, our brain interprets these blurred images and puts them together as smooth action and we do not notice the blur.

If you shoot video with a high shutter speed, the images have no blur and when watched, the brain interprets this as jerky motion.

In short, you really don't want to take stills from properly done video....


----------



## Tugela (Jul 10, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Proscribo said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



That is only true at low frame rates if you are displaying at that frame rate. Modern TV sets usually run at 120 or 240 fps and interpolate frames. With those sets you can shoot at any shutter speed you feel like at there will be no stuttering. Even at 60 fps stuttering is not really an issue. It is primarily a problem with stuff shot at 24 or 30 fps.


----------



## Tinky (Jul 10, 2015)

I have to disagree here, itis the motion blur that assists the illusion of motion, it is essential,especially at lower frame rates such as 25fps, less so with 50i, it cannot be faked accurately on the fly.

The advice always is shoot to broadcast system of your country, as that is what the tvs in the shops have been specc'd for.

Before I run a programme out for broadcast I check it on an led tv and a crt tv. Lowest common denominator and all that.

Also, if you start using very high shutter speeds you also start shuttering out light, which you wither have to add with em, more light (I'm fine with this, my reds and cfds play niceat different shutter speeds, led panels.... hmm, not everybody carries lights or wants the hassle), more iris (and so less depth of field options) and / or higher iso (generally not desirable)

I think the option of dual use material is great, but they are not settings you would want to use all the time just in case, as they would be to the detriment of both your video and your stills.

A true hybrid device would probably need to have a prism splitter and two seperate image devices, with different sensor read off rates (a conventional shutter on one imager would probably introduce vibration to the other) different shutter speeds (probably ekectronic shutters) abd different colour soace gamuts (srgb for video, adobe rgb for print)

Yes 4k has the potential for printable grabs, but to be fair, 1080 grabs are more than up to internet and newsprint standards, I can't reasonably think of other situations where I wouldn't want to have a dedicated stills photographer... say portraits, covers etc.

The still image isn't dead, we just seem to keep willing it so. I'm all for divergance. Accountants might not get it. A lot of arrogant photographers might not get it, but video abd stills are totally different... composition is pivotal in stills, a self contained story in a frane essential for photojournalism, wheras video guys can play with sequences and montage, not to mention sound.

The person who expects video and stills similtaneously from the same session must be prepared to accept medicrity in both


----------



## dolina (Jul 10, 2015)

Video helps sell more slrs so one hope is lowers over all selling price.

Without video prices would be higher like those of the Nikon DF.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 10, 2015)

Tinky said:


> The person who expects video and stills similtaneously from the same session must be prepared to accept medicrity in both



Well said!

Last time I shot at a concert, I had 2 GoPro's recording fixed angles (one was hanging from the roof), a 7D2 with assorted lenses for specific scenes, and a 5D2 for the stills.... different purpose, different tools....


----------



## Nitroman (Jul 10, 2015)

I used my 5D2 just a couple of weeks ago to shoot this video ... And i took stills from the screen grabs for my portfolio.

I absolutely still need video in my dslr as I don't want two lots of kit to carry around !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr0PJwV3mEs


----------



## Tugela (Jul 10, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > The person who expects video and stills similtaneously from the same session must be prepared to accept medicrity in both
> ...



Why do you have to accept mediocrity at both? A camera is a camera, the processing of the data, whether it is done as video or as stills, is a computing problem. Clearly it is possible to have high quality at both, as demonstrated by cameras like the NX1 and others like it. I am shocked that any enthusiast would accept anything less than excellence at both in any enthusiast camera because there is no excuse for mediocrity at all.

The only reason manufacturers think they can get away with it is because of attitudes like yours, where "knowledgeable" people believe they need two separate cameras even though they don't really. The manufacturers like that sort of attitude because it allows then to sell two cameras instead of one.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 10, 2015)

Tugela said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Tinky said:
> ...


I think we have a slight misunderstanding......

You can set up a DSLR for great stills.
You can set up a DSLR for great video.
but you can't do both at the same time on the same camera body or you have to make too many compromises.


----------



## Tugela (Jul 10, 2015)

Tinky said:


> I have to disagree here, itis the motion blur that assists the illusion of motion, it is essential,especially at lower frame rates such as 25fps, less so with 50i, it cannot be faked accurately on the fly.
> 
> The advice always is shoot to broadcast system of your country, as that is what the tvs in the shops have been specc'd for.
> 
> ...



Not necessary. Modern digital TV sets adjust their frame rates to the input signal. Display complications come in when you try to change the frame rate in your editor. You should be shooting to match the frame rate of your output device. 

If your TV can interpolate between frames (as most mid to high end sets can) then the shutter speed doesn't matter since the interpolation will create the illusion of fluid motion (that is what it is there for). Low shutter speeds will at motion blur, and on an interpolated frame that will simply become smudging. IIRC the human eye requires about 40fps for the illusion of fluid motion, anything over that and shutter speed is not a big issue. When you shoot at 30fps or 24fps then you start to encounter problems because the eye can see the difference at those intervals. The main problem occurs not on modern TV sets, but on computer monitors, which are much more limited in terms of display options. 

The basic rule is to match your shooting rate to the output. In general terms it means that good practice for the widest possible selection of display devices is to shoot at 60fps.


----------



## Tugela (Jul 10, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Of course you can. If you are still stuck in the old paradigm of shooting on film, you might think so, but it is not true in the modern world.


----------



## that1guyy (Jul 10, 2015)

Nitroman said:


> I used my 5D2 just a couple of weeks ago to shoot this video ... And i took stills from the screen grabs for my portfolio.
> 
> I absolutely still need video in my dslr as I don't want two lots of kit to carry around !
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr0PJwV3mEs



Nice images. I sometimes forget that the 5D II is still very capable in the right hands.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 10, 2015)

Tugela said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



If you wish to convince me that there is no compromise in trying to shoot video and extract stills from it, all you have to do is teach me how, using a video file of 8 bit heavily compressed 2Mpixel mpeg, I can extract 3 x 14 bits of 20+ Mpixel RAW file.


----------



## Tinky (Jul 10, 2015)

being technically possible and being creatively or aesthetically desirable are of course two different things.

on something as carefully lit and cinematographered as a feature film (not to mention footage with minimal compression) yeah, the 8mp grabs will look great for pr purposes...

stills from xavcs or h265 temporalily and spatially reconstructed... technically poorer

set yo for srgb (for video) or adobe rgb, either print or the display is losing out...

yes you can do it. good luck to those who will accept those kind of compromises.

one useful situation? evidence. another? medical reference. another? photojournalism.

otherwise, you are better with a dedicated brain for each task. folk who don't get this have never done video seriously.


----------



## Tinky (Jul 10, 2015)

Tugela said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > I have to disagree here, itis the motion blur that assists the illusion of motion, it is essential,especially at lower frame rates such as 25fps, less so with 50i, it cannot be faked accurately on the fly.
> ...



Actually, it's 24fps. 
But you are better shooting for the broadcast system of your region, which for half the planet isn't NTSC or 60fps.

Modern tv sets can handle different signals. But if you are shooting for broadcast you need cognisence of what the briadcast system is, and of what broadcasters will accept. When it goes over the tx system it's a standardised container, no matter how it was shot, so even the smartest telly in the world will only see the standardised 50i or 60i input and treat your fast shutter, deliberately strobing band if brothers esque the same as it would a game show, tennis match, wildlife documentary or sofa advert.

I.e. Relying on your fancy telly to fix it it in your front room is fine for you, if your footage is only for you.. and even then it might just undo a carefully selected shutter angle artefact, but heys...


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 10, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Actually, it's 24fps.
> But you are better shooting for the broadcast system of your region, which for half the planet isn't NTSC or 60fps.
> 
> Modern tv sets can handle different signals. But if you are shooting for broadcast you need cognisence of what the briadcast system is, and of what broadcasters will accept. When it goes over the tx system it's a standardised container, no matter how it was shot, so even the smartest telly in the world will only see the standardised 50i or 60i input and treat your fast shutter, deliberately strobing band if brothers esque the same as it would a game show, tennis match, wildlife documentary or sofa advert.
> ...



Flying birds are great for artifacts. It is rare to see footage of flying birds where the wings are flapping at the true speed..... usually because the flap so fast they would be a blur.... but with some of the larger birds (think geese) you can get a beat frequency where each frame is synchronized with the wings and you get the appearance of the bird flying without moving it's wings and if you are really lucky, with multiple pairs of wings. My favourite was one clip I saw which showed a Canada goose with 3 pairs of stationary wings fly across the sky... no TV is going to fix that one......


----------



## Tinky (Jul 11, 2015)

Exactly.

Everybody is getting all het up about the super slo-mo capabilities of the RX100iv and the RX10ii. Whats the point of shooting at 1/32'000 and 500fps to get the beat of a bumblebees wings if your snazzy telly thinks it knows better and tries to fix the 'artefacts' which were actually intended.

I think sometimes consumers can have too much choice and that a little knowledge is usually a dangerous thing.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 11, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Everybody is getting all het up about the super slo-mo capabilities of the RX100iv and the RX10ii. Whats the point of shooting at 1/32'000 and 500fps to get the beat of a bumblebees wings if your snazzy telly thinks it knows better and tries to fix the 'artefacts' which were actually intended.
> 
> I think sometimes consumers can have too much choice and that a little knowledge is usually a dangerous thing.



It is good if you want to slow things down to examine it.... but with the bird example, EVERYONE plays it slowed down and people who watch TV have no idea how fast the wee beasties flap....

Here's an example of chickadees.... some of the footage is at normal speed and the wings show up in random positions.... and some of the footage is slowed down by a factor of 20 so you can see... Apologies for the quality... just fooling around and couldn't be bothered putting in sound....

https://vimeo.com/119292758


----------



## Tinky (Jul 11, 2015)

How delicate and amazing.

They really do live life in fast motion, to beat predators I guess.

Motion rendered beautifully, bud.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 11, 2015)

That's one of the best things I've seen on this site. So many questions: how do you get them to eat out your hand? How was this shot? Etc. etc. 

I love how they pick up one seed. Reject it. Then sample another. I've watched birds at the feeder flinging seed out of the tray but assumed they were looking for preferred types. Those guys seem to be choosing particular sunflower seeds.


----------



## dolina (Jul 11, 2015)

I think the better question would be.

Is threads doubting the need for video in SLRs really needed to be repeated on a nearly annual basis?


----------



## Tinky (Jul 11, 2015)

what is really needed in life if you think about it?


----------



## asmundma (Jul 13, 2015)

Maybe not.. shooting video is much easier with a mirrorless camera with a decent electronic view finder. Using a DSLR and no autofocus, you rely on focus pulling and some kind of monitor. I have moved shooting video from 5D3 to A7s and it amazing quality. Still better still pictures on 5D3. 
And, I find autofocus useful for one man rigs - of course dependant on what you shoot. Filming sports you may use autofocus to follow a guy running against you (on Sony A7s with native lenses). You need a lot more rigging to do proper focus pulling. 
We all know the professional films is done with manual focus - but why are Canon putting in auto focus on C100, etc. 
So I do not agree fully that video and auto focus does not match. If works for me on A7s, however I also use manual depending on the situation. 
The need to both taking pictures and video is very useful on travels, as it keep your equipment weight low, I guess A7R ii can be a killer there. 
I agree that is difficult to both take picture and do video on an busy event, easy to miss out the best shoot.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 16, 2015)

dolina said:


> I think the better question would be.
> 
> Is threads doubting the need for video in SLRs really needed to be repeated on a nearly annual basis?



Are threads complaining about the level of video capability in SLRs really needed on a weekly basis?

I really don't understand it; I have several friends with SLRs and, to my knowledge, they all shoot stills exclusively. All the bleating about 4k and bitrate and blah blah blah gets old in a hurry, but, to some people, apparently it's crucial for some unfathomable reason.


----------



## Tugela (Jul 17, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > I think the better question would be.
> ...



Because many people want state of the art cameras that shoot state of the art video as well as stills. Why should they have to do without because it isn't something you want?

A modern camera should be able to do both things equally well. If it can't, then it isn't a modern camera. Therein lies the problem - a substantial number of users want and demand that the manufacturer of the system they are using provide such a state of the art camera, and it is painfully evident that at some manufacturers are dropping the ball in this respect. So, yes, these people DO have the right to be pissed about it.

Having a feature you don't use doesn't hurt you - just don't use it if you don't want to. But having a feature you do use absent or otherwise deficient does hurt you.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 17, 2015)

Tugela said:



> Because many people want state of the art cameras that shoot state of the art video as well as stills. Why should they have to do without because it isn't something you want?
> 
> A modern camera should be able to do both things equally well. If it can't, then it isn't a modern camera. Therein lies the problem - a substantial number of users want and demand that the manufacturer of the system they are using provide such a state of the art camera, and it is painfully evident that at some manufacturers are dropping the ball in this respect. So, yes, these people DO have the right to be pissed about it.
> 
> Having a feature you don't use doesn't hurt you - just don't use it if you don't want to. But having a feature you do use absent or otherwise deficient does hurt you.



I don't agree with your premise that anything else isn't a modern camera - it might not be a camera that checks all your boxes, but "modern" has nothing to do with it. You're assuming that adding it doesn't hurt me - I've seen the claim, over and over, that it's "free", but I haven't seen any evidence that the validation, encoding, etc adds nothing to the bottom line.

That, and the constant bleating about it is as annoying as the DR chants You want video. We get it. Whining on the web won't make it happen.


----------

