# Baffles the mind



## roxics (Oct 9, 2013)

I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures? 

I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really? 

In my opinion these cameras are set when it comes to photo features. They don't need to get any better than they already are. With maybe one exception, AF speed/accuracy during liveview. It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.


----------



## brett b (Oct 9, 2013)

roxics said:


> I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?
> 
> I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?
> 
> In my opinion these cameras are set when it comes to photo features. They don't need to get any better than they already are. With maybe one exception, AF speed/accuracy during liveview. It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.



Many people who make their living with still photography don't like being forced to pay for video functionality that isn't going to benefit them financially. 
For me, video doesn't boost my income. 
While I agree with you're thoughts that video features can be improved, I disagree that photo features are "set". Your focus of interest will influence what you believe should be prioritized in future generation DSLR's.


----------



## fragilesi (Oct 9, 2013)

brett b said:


> roxics said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?
> ...



Agreed. In addition I'm no pro but photography not videography is what I want the camera for. The video functionality has been used a few times and I have appreciated it but . . .

If Canon say brought out a 70d-like camera with zero video capability and just a couple of stills improvements such as an extra stop or two of low-light improvement and 100% viewfinder for the same price I would likely choose that instead.


----------



## daltech (Oct 9, 2013)

For me, I make money with stills, not video, and I couldn't care much about AF speed, I think today's lens, like the Canon 70-200 IS II USM is plenty fast with any recent body, what I'm after, is ISO performance/quality, less noise, and there, there's PLENTY of room for improvement, although it has got better.


----------



## bvukich (Oct 9, 2013)

I've had a 5D3 since shortly after it was available, and I can honestly say I haven't shot a single second of video with it. I also have a 60D, also since shortly after it was available, I think I've shot maybe two short videos.

I just have zero interest in video. Stills are way more interesting to me.

I don't have any illusion that a modern DSLR without video would be cheaper, in fact the opposite is more likely true. I would bet however, that compromises in stills performance have been made to accommodate video. But complaining about that would be pretty pointless.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.


----------



## davidson (Oct 9, 2013)

pretty much the same as people who buy them for video only, or people who buy them and use only the green square. very few people use every single feature of their cameras. people buy what they want and use it how they choose....*shrugs shoulders*


----------



## unfocused (Oct 9, 2013)

roxics said:


> I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?



I don't have a $3,000 body, but I've never shot video on my $1,600 body. Why not? Maybe because I know I suck at it. Good video and good stills photography are worlds apart. I "see" in stills, I compose in stills and I prefer stills for the final presentation of my work. 

I put video in the category of "maybe some day." Sure, I have some interest but I wouldn't be happy with crappy, amateurish work. I have had enough experience in my paying career to know that there are vast differences between the two mediums and if you are going to be good at it, you have to develop an entirely different skill set. 



brett b said:


> Many people who make their living with still photography don't like being forced to pay for video functionality that isn't going to benefit them financially. For me, video doesn't boost my income.



Well, in a way it does boost your income because it reduces your costs. No one is "forced to pay for video functionality" in fact just the opposite. Still photographers are coasting on the cost savings that has been generated by the inclusion of video functionality in the product. 

DSLRs aren't film cameras. They are at heart video cameras that have been modified to shoot stills. Including the video capability costs the manufacturers next to nothing and significantly increases the sales base, thereby lowering the cost of the final product for everyone. In addition, video improvements help improve the overall functionality of the product so we all benefit from the research and development.



bvukich said:


> I would bet however, that compromises in stills performance have been made to accommodate video.



This is, in my opinion, a legitimate concern. For the past several years we've seen a convergence between stills and video. But, we may soon reach the point where one begins to infringe upon the other. 

Would a 20 mp APS-C sensor have less noise and better low-light sensitivity if it did not have dual-pixel technology splitting the pixels so that video autofocus is improved? I don't know. If we start seeing significant compromises being made to accommodate video, I may change my opinion, but so far, the tiny adjustments that are being made are probably well worth it in the interest of keeping the cost of equipment somewhat affordable. 

In summary: I'm not personally interested in video but I welcome the video functionality because it saves me money and generates innovation that spills over to my stills photography.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 9, 2013)

Most of the video that I have shot with my 60D has been through the telescope for use in image-stacking... I have shot a few concerts with it and the obligitory clips of Fluffy the cat... and a couple chasing geese down a creek. GooseCreek2 on Vimeo


I have done a few clips from the canoe, but most of the time when I am shooting video my Go-To camera is a GoPro.... more for the indistructability than anything else... I have shot a lot of poor footage with it 

Quality wise, the DSLR and the lens selection wins hands-down... Would I miss video on my DSLR? Yes, but not enough to care one way or the other..


----------



## trof2 (Oct 9, 2013)

fragilesi said:


> brett b said:
> 
> 
> > roxics said:
> ...



I'm also among the people who have used the video function a handful of times. I recently discovered that the captured video can be used to generate Lytro-style selective focus images. Cool, sure, but I don't really care for that either.

If a still-only camera with superb quality stills was available, I'd get one in a heartbeat, too. The thing is that Canon won't strip functionality from their lineup because that significantly reduces their marketability. Eliminating video won't reduce production costs because it's probably a 90% software function. They would only be losing the videographers with that move.

...unless there is a substantial market of photo "purists" (who haven't already turned to Leica). Although, I bet there is a significant chunk of the Leica photo purists who wouldn't mind going with a Canon analog for the EF lineup...


----------



## DIABLO (Oct 9, 2013)

I love Indy car racing but not Nascar. Even though they both are cars racing.
I love Rugby but not football. Even though they both run with a ball and are tackled.
I love Baseball but not cricket. Even though they both use wooden objects and a ball. 

I could go on and on but we all get the picture. Not liking one thing,event,etc of similar qualites does not or should not baffles one's mind.

I grew up taking pictures using those cheap film cameras. When I decided to make
the jump to digital I did my research. Video wasn't a factor at all. I just brought the best camera I could afford and that was it.
I would rather capture a photo of a Ivory Billed Woodpecker(if they still exist) than a few seconds of video of it.

Its a give and take world we live in. Even though most of us will not use the video function of a dslr, its still a huge selling point for canon. Therefore its here to stay!


----------



## Aglet (Oct 9, 2013)

roxics said:


> How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?



Hmmm.. I've never heard anyone want to print and hang a video on a wall.

Only time I shot video was for a raucous parade that I was then able to show to some housebound octogenarians later. (used a 60D) 
OTOH, my buddy was shooting stills of the same event and I prefer looking at his stills, and the few that I took, than my video.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 9, 2013)

roxics said:


> I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?
> 
> I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?



Do you find it easy and/or convenient to shoot video with your dSLR?

Perhaps the 70D's DPAF will result in AF quality that approaches that of current camcorders, I haven't tried it. How about a nice, smooth power zoom function? Easy to use dedicated accessories like a directional mic that transmits sound to the recording right through the hotshoe? I have one for my Vixia HF M41. A form factor that fits easily in one hand? Shall I go on?

I've seen plenty of dSLR video footage that is, quite frankly, crap. The DoF is thin, the shooter can't keep the subject(s) in focus, there are extraneous noises from zooming, exposure changes aren't handled well, I get queasy from the camera motion, etc. I've seen dSLR video footage that looks great...and I've seen the rigs used to create that footage - stabilizers/harnesses, LCD viewfinder or external monitor, follow focus setup, etc. 

While there are no doubt some stills shooters with zero interest in video, I suspect there are a lot more stills shooters with no interest in shooting video _with a dSLR_. Speaking for myself, I do shoot family videos - and I find the Vixia camcorder or even my iPhone much more conventient for that use.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 9, 2013)

roxics said:


> I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?
> 
> I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?
> 
> In my opinion these cameras are set when it comes to photo features. They don't need to get any better than they already are. With maybe one exception, AF speed/accuracy during liveview. It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.



I have 2 5D III. I don't recall last time I shoot video with it. I shoot thousand-thousand photos with it though. 

This is why Canon making "IS" primes, instead of fast primes :-\

"They don't need to get any better than they already are" - really?


----------



## sdsr (Oct 9, 2013)

roxics said:


> I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?
> 
> I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?



Yes, really. I once accidentally shot some video with a point-and-shoot when I inadvertently knocked it into video mode, but aside from that and the few minutes of frantic kitten activity I intentionally (if cluelessly) shot with my 6D, I've never used the video function of any camera I've owned (when I sell them on ebay, I add a disclaimer to that effect). I just don't want to do it (and if I did, I would buy a video camera). This isn't "dismissal" - it's a simple lack of inclination.  Nor does it seem "natural" to me that if you like doing the one you'll like doing the other (it would seem more "natural" to me to want to paint as well as take still photos). I no more want video in a camera than I want a camera in a phone.

(Nor have I used any camera I've owned to create HDR images, take slow shutter photos of waterfalls, or do various other things I could have done with them.)


----------



## 7enderbender (Oct 9, 2013)

roxics said:


> I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?
> 
> I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?
> 
> In my opinion these cameras are set when it comes to photo features. They don't need to get any better than they already are. With maybe one exception, AF speed/accuracy during liveview. It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.




Interesting thought. I am one of those crazy people. I've had my 5DII (my first digital SLR by the way, coming directly from 35mm film) now for exactly 3 years I think. I've used the video functionality once.

Video doesn't interest me as a medium or art form if you will. I despise the editing process and only do it if I absolutely must. And then I use a designated camcorder. Or better yet my iPhone. I don't care about the quality of it. My approach to video is that of other people's snapshots with their camera phones. I share them with friends and family and rarely look at them again. I go to the movie theater maybe once a year - at best.

It's not that I don't enjoy the occasional movie or even TV series for it's production value. But even then I look at things like lighting or so more as a photographer if that makes sense. Things like score and sound I also pay more attention to.

Photography is about the moment. For actual story telling along a timeline I prefer music, books or the actual content of a movie or feature. 

I wonder where the different preferences come from. Come to think of it it may be how we process details. I like the details of visual arts but maybe I'm not quick enough to process them in moving pictures. In music on the other hand I notice every little detail immediately even though it's a continuum. I believe that's why I prefer photography and music over pretty much everything else.


----------



## dstppy (Oct 9, 2013)

+1 for no video.

1) too much borderline OCD for editing . . . I gotta have credits and everything
2) good 'real' video needs external mics just to start with . . . they don't take pictures as well 
3) see #1: video takes up too much space; I can keep all of my raw (even bad ones) just to feel like I'm not missing anything
4) see #1: canon software messes with my numbering scheme 

Just like having good equipment doesn't make you a real photographer, having video equipment doesn't make you a filmmaker; I think most of us appreciate that it's a different skill set and therefore it's a 'nice' feature, just not one that we'd like to finance.


----------



## RC (Oct 9, 2013)

I haven't even tested the video function on my 5D3. I've captured a few videos from my S100. I've shot hours and hours of video from camcorders. I think Neuro hit the nail on the head.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 9, 2013)

roxics said:


> I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?
> 
> I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?
> 
> In my opinion these cameras are set when it comes to photo features. They don't need to get any better than they already are. With maybe one exception, AF speed/accuracy during liveview. It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.



I suspect that you shoot video more than you shoot stills, and this is why you are baffled. As many have already said, to _properly_ shoot video requires many bulky and expensive accessories as well as a different skill set and vision. I suppose I am a dinosaur since I don't even own a phone that shoots video. The handful of videos that I _have_ made were at parties where drinking, silliness and occasional disrobing have occurred. My 550D was more than adequate for this purpose, and my 5Dll was even more so


----------



## unfocused (Oct 9, 2013)

dstppy said:


> +1 for no video.
> 
> ...just not one that we'd like to finance.



But...but...but...we are NOT financing it. It is financing us.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 10, 2013)

unfocused said:


> dstppy said:
> 
> 
> > +1 for no video.
> ...



Wrong. Canon would have much higher revenue (and profits) and could spend more of it on R&D to give us much better stills and video cameras if all those videographers would just buy dedicated, expensive Canon videocams instead of going cheapskate and abusing DSLRs which by their very nature (mirror in lightpath) are not well suited to capture video. Video does not need 20+ megapixel sensors either, if Full-HD is just 2 MP and even 4k is only 8 MP. 

I have purchased 4 Canon DSLRs over the last few years, and had to pay for useless video capabilities, while the cameras got more and more "video optimized" and "stills-compromised". In all those years I have taken exactly a single 10 second test clip with each of these DSLRs just to see whether "it works". I like watching good films and videos, but am not interested to capture video myself, because I find it hard enough to get halfway decent still images. GOOD videos take so much more time, effort, money and creative plus organizational skills during pre production, production, post-production to get a final product that is worthwhile watching. I am no director, no producer, no videographer and do not aspire to ever become one. 

Fotr the kind of videos 99% of amateurs shoot and put on youtube or vimeo, any smartphone would be more than good enough. Shallow DOF? Utterly ridiculous! Again, 99% of amateur videographers have no clue how to use it in any meaningful way. They're hard pressed to hold a camera steady. 

All I want is a stills-optimized camera with outstanding IQ, superior ergonomical handling totally unfettered by red "record video buttons", no microphones, no headphone jacks, no speakers ... nothing! That would also make good weathersealing easier and cheaper. And all the electronical components would not have to be designed in order to handle and process hours of high-dataflow video streams but rather be optimized to give stellar IQ, high resolution, incredible dynamic range and incredibly low noise, no banding, and outstanding color fidelity. AA filters also not needed any longer (a pure video requirement). All the "video-capability" I ever want in one of my cameras is a liveview feed to the built-in LCD and/or EVF. 

Is this really so hard to understand?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 10, 2013)

I shoot about 50:50 video photo with my DSLR.

The difference is I rarely shoot video for anything other than my full time job or paid freelance work, and I rarely shoot stills for anything other than my own pleasure.

I have other camcorders that do somethings better than my DSLR (ENGs with proper audio, servo zoom, built in CC and ND filtration) but on some jobs my DSLR is better (discreet, light, compact, dof, quality of lenses, low light)

I take on board the point that some DSLRs may be compromised by the inclusion of video, I think the AA filter is overboard on the 5D3, for example.

I would also argue that video has enhanced some DSLRs, such as in new live view AF technologies.

What I can say with some certainty is that I like cameras with both.

For all the folk who say it costs them money or they'll never use it, well, please, here, take my:

spot average metering
green square mode
P mode
any pic mode
JPEG shooting
wb bracketing
awb
I could go on but you get the idea.

I never once accused Canon of designing a camera specifically for me, nor did I ever expect them too!


----------



## m (Oct 10, 2013)

roxics said:


> I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?



Some people spend more than twice that much and never shoot color on it.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/860536-REG/Leica_10760_M_Monochrom_Black_and.html



roxics said:


> It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.


They will probably always be behind a dedicated motion picture camera.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 10, 2013)

what really baffles me, is 
* why Canon demands a much higher price for dedicated video-cams like a C100 to C500, since these cameras are all way simpler and cheaper to produce than any DSLR - no mirror, no submirror, no separate phase-AF module, no viewfinder prism, no optical veiwfinder, no mechanics, no complex adjustments ...

* why videographers always demand that DSLRs should become even more "video-bastardized" rather than clamoring Canon to offer them decent, dedicated video-optimized cameras with a large sensor and EF-mount at prices not higehr or even lower than corresponding DSLRs ... not only at the 1Dc level, but also at the pricepoints of a Rebel, a 7D/II and a 5D III.

Really baffles me, why stills photographers should have to put up with these constant demands for ever more video-crap in "our type of cameras".


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 10, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> I shoot about 50:50 video photo with my DSLR.
> 
> The difference is I rarely shoot video for anything other than my full time job or paid freelance work, and I rarely shoot stills for anything other than my own pleasure.
> 
> I have other camcorders that do somethings better than my DSLR (ENGs with proper audio, servo zoom, built in CC and ND filtration) but on some jobs my DSLR is better (discreet, light, compact, dof, quality of lenses, low light)



From what you say, I conclude that you know very well before a shoot, wehteher you will capture video or stills and usually it is one or the other. From my observation of videographers, capturing [professional level] video does not leave enough time and room to allow them to also capture stills at the same time during a shoot. 

So why not just take the requisite camera along for the task at hand. Motion cam when its video time and stills camera, when its stills time. And for the very few occasions when really both are required, you'll want to have two separate cameras anyway ... "typically" one on a tripod (video) and one your hand (stills). 

So, in essence, I fail to see the overwhelming usage scenario for fully video-enabled stills cameras. To me, the sole reason why DSLRs are being abused to also capture video is the absurdly high preice-level of [large sensored] video cams [with a lens mount that accepts a wide range of lenses that are way less expensive than typical video-lenses].


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 10, 2013)

I'm in the don't care about video camp and agree with the other commenters. The funny thing is that this was the primary reasons I went with Canon. In the Nikon D90 vs XSi decision, I decided that I didn't care about video and didn't want to pay extra for it. But my reasons for not shooting video are as follows, and are personal, so I'm sure many will disagree with them:

[list type=decimal]
[*]I think still images are more powerful in most circumstances because you can reflect on them. I can remember numerous amazing photos I've seen, but far fewer videos (Tsunami footage, Rodney King beating, and some others)
[*]I spend enough time shooting, editing, and sitting in front of the computer. Filming 60 minutes of video for 3 minutes of final footage (an often heard figure) just isn't for me.
[*]I don't have the money or desire to invest in matte boxes, focus pullers, external monitors, external storage, a fluid head, external mics, cages, variable ND filters, constant lighting, etc., etc. required for good quality video.
[*]I love using RAW to process my images and give them my personal look, and Canon doesn't support raw video, yet
[/list]

I realize that you don't have to go overboard on all the extra gear, but I'm a perfectionist and wouldn't be happy to shoot "decent" footage. The sad part is that I love movies and have dreamed of being a director since I was very young. Maybe someday I'll do something with video, but for now, I love taking stills too much to spend any time shooting video.

Despite my personal opinions, I in no way fault people for wanting to shoot video and I'm constantly amazed by the work being shot with DSLRs.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 10, 2013)

roxics said:


> I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?
> 
> I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?
> 
> In my opinion these cameras are set when it comes to photo features. They don't need to get any better than they already are. With maybe one exception, AF speed/accuracy during liveview. It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.



I like my video cameras to take video.
I like my still cameras to take still pictures.
I do not like paying the extra money for the R&D to turn my DSLR in to a video camera that I do not need.
You had to buy a $3000 body because of the extra costs to make it shoot video. It wouldn't be a $3000 body if they had left it stills only.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 10, 2013)

I used to love video, cutting something boring into something interesting, but then hd video came along and my computer was under powered and my programs no longer worked... and it was such a time cost to edit... I still do some video, but mostly just small cuts, and rarely do I ever shoot at the highest video quality because I don't like throwing clips into the garbage, but I also don't want a 5 gb file that is really just trash.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 10, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> roxics said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?
> ...



ok... so you have the choice between two cameras. one is cheaper than the other but doesn't do video... which means of you are ever out and about and you only have a stills camera, you are out of luck if you really want to take video. 

consumers decide every day based on this option back when the xs and 50d didn't take video... and if the competition does do video, then you are losing market share. 

it is about staying relevant in the market place, not about increasing cost.


----------



## cayenne (Oct 10, 2013)

roxics said:


> I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?
> 
> I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?
> 
> In my opinion these cameras are set when it comes to photo features. They don't need to get any better than they already are. With maybe one exception, AF speed/accuracy during liveview. It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.



I actually bought my Canon 5D3 (my first DSLR) primarily FOR video originally.

I'd been cast in a short, comedic sketch down here in New Orleans...set in a bar, and was a pro shoot...caterer, lighting crew, sound crew..etc.
I saw they were shooting the thing with what appeared to be a regular "camera"...I asked about it, and it was the 5D2.

I was very intrigued, and started looking into this..found out how it was popular to use it, "low cost" way to get really great filmic looks, with DOF....etc.

I've not really taken any pics much in decades. Way back in HS and College, I had a Nikon FA black body film camera and played with that, but after College, I just never really picked up a camera again. I had the phone and a small P&S that I rarely used.

But I got excited the more I read, researched (See my early posts on here for what I was picking brains for)...and saved my money. I'd found the 5D3 was coming out soon, so I actually waited about 6 more mos and got that after it had been out about a month I think.

And so, there began my journey with DSLRs...and I did start out with doing mostly video. Learning how to edit, started with iMovie...moved to FCPX...learning how to use Davinci Resolve Lite...and now, I'm moving into the Adobe CS6 Production Suite of products.

I LOVE video...I actually find it to be easier to do than stills, as far as getting a "story" going...I actually love the editing process.

However, along the way, I've fallen in love with still photography too!! I really am enjoying this too...especially portraiture. I've been watching (and bought some) of the Creative Live sessions, and learning posing, etc.

I've taken some products shots for a lady selling handmade wedding bouquets...and at that same shoot had access to a couple of young lady models dressed in wedding gowns to shoot with them...
After that session..one young lady did other modelling for me in exchange for shots.

So..I'm building my portfolio with that.

I just got word that I've been accepted to be on the event photographer staff for VooDoo Fest here in New Orleans first of next month:

http://worshipthemusic.com/

I'll be there with credentials, backstage access...shooting the likes of Pearl Jam, NIN...etc.

So, it has been a great journey, and while I still love video....I'm enjoying shooting stills JUST as much. 

And I hope some day to get some slight mastery of PhotoShop...before I croak.


The 5D3 is a fantastic camera...and I can't wait for Magic Lantern to get the firmware for the 5D3 a little safer and out of Alpha...so I can try to really stretch things with RAW video.

But everyone has their priorities and their love of what they do...personally, I'm wringing every bit of use and fun out of my purchase.

And hell, hope some day, to actually maybe make a little extra $$ off of...at least enough to help pay for my newly acquired *lens addiction*....

Cayenne


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 10, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > roxics said:
> ...



First I am out and about and I need to take video. I am not out and about to shoot video, so most likely the video I will take will be from my iPhone. 

Staying relevant in the market place? Probably

Not about increasing cost? It does increase the cost of DSLR's, that have to make up the R&D money somewhere. It is about increasing cost to those of us who do not need it.

So to Canon it was about staying relevant. But the effect on us that did not need it is we pay for the R&D.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 10, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> From what you say, I conclude that you know very well before a shoot, wehteher you will capture video or stills and usually it is one or the other. From my observation of videographers, capturing [professional level] video does not leave enough time and room to allow them to also capture stills at the same time during a shoot.



Doesn't just not leave time. It really is a headphuq. Video does require composition, but you have other tools, other rules, you can make a point via montage, you can make a point via sound, your viewer may only have 2s to interpret your shot.

I will generally think in sequences.

Stills: completely different. Compostion, that single frame is your single chance to make your point. I'll will focus purely on that single frame.



AvTvM said:


> So why not just take the requisite camera along for the task at hand. Motion cam when its video time and stills camera, when its stills time. And for the very few occasions when really both are required, you'll want to have two separate cameras anyway ... "typically" one on a tripod (video) and one your hand (stills).



A number of reasons as I detailed in my post. They suit different applications. Let me turn it around. Next time you go to take some portraits you are only allowed to use a 135/leica/minature format DSLR with an 85mm lens. You like? Why restrict yourself? My ENG's and HDVs work great for some applications. My DSLR works better for some. My gopro works better for some.

I'll use whatever tool gets me the results that will satisfy my client and I. I don't care what shape it is or badge thats on it. I'll only use it if it works and if it's the best tool I have available to me.

As also discussed previously, I'm not in the habit of combining the two, there is a work leisure divide.

I rarely shoot stills hand held in any case... I'll usually have a monopod, or a 'pod' or a superclamp.



AvTvM said:


> So, in essence, I fail to see the overwhelming usage scenario for fully video-enabled stills cameras. To me, the sole reason why DSLRs are being abused to also capture video is the absurdly high preice-level of [large sensored] video cams [with a lens mount that accepts a wide range of lenses that are way less expensive than typical video-lenses].



I disagree in quite strong terms. Blame live view, not video. I still worked in camera retail at the launch of the first digital rebel. It cost as much as the 70D does now. It's a myth that video adds costs to cameras. The 5D3 cost a lot more than the 5D3 because its a lot more camera in all sorts of ways, much like the 5D2 on launch cost more than the 5D, it was a lot more camera, and nobody objected to video then.

Just ignore the video bit. Don't use it.

It's not holding you back. It's not holding canon back. Live with it. I wish I could get an EOS in colours other than black, so I bought a white M. I detailed all the functions I don't use on my DSLR. Would canon do me a version pared down to just what I need.

Come on.

I shoot stills quite seriously as a hobby. My cameras, all video enabled, match or exceed my ability and requirements.

I shoot video professionally, and in many situations my video enabled DSLRS are my goto choice.

Nothing in this life is without it's caveats.


----------



## Skywise (Oct 10, 2013)

As a hobbyist/traveler I LOVE the video capabilities of my T4i and use them a lot.

BUT - I had a Rebel Xti and I took that with me along with a stand-alone video camera on my trips beforehand. So I would've always had a DSLR with me for photos.

Now I don't have to carry around two sets of camera equipment for family trips. (yay!) But I perfectly understand why people wouldn't bother - The video is cumbersome, not as good as using an actual video camera (in terms of control - the IQ I get from the T4i far surpasses the Canon video camera I used just 3 years ago but I would hope that would be the case with exponentially more expensive glass!)


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 10, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



if I may... I had an Lexus rx 300 and my next car will probably be a Honda pilot with all the bells and whistles and the optional machine gun turrets...

I occasionally go off road, but not nearly enough to warrant the added cost of the increased suspension, four wheel drive, tires, towing packageetc. but even though people don't use the extras, they don't complain about the extras.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 10, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



Those are options. I can add a sunroof at an extra charge on my 4x4, or I can order it without. I can order it without 4x4, I can buy one completely striped down with only the bare basics. 

You can not buy a 5D III from your local camera store without video.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 10, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



options v features... I say a feature of the suv is being a 4x4 with av6 with a tow option. an option is leather, Sun roof, etc.

regarding cameras, I say video is a feature of the device and an option is a battery grip, flash, memory card, etc.
but we can differ on this... I don't mind.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 10, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



You can look at it that way, but I have heard people complain about having to pay for things on their car that they didn't want for years. Longer than the video complaints on cameras.

And I still say I am paying for the R&D of a "feature" I didn't need. (This is starting to sound like an Obama Care discussion)


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 10, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



it is definitely a semantic argument.

people don't have to buy a car with options they don't want. they could get a completely option free car that barely meets the government's requirements for being a car and then do all the engineering themselves to add what they want. but that might cost more than getting a fully loaded car.

what are they complaining about? people used to not like seat belts... but most of them are dead now. 

is having a cd player really making people mad?


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 10, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> what are they complaining about? people used to not like seat belts... but most of them are dead now.
> 
> is having a cd player really making people mad?



That cracks me up, really most are dead now?

CD player, in most vehicles you can order it without the CD player. I am sure that there is someone that had to pay for it when it was in a car and they didn't want it.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 10, 2013)

I love car analolgies!

They solve nothing and make the poster look a bit ridiculous (canon forum, CAM ER A's)

Keep em coming.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 10, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > what are they complaining about? people used to not like seat belts... but most of them are dead now.
> ...



I was pleased with myself after I came up with that.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 10, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> You can look at it that way, but I have heard people complain about having to pay for things on their car that they didn't want for years. Longer than the video complaints on cameras.
> 
> And I still say I am paying for the R&D of a "feature" I didn't need. (This is starting to sound like an Obama Care discussion)



You can complain all you want, but the market for stills only is not big enough to warrant a separate product offering. Perhaps you can find 100,000 others and sign a petition/contract telling Canon that all of you will be willing to buy a stills camera every year for the next ten years. I'm sure a revenue stream of 100-200M/year will tempt Canon to develop a stills camera for you.


----------



## cayenne (Oct 10, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



Well, like an earlier poster said...todays Digital Camera really isn't so much a stills camera at heart..it IS a video camera at heart, that is specialized to take good stills.

In that light...you aren't really paying for anything extra in that 5D3.

The video/stills thing..is software.....and I can't imagine that headphone/mic jack set would save you more than $0.30 if omitted.

C


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 10, 2013)

roxics said:


> I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?
> 
> I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?
> 
> In my opinion these cameras are set when it comes to photo features. They don't need to get any better than they already are. With maybe one exception, AF speed/accuracy during liveview. It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.



It all depends on what you like (and need) to do with a camera. Some people have enough videos to watch already. Others prefer the experience and the results of the still image art form. For very many these days, it comes down to what tool for what purpose. Still images are accessible in a different way than video. Video demands you to spend the time watching it, usually instead of doing something else. Still images, especially those mounted on a wall...can be viewed and enjoyed for brief yet repeated periods at random...while doing other things.

If you are wanting to make money, then wedding photography and video are the most prevalent means. So video is an important part of the equation to many of those people. Then there are "independent" film-makers, the advertising world...etc...all of course use video or "motion pictures". 

But as for your idea that manufacturers aren't focusing enough on video ability, or that it should be the "main focus"...that's just wrong on both counts. A DSLR, is a "digital single lens reflex" camera. It's not a cinema camera...except of course for the 1DC, haha. *A DSLR's primary purpose will always be stills photography, because that's the basic concept of the design. * There's a mechanical focal plane shutter, a reflex mirror for phase detection autofocus sensors, etc. Cinema cameras don't need to work that way.

In the past I used to shoot a lot of video with a video camera, back before they got very good. I now shoot video with my 6D, but only about 5% of the time so far. The rest is stills. I make some money from the stills. The 6D's video ability isn't in the top league, nor is it meant to be. That's more than fine with me! To do video in a high quality way, you need the gear and accessories for it. Which generally means you're spending a lot of time and money doing it...and making money from it. Or else some people spend their time but not much resources, and get more compromised, casual results meant solely for youtube consumption by people with a lot of free time on their hands. That gets old after a while.

Frankly for myself, I want to approach motion pictures from the other side. I've always been interested in both movies and music recording. I wouldn't mind having my own soundstages, and letting the real film makers come and use the facility, and pay me for the privilege...while occasionally letting me watch them work. I already have the facility but it needs to be converted into a soundstage, which for me isn't going to happen in the immediate future.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 10, 2013)

cayenne said:


> Well, like an earlier poster said...todays Digital Camera really isn't so much a stills camera at heart..it IS a video camera at heart, that is specialized to take good stills.
> 
> In that light...you aren't really paying for anything extra in that 5D3.
> 
> ...



$.30? really? I guess all the R&D that Canon had to do they just absorbed themselves?


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 10, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> You can complain all you want,



Yes we can


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 10, 2013)

Canon should really give us the choice:

EITHER
A) 5D III as is at the price as is (stills + video) 

OR 

B) 5D IIIs "stills only" version, withall possibilities to output video cut in hardware. Mic disabled, headphone jack soldered close. Record viedo-button freely assignable to anything the user wants, except to capture video. LiveView enabled, as is. Price: 20% lower than version A-, beacuse it offers a significantly smaller feature set. 

Similar to many cars which can be ordered as 2WD or as 4WD (at extra cost). 

I wpuld bet my life, that the "stills only" 5D IIIs version would sell EXTREMELY well. It would clearly outsell the stills+video model at a ratuio of 3:1 or more. Once people really would have to pay for a larger feature set, they would think twice, whether they really need it or whether their family event videos could not be shot using their smartphone.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 10, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Canon should really give us the choice:
> 
> EITHER
> A) 5D III as is at the price as is (stills + video)
> ...



Why would the 5D IIIs be cheaper? The mic isn't expensive hardware and nor is the 3.5mm audio jack. It may be more than 30 cents, but the ability to do video is software and not hardware as evidenced by the 50D + magic lantern now being capable of video. 

So why would NOT having video reduce the price of the body by $600?

Maybe if you reduced the ram and the buffer and processor speed, but then you probably have reduced performance in AI Servo. 

Maybe the frames per second is reduced by consequence to the reduced hardware... but I think what we are looking at is the 6D. Which is $1500-2000ish for the body... 

I'm not an engineer... so maybe I'm wrong... maybe all the performance of the mkiii can be kept while reducing costs by $600... but I really don't think so.

And would a $2400 mkiii without video sell well... yeah... as evidenced by the 5d mkii and the 6D which both have video and but are considered mainly a camera for stills. 

I don't like Colin Cowherd... but he has a theory about assuming other people are just like you (me). It is a fallacy.


----------



## roxics (Oct 11, 2013)

Thank you all for the replies. I do understand your position better now. I also understand that motion and stills are different disiplines to a certain degree.

I do both professionally and have been for the last seven years. For me DSLR's with video have been a great tool for the type of work I do. Corporate work that often includes web based videos, portraits, office/factory photography, etc.
The ability to carry one camera that I know well and one set of lenses, just makes the transition from video to photography work a little easier when going back and forth. 

As for cost. I would guess that having video on DSLRs probably balances out. Whatever R&D cost that goes into these cameras for video functionality is probably paid for by the increased sales of people now buying these cameras primarily for video work, whereas before they would not have bought them but instead gone with a more traditional style video camera. But the market has now shifted and consumers aren't buying $1000+ dollar dedicated video cameras unless they are professionals or indie filmmakers.

There is also the benefit that someone like myself would be willing to pay more for a camera that can do both, than have to buy two different cameras, the other of which maybe not from the same manufacturer. I can use the same lenses and accessories. It saves me money overall.

Maybe I came off too strong in saying that the photography side is good enough and they need to just focus on video. Obviously there is no end to what can be improved for photography. That said, some of you pointed out dynamic range and better ISO sensitivity for low light. Something that is not just beneficial to photography but video as well. Good images are desired in both camps. That we can all agree on. 

But at least one of you pointed out that you can shoot raw photos on a DSLR however the video quality isn't that great. That's really where I was coming from. When we can buy digital rebels that shoot raw video at 1080p or 4K in variable frame rates and 13+ stops of dynamic range, there wont be a lot of complaints on the video side. 

The difference between video and photography is that Canon now has a higher end product to protect on the video side. So a lot of video people feel that they are artificially crippling the video functionality on their DSLRs as a result. Whereas these are their high end stills cameras, so there is nothing to cripple to protect something higher up the chain. Unless they bring out a medium format system at $10K+. 

For example, if Canon decided that you can only shoot raw photos on a 5D3 and above, a lot of screaming and yelling would be going on from the APS-C and 6D crowd. Yet that is exactly what they seem to be doing with the video functionality on these cameras. Leaving out little things like headphone jacks, better recording codecs, clean HDMI outputs, higher frame rates, etc. That is primarily why I say that video functionality needs to be their top priority right now. Not because they should stop work on improving stills functionality, but because they are starting to lag behind Panasonic and even Nikon in the video realm.

Why even include video?
I think the answer is simple. Both industries right now (Photography and Video) are struggling against cheaper alternatives like smartphones. By binding the two functions together on their top end cameras they can sell the same camera to both markets. Plus it does sound better to say "this camera can do both." 
I would also think that would actually save them some money.

Someone above used a car analogy. I've often wondered if car companies could be more profitable by getting rid of all the by-to-order options and just including all the available features on every vehicle. It would certainly simplify inventory when the only difference is the exterior color of the car. I would think that it would streamline the whole process from design to manufacturing when you cut out all that extra time and work keeping the same model with different features on the lot. This process seemed to work for Apple in the late 90's when they streamlined their product line to just four models. I assume it works for camera manfuacturers as well. I can only imagine the headache of having to make and stock the same camera model in three types; video only, photo only and video+photo.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 11, 2013)

roxics said:


> But at least one of you pointed out that you can shoot raw photos on a DSLR however the video quality isn't that great. That's really where I was coming from. When we can buy digital rebels that shoot raw video at 1080p or 4K in variable frame rates and 13+ stops of dynamic range, there wont be a lot of complaints on the video side.



The video quality is fine for a lot of applications.

I doubt you'll ever see RAW video on a rebel. Wrong market.

I don't shoot feature films, and I really have to wonder how many folk who shoot uncompressed actually benefit from it?

Yep, more DR is always good, but how many folk who complain about it actually scrim filter and light a scene to bring it all within DR in any case? Again, a forum feature that I don't really think has any bearing on how the majority of users actually work. It's a bit like top trumps after a certain point...


----------



## roxics (Oct 11, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> The video quality is fine for a lot of applications.
> 
> I doubt you'll ever see RAW video on a rebel. Wrong market.
> 
> I don't shoot feature films, and I really have to wonder how many folk who shoot uncompressed actually benefit from it?



Well you can get raw through the magic lantern hack on a rebel. Granted it is standard definition, but it is available. I think eventually as processing and storage ability rise to a certain degree while cost plummets, it will become a no-brainer to have raw video as an option. Technically we could say the same thing about raw photo ability on rebels, wrong market. I know several people who own rebels and have no idea what raw even is, they don't even know what M mode is. They only shoot jpeg in auto mode. But it's cheap enough that it is there for the people who do. Plus it's expected. The same will eventually be true for raw video. It will be expected. Already the video world in in an uproar because these cameras have been proven to be capable of raw shooting and yet limited from the factory from doing so.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 11, 2013)

The uproar is misguided.

Off course the cameras have a raw conversion stage, so RAW is always there in any camera, the problem is a) getting an output at that stage, and, as pertains to the rebels, b) having a system architecture, data throughput and recording medium that permits this.

Do rebels need an SSD caddy? Of course not.

Do most folk shooting RAW and slowing their workflow to a crawl really benefit? I would argue probably not. Nice to have the option, sure, but largely redundant.


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 11, 2013)

Following up on my earlier post, here's why I'm not interested in video - this is Philip Bloom's rig from http://philipbloom.net/2010/06/28/zacuto-dslr-cage-jag-35-cage-view-factor-cage/:







Yes, even he admits it's overdone for fun, but still.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 11, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Following up on my earlier post, here's why I'm not interested in video - this is Philip Bloom's rig from http://philipbloom.net/2010/06/28/zacuto-dslr-cage-jag-35-cage-view-factor-cage/:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It looks like a robot to me ;D


----------



## cayenne (Oct 11, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > Well, like an earlier poster said...todays Digital Camera really isn't so much a stills camera at heart..it IS a video camera at heart, that is specialized to take good stills.
> ...




Amortized over all the units they sell....for R&D to put in a couple of jacks? 

I'd still say yes...$0.30....maybe up to $1, but sure, I think that's about all you'd save on stills only camera. realistically.


----------



## cayenne (Oct 11, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Following up on my earlier post, here's why I'm not interested in video - this is Philip Bloom's rig from http://philipbloom.net/2010/06/28/zacuto-dslr-cage-jag-35-cage-view-factor-cage/:
> ...



Hmm...I always thought the quote was:

"_He who dies with the most toys....................*wins*!!_"


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 11, 2013)

cayenne said:


> Well, like an earlier poster said...todays Digital Camera really isn't so much a stills camera at heart..it IS a video camera at heart, that is specialized to take good stills.



This may apply to MIRRORLESS digital cameras, but like all SLRS, DSLRs are dedicated stills image cameras, which have been "tricked" into also being able to capture moving images (video) by bypassing the defining elements of any SLR: mirror and optical viewfinder. To get there has caused massive R&D cost. I would prefer if this additional, video-related cost [sensors + electronics to handle video in addition to stills capture] would be unloaded on those people who absolutely want cameras that can capture both video and stills rather than making people pay for it who only want one functionality from their camera. Capturing excellent stills images and having an ergonomical interface that is 100% dedicated to getting those images. 

This is why it would be fully justified and perfectly fair, if "dual use, video-enabled" versions of a DSLR were sold 10-20% more expensive than single-use stills-only versions of teh same DSLRs. 

And once the clients would be given this choice, it would become very clear that only a very small minority of customers really need the dual functionality and are willing to pay for it (since it is still a lot cheaper than purchasing a dedicated stills and a dedicated video camera) but many more are just clamoring for video in stills cameras, because right now they are getting it "free of charge" [as stills photographers pay for it] and "might need it once in a blue moon".


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 11, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > Well, like an earlier poster said...todays Digital Camera really isn't so much a stills camera at heart..it IS a video camera at heart, that is specialized to take good stills.
> ...



I wish i understood your logic. 

let's say the body costs 3000 retail.
1000 of that is profit for the seller and for Canon.

2000 is left for the parts which is broken up into r&d, manufacturing costs, marketing, and parts.

I'd personally prefer not to pay for the marketing costs. can we make that happen? 

I don't have a point here... I'm just exasperated. I'm getting to see what can be eliminated to bring the cost down because the parts and manufacturing costs aren't going anywhere.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 11, 2013)

Philip Blooms rig is hilarious.

This to me is the antithesis of what DSLR shooting is all about. If I was going to have a rig like this then I'd use a red camera at the heart of it, or a Sony F at least.

I accept that Philip enjoys great success which he is always happy to share, but I also think sometimes he is plain wrong, and this rig is just one of those times.

Whats with the iphone?

He may be joking, but I have actually ran into folk like this, who have a followfocus and mattebox for a shorty forty.

Camera & lens. Audio interface. Headphones. Support.

Thats all you need. Why follow focus via crappy plastic tip ties and horrible knobs without bearings etc when you can physically touch the focus ring. Sure if you are working with a focus puller and mechanical lenses, otherwise, its just grandstanding, and it slows you down.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 11, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> DSLRs are dedicated stills image cameras, which have been "tricked" into also being able to capture moving images (video) by bypassing the defining elements of any SLR: mirror and optical viewfinder. To get there has caused massive R&D cost. I would prefer if this additional, video-related cost [sensors + electronics to handle video in addition to stills capture] would be unloaded on those people who absolutely want cameras that can capture both video and stills rather than making people pay for it who only want one functionality from their camera. Capturing excellent stills images and having an ergonomical interface that is 100% dedicated to getting those images.



Sorry. You are plain wrong.

The underlying technology came in with the 40D and the 450D. It was called live view. It was an innovation for stills users. And one which folk seem to have quite liked, especially the tethering with preview. Somewhere along the way somebody thought it would be quite an easy firmware ammend to let folks record the live view output.

Blame live view. I don't recall an attendant rise in price when live view came out.

Video guys reluctantly adopted the 5D2 and then canon gave it decent firmware (after about a year into it's life as I recall) and it's success was assured. The first out the box usuable at launch video DSLR was the 7D (for serious users, or those in PAL regions) but again that camera had so many new features, both at the price point, and for DSLRs in general, that it would be impossible to isolate the cost for the video features.

As I said, you are plain wrong. The R&D stage would have been prior to live view. Bump your gums about that.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 11, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > DSLRs are dedicated stills image cameras, which have been "tricked" into also being able to capture moving images (video) by bypassing the defining elements of any SLR: mirror and optical viewfinder. To get there has caused massive R&D cost. I would prefer if this additional, video-related cost [sensors + electronics to handle video in addition to stills capture] would be unloaded on those people who absolutely want cameras that can capture both video and stills rather than making people pay for it who only want one functionality from their camera. Capturing excellent stills images and having an ergonomical interface that is 100% dedicated to getting those images.
> ...



as one who primarily focuses on stills, I love live view plus manual focusing. it is quite literally my favorite provided I have the time to setup and my subject isn't squirming around.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 11, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> DSLRs are dedicated stills image cameras, which have been "tricked" into also being able to capture _*moving images (video)*_ by bypassing the defining elements of any SLR: mirror and optical viewfinder. To get there has caused massive R&D cost. I would prefer if this additional, _*video*_-related cost [sensors + electronics to handle video in addition to stills capture] would be unloaded on those people who absolutely want cameras that can capture both _*video*_ and stills rather than making people pay for it who only want one functionality from their camera. Capturing excellent stills images and having an ergonomical interface that is 100% dedicated to getting those images.



Let's play a game of 'replace 'video' with...'

Ok 1st up... replace video with 'digital'



AvTvM said:


> DSLRs are dedicated stills image cameras, which have been "tricked" into also being able to capture _*digital images*_ by bypassing the defining elements of any SLR: mirror and optical viewfinder. To get there has caused massive R&D cost. I would prefer if this additional, _*digital*_-related cost [sensors + electronics] would be unloaded on those people who absolutely want cameras that can capture _*digital*_



What about 'electronic interface'?

What about 'autofocus'?

What about 'TTL metered flash'?

What about 'TTL metering'?

I guess AvTvM just doesn't like video. And thats cool. I loved ECF. I've never used Spot Average metering.

Apart from the mechanics of the reflex, the CCD or CMOS image processed and recorded onto an electronic storage facilty (i.e. non-film) has been the main business of camcorder manufacturers for many years before DSLRs became remotely affordable or even available to the average consumer.

Damn Ikegami, Sony, Panasonic, Philips, Canon, damn them for compromising their camcorder research, AS THEY MUST HAVE DONE in order for todays DSLRS.

Damn those DSLRs with their sensors that have been compromised by video to the point where the video moire these days is only moderately awful and the Jello Shutter merely quite bad. Damn them.

We get it *AVTVM*, but you are like a dog with a bone. You don't like video. Well in todays market place that really is kind of tough now isn't it. 
_
As you feel so strongly, can you post an image you've taken that you feel was compromised by canon's video R&D? _


----------



## cayenne (Oct 11, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > Well, like an earlier poster said...todays Digital Camera really isn't so much a stills camera at heart..it IS a video camera at heart, that is specialized to take good stills.
> ...



Hmm...now, another way to read what you said was...that DSLR's are basically video cameras, that had a lot of R&D money put into them, to figure how to put in the mirror and other mechanisms to enable stills pics in the same way that older SLR film cameras operated...that the R&D money went into basically taking a digital video recording sensor paradigm, and adapting it to emulate old SLR functionality film cameras had?


Seriously, depending on where you stand...it could be read that way.

Still, I stick by my thoughts that today's DSLR...if you "took the video out of it"...at the manufacturers side, they'd save maybe $1 per unit not putting on a couple of jacks, and they might cut the cost to the consumers by maybe $100-$200, and basically it would be the exact same camera, sans jacks and having some of the software there disabled (not gone mind you, just disabled).

It would be similar to things like video cards or even versions of MS Windows...where they sell different versions of the things and different prices.

The thing they're selling often is the exact same product, but artificially making some versions inferior by disabling features that are there, but disabled and sold at a lower price.

People get pissy about it when that happens....so, I guess that means you can please everyone.

Heck...if you wanted to look at say the 5D3....it actually is somewhat disabled. Look how Magic Lantern is in some respects "unlocking" functionality in the camera and system to get things like RAW video out of it...that Canon didn't fully use or purposely disabled.

One could complain that Canon isn't fully utilizing or allowing utilization of the hardware we have already bought.

C


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Oct 13, 2013)

6 months after buying my 1D4 I found out that I didn't know how to use the video function. I couldn't be bothered to look in the manual, couldn't be bothered to ask, couldn't care less. My only regret is that I paid for the R&D to make it video capable!


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 14, 2013)

I don't know why it would be hard to understand why one person may choose still photography as their interest over video.

Photography and video are different art forms. They require different techniques. 

That is almost like claiming that any photographer that shoots in colour must also be interested in shooting in B/W. Many photographers do, but many don't. Some only like to shoot in B/W.

Artists will always have areas of interest and areas of non-interest. It is not reasonable to think that all artists are interested in all art forms.


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 14, 2013)

johnf3f said:


> 6 months after buying my 1D4 I found out that I didn't know how to use the video function. I couldn't be bothered to look in the manual, couldn't be bothered to ask, couldn't care less. My only regret is that I paid for the R&D to make it video capable!


LOL, I know how to use it, but the only video I've shot was by accident. Live View / Video, oops. That being said, it was of some macro stuff and I couldn't believe how good it looked on my 60" plasma. 

Like I said before, the biggest reason I avoid it has to do with it being yet another financial well and a deep one at that. It's kind of like street bikes - I would love a Ducati or other fast bike, but I KNOW I would kill myself within a week if I bought one. I love going really fast WAY too much. I think video would be financial suicide for me


----------



## Albi86 (Oct 14, 2013)

roxics said:


> I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?
> 
> I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?
> 
> In my opinion these cameras are set when it comes to photo features. They don't need to get any better than they already are. With maybe one exception, AF speed/accuracy during liveview. It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.



How do you print a video?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 14, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> How do you print a video?



One frame at a time. Ba dum tssshhh.


----------



## ahab1372 (Oct 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > How do you print a video?
> ...


unless you recorded interlaced. Then you can print half a frame at a time, if you want


----------



## winglet (Oct 14, 2013)

I've never used my 5DII (or the I that preceded it) or my 1DX for video. Ever. It's not that I don't like video, not at all. One of my brothers is a filmmaker, he's made several films using all kinds of things from DSLR's to production TV rigs. 

And what that taught me is this. It takes a lot to make _quality_ videos. The cost of video in a DSLR is nothing - compared to the cost of a set of rails, a steadicam, a jib, LIGHTING, the outboard gear you need to properly capture audio, an editing station that's as powerful as you can afford, and exponentially larger storage for the files (with full backups, of course). Don't forget to have at least an A and B rig. Plus perhaps some Go-Pros to get the crazy angles that everyone expects these days. The manpower to operate the gear. And then, oh yeah, the time and mastery of an offline editing suite. Because quality videos are made in the editing more than the shooting.

Given that I wouldn't do video unless I could do it justice, and it takes a fair bit, I'm not sure why the original poster is "baffled" that many people only shoot stills with their, uh, still camera.

btw, that DSLR rig is obscene. Is it serious? Get a purpose-built camera already!


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 15, 2013)

roxics said:


> Thank you all for the replies. I do understand your position better now. I also understand that motion and stills are different disiplines to a certain degree.
> 
> I do both professionally and have been for the last seven years. For me DSLR's with video have been a great tool for the type of work I do. Corporate work that often includes web based videos, portraits, office/factory photography, etc.
> The ability to carry one camera that I know well and one set of lenses, just makes the transition from video to photography work a little easier when going back and forth.
> ...



You make good points, but I still fall back to one simple observation and question. Why should one body need to do it all? You say you're a professional videographer and stills photographer. So you should be able to afford the right gear for the job, and should be able to carry more than one type of camera to the shoot. Dedicated cinema cameras are getting better and cheaper all the time. What's wrong with spending in the $1k to $2k range for the stills camera and the $3k to $6k range for the cinema camera? The lighting and other equipment you will be using, surely costs a similar amount...and is much more difficult to transport to the shoot, than an extra camera body is. Black Magic (for example) seems to have good ideas on how to design an affordable cinema camera. It is the main competition for the 5D3 with its RAW video hack via ML...

As for a "rebel" series camera which is enabled for RAW video...how is it going to be able to store or transmit such large amounts of data, quickly enough? I guess it's not impossible...but what it is, is a compromise.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 15, 2013)

johnf3f said:


> 6 months after buying my 1D4 I found out that I didn't know how to use the video function. I couldn't be bothered to look in the manual, couldn't be bothered to ask, couldn't care less. My only regret is that I paid for the R&D to make it video capable!



You should have other regrets, like why it can't AF as well as its successor. If you only bought it 6 months ago, I assume you bought a used or reconditioned unit?


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 15, 2013)

winglet said:


> I've never used my 5DII (or the I that preceded it) or my 1DX for video. Ever. It's not that I don't like video, not at all. One of my brothers is a filmmaker, he's made several films using all kinds of things from DSLR's to production TV rigs.
> 
> And what that taught me is this. It takes a lot to make _quality_ videos. The cost of video in a DSLR is nothing - compared to the cost of a set of rails, a steadicam, a jib, LIGHTING, the outboard gear you need to properly capture audio, an editing station that's as powerful as you can afford, and exponentially larger storage for the files (with full backups, of course). Don't forget to have at least an A and B rig. Plus perhaps some Go-Pros to get the crazy angles that everyone expects these days. The manpower to operate the gear. And then, oh yeah, the time and mastery of an offline editing suite. Because quality videos are made in the editing more than the shooting.
> 
> ...



+1, very excellent points!


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 15, 2013)

I don't mind having a video function but its not my bread and butter. I would prefer more innovation on the stills side first and video second.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 15, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> I don't mind having a video function but its not my bread and butter. I would prefer more innovation on the stills side first and video second.



Me too.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 16, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I don't mind having a video function but its not my bread and butter. I would prefer more innovation on the stills side first and video second.
> ...



Me three

I think the technology is getting to the point where it may be more advantagious to have separate pieces of equipment optimized for a specific use than to have one that tries to do both well.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 16, 2013)

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Some video innovations can help stills guys (say when Canon get round to using an electronic HSS rather than the curtain opening up full power HSS) CCD's & CMOS? Where would we be without them? Dual Pixel AF? How good is that potentially?

And some stills stuff helps the video guys, like the STILLS function - live view that made video possible in the first place?

I don't think that a $ spent on video is necessarily a $ less spent on stills.

Nikon & Sony still churn out class leading stills cameras even with video bolted on, so really, I think all those moaning have got it badly wrong.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 16, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> The two are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> Some video innovations can help stills guys (say when Canon get round to using an electronic HSS rather than the curtain opening up full power HSS) CCD's & CMOS? Where would we be without them? Dual Pixel AF? How good is that potentially?
> 
> ...



Excellent points, and there was an article in a recent issue of "Photo Pro" magazine (USA) which was touting the attributes of shooting 4k video with the 1DC, and using continuous light, rather than strobes...for fashion photography. Definitely makes sense to me...strobes give everybody a headache don't they? Especially if they're firing continuously for hours. Although with this method, there might be quite a few more still frames from the video, to look at...when choosing the best still shots.


----------

