# Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?



## Beautor (Feb 9, 2012)

I've been reading on this and other forums for quite a while, and I see a lot of hate coming from photographers who are upset that Canon and other manufacturers are including video capabilities in their DSLR's. I don't get how a camera being capable of recording still images AND video is a bad thing? Does it make you take worse pictures? I own a 40D and a 60D. We have used the video capability of the 60D exactly twice. I'm not a videographer, and I'm not really interested in shooting video. I have no interest in buying a video camera when I almost never shoot video, but I'm glad that I have a camera that's capable of it when I want it.

I'm not an engineer or an expert, but my basic understanding is that the capability to record video is primarily a software thing, and the only extra piece required is a mic or mic input. Magic Lantern software has enabled video on a 50D (albeit without a mic), which supports my understanding that it doesn't require any major changes or extras in the camera. I'm pretty sure that there's thousands of people capturing fantastic images on the 5Dii and other DSLRs that can shoot video. So unless there's something about video capable DSLRs that I'm completely missing, why the hate?


----------



## Dianoda (Feb 9, 2012)

I don't think there is much hate for video that can be justified (not that there's really much hate for it to begin with). The biggest thing that sticks out to me is that some don't like seeing the influence that the evolution of video features has had on DSLRs (which is arguably pretty minimal, as DSLRs are still very much focused on stills first, video second).

I've never felt that my 7D was in any compromised as a camera due to the inclusion of video. I mean, look - LiveView is convenient to the point that I wouldn't want a DSLR without the feature, and so if adding a few lines of code to the camera firmware allows for the camera to record that output as video, why not? Who does it hurt?


----------



## torger (Feb 9, 2012)

I have never used the video option on either my 7D or the 5Dmk2. But video is great to have since it broadens the use of the camera so it can sell in larger numbers, thus lower cost camera for me. My beloved "live view", which I consider a must-have for manual focusing from a tripod, is also a side-effect of the video function.

My hope now is that the "4K cinema dslr" that is under development actually is ~40 megapixels that is binned 4:1 for cinema, that way the 4K videographers and high res photographers both get their needs satisfied.

I have no problem with having "too many" software features, I just don't use them. I can't say the video functions have cluttered the interface for normal photography.


----------



## KeithR (Feb 9, 2012)

There was some (legitimate?) concern when all this video DSLR stuff started, that R&D resources better expended (in some people's opinion - mine included, originally) elsewhere on improving noise/AF/DR/[insert improvement of choice], were being "wasted" on video.

But now that video is established and the research pretty much done and dusted, that concern no longer applies: I still have no interest in video myself, so I simply ignore it on my 7D...


----------



## Beautor (Feb 9, 2012)

Perhaps hate is too strong a word, but I keep coming across people posting wish lists and they all say they want a dedicated DSLR without video. 

Personally I agree that having the capability broadens the appeal of the camera, which hopefully boosts sales and furthers R&D for future upgrades. Its a feature that Canon was able to add that only added a minimal cost to the Camera. I think the more cameras that Canon (or any camera company) sells, the more likely that prices will creep down, or rebates will be offered. And the more people who buy cameras and lenses the more likely that someone will be selling a good quality used lens or body that I can actually afford. 

I think its cool to hear about videos that are shot with Canon DSLRs. I love when people push the limits and come up with new and creative ways to use their equipment.


----------



## avian (Feb 9, 2012)

we film people want clean high iso capability because when shooting video we have to keep our shutter speed at 1/50th,1/60th in 25p,30p or 1/100th,1/120th in 50p,60p.
so the cleaner the image (after in camera procesing) the better for us.

The High Mega pixel adicts are woried because high mp and high iso seems counterintuitive.
However for lowlight shooters high iso is very welcome.


----------



## RuneL (Feb 9, 2012)

I'm really happy with the video capabilities. It's cheaper to get versatile gear like lenses because I had them all to begin with, all you need is really audio and lights to make something truly awesome. For a photojournalist this is great, you carry less gear and you are able to diversify your material, eventhough it's a bitch getting both good video and photos at the same time. 

I thought it was a gimmick to begin with at first (which I guess it was, I doubt anyone expected how popular it would actually become, not even Canon) but I'm happy to have it.


----------



## MikeC (Feb 9, 2012)

I *love* video DSLRs!

I was happy taking pictures with my Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c. 14 MP on a full frame sensor was enough for me. I like taking pictures and do it a lot. Yet I am not a good photographer. Among the thousands of pictures I have taken are three quite good ones and one really good one. So much for talent, my good-picture-output is less than chance. But it is still fun. I had a 24mm, a 50mm and a 100mm prime and that was it.

I am much better shooting video. But all I could do was shooting *video* - because there were only video cameras available. Everything was in focus and the resolution was poor. Up to a point that was okay, but then HD became affordable and I sold my Canon XL-1 when I still could get money for it. I wanted to leave the old times behind: no more interlace, no more 25 fps, no more SD resolution. So I went without a video camera for several years, happy with my Kodak.

Then I wanted to buy the Canon HDV Something-30 when its price went low enough to start experimenting with HD. I wanted the NTSC version because I wanted 30p, but I wasn't allowed because of trade agreements. No europen must buy american cameras. So Canon got no money from me and I went a couple of more years without a video camera, happy with my Kodak.

Then the 5D Mk2 appeared and I was thrilled! Not because of the megapixels. I wouldn't have bought it because of that. I even wouldn't have bought it because of its low-ligh capacities. I didn't (and still don't) need that. But it could shoot video! With a full(!) frame(!) sensor(!). And it was getting rid of dropframe timecode, too ;D

I was appalled when I heard that it was full-auto only. I was angry. Really, really angry, because I thought it would take them years to change that. Then they announced the full manual update and I ordered mine the they they did that. It was back to drop-frame timecode, but what can you do? :

Long story short, I have bought gear for about 35000 Euros in the last two years: crane, steadicam, dolly, lenses, ...stuff. People meanwhile pay me money to do what I like. Even amateurs technically praise my results: "oh that looks all so good, how did you do that?" because I myself would never have imagined what incredible images and perspectives you can shoot with a TS-E 17 on a full frame sensor. Could I have done that with a RED? No. With a C300? No. With any other film or video camera on the market? No. But with my 5D I could.

Are there cameras with better quality? Yes, a lot. Are they more expensive? I'd say all of them and all of them an awful lot. And they are heavier! Have you ever bought a Steadicam for a 20kg camera setup? Try buy a crane and a remote head that can handle such a weight. Do I need more quality. Mmmh... I want more quality but I don't need it. It would also up my price which clients wouldn't pay because none of them would notice the increase in quality. None of them would even need it. Heck, I produce 1080p material and they make thumbnail-sized internet video or a DVD from it.

Maybe moiree and aliasing don't bother me as much because having used a Kodak DCS Pro SLR (without a lowpass filter) I know my way around them quite instinctively.

The 5D2 has given my creativity such a boost, how could it be a bad thing?


----------



## FyreStorm (Feb 9, 2012)

Just would prefer that rather than put all the video stuff in there, they just give us better cameras...more megapixels, better AF, faster frame rates...you can't do it all well, I would just prefer, as a photographer that they give me a better camera and stop feeing features I don't want...

I got flamed for my last such post, but while I understand some people want these features I think Canon should do three things.

Have a line of pro video cameras, have pro level dslrs and maybe a few hybrid options...

Let the flaming begin.


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 9, 2012)

FyreStorm said:


> Just would prefer that rather than put all the video stuff in there, they just give us better cameras...more megapixels, better AF, faster frame rates...you can't do it all well, I would just prefer, as a photographer that they give me a better camera and stop feeing features I don't want...
> 
> I got flamed for my last such post, but while I understand some people want these features I think Canon should do three things.
> 
> ...



I think you got flamed because of the threat to switch to Nikon. A brand who does the exact same thing regarding video as Canon. We are alllll tired of "switching brand threats"

The ability to record video in a DSLR has yet to reduce the ability to shoot stills. The two functions are not in conflict. As far as I can tell the inclusion of video hasn't even affected the price of DSLRs. I shoot stills on my 7D and very very very rarely shoot video. It's not like Canon has to balance stills and video ability in one body. Both can exist, fully featured, in one body. Is the 50D a better still camera than the 7D? :


----------



## forgetmenot (Feb 9, 2012)

i've used cameras from 10d, a while back. and has owned several others since then. the photo function definitely has improved, and introducing videos don't mean reducing these improvement. it only adds its capabilities. 
these new cameras has lots to offer since what i used to have! 

you don't need fancy functions to shoot good picture, the cameras is only a tool, and these cameras have more to offer now than it used to. So people who are wanting more functions... seriously? you should understand its not only the tool, its the person behind the camera.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 10, 2012)

torger said:


> I have never used the video option on either my 7D or the 5Dmk2. But video is great to have since it broadens the use of the camera so it can sell in larger numbers, thus lower cost camera for me. My beloved "live view", which I consider a must-have for manual focusing from a tripod, is also a side-effect of the video function.
> 
> My hope now is that the "4K cinema dslr" that is under development actually is ~40 megapixels that is binned 4:1 for cinema, that way the 4K videographers and high res photographers both get their needs satisfied.
> 
> I have no problem with having "too many" software features, I just don't use them. I can't say the video functions have cluttered the interface for normal photography.


got your maths wrong there. assuming 4k will be 4000x3000 just as an example this is 12MP a 4:1 binning will require a 192MP sensor  16000 x 12000


----------



## Fandongo (Feb 10, 2012)

"A photograph has much more meaning, I'm just not interested in video."
- Every artsy person, wearing an artsy hoodie and artsy glasses

uhh, but now video is the same picture, plus it moves.
There's an incredible amount of skill required to effectively edit sequences of images.
Edits make no sense without continuity, and require music/effects (or the lack of), as well as a constant understanding of the emotion of motion.

Photography is a magnificent skill to master.
And all of that knowledge can be channeled toward video... It's the same thing, the only "constraint" is 16:9.

Not putting down pro photographers at all, their attention to detail is generally magnitudes greater than "video folk", and they deserve the right to remain photo-only people.

But DSLRs have boosted to level of amateur photographers by 1,000,000%

Mastering video, music, effects, and continuity is beyond the grasp of 999,999% of those...

So they consider it an abomination.

The sheer number of beautiful wedding videos littering the internet now (anyone can shoot emotion to Jason Mraz), as well as the plethora of short films now shot on the 5d/t2i/t3i/60d/gh2, only make their utter inability to do something similar that much more obvious.

Now light/low light is now the norm, and the high iso performance in video looks far prettier than equivalently flashless stills (since they generally need to boost shutter speed beyond 50 to remove motion blur, a favorable trait for video, and the noise nearly disappears when not frozen in time).

It's an unfair advantage, one that everyone should use to their benefit.

They aren't perfect for video. Yes they are, they just haven't updated the unintentionally mind-blowing world changing accidental technology in over 3 years.

But...

Hatters Gonna Hate.

Let them not advance with the rest of humans.


----------



## benperrin (Feb 10, 2012)

I love both video and photography. It is fantastic that I can use the same body for both. I want both technologies to improve and so far it looks as if all the major companies are doing just that. The silly thing is when people start bashing a camera that hasn't even been announced or tested. Just ignore the people who blast Canon for including video in their cameras. Clearly it has been a very, very smart decision.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 10, 2012)

I'm a still photographer, And every time i try to make a video it looks like an epileptic with parkinsons got hold of the camera. so I have alot of respect for the skill it take to make good video. Its something i cant do and right now dont have the time to get a handle on. I dont mind either way having the video on DSLRs I think its mostly a software thing, as long as they dont go re-arranging buttons and controls to suit video and cause problems for still shooting its all good.


----------



## Astro (Feb 10, 2012)

i don´t care about video.. but as a pro you might have too:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9982656990/no-future-in-photojournalism-interview-dan-chung


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 10, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> Is the 50D a better still camera than the 7D? :



Yes ;D : 



wickidwombat said:


> I'm a still photographer, And every time i try to make a video it looks like an epileptic with parkinsons got hold of the camera. so I have alot of respect for the skill it take to make good video. Its something i cant do and right now dont have the time to get a handle on. I dont mind either way having the video on DSLRs I think its mostly a software thing, as long as they dont go re-arranging buttons and controls to suit video and cause problems for still shooting its all good.



I think wickidwombat has it right... its not impacting the camera itself (specifically anyway), and shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Where some people get the hate from is that some people think the resources put into it takes away from the stills - probably not true, it'll actually increase the importance of ISO performance IMO, and theres also the issue of having (maybe in the future) to design the said dSLR around video capabilities. 

Do I shoot video myself? hardly - I'm probably worse off than wickidwombat in that my weak point is fine motor movement, I cant eat with chopsticks without it rattling away. does that stop me from shooting video once in a while on borrowed equipment? Nope - theres a place for video - just as there is a place for stills. 

by all means - go video - just not at the cost of stills


----------



## Jedifarce (Feb 10, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> I think you got flamed because of the threat to switch to Nikon. A brand who does the exact same thing regarding video as Canon. We are alllll tired of "switching brand threats"



I never understood the Canon-Nikon conflict mentality especially seeing how I use Nikon primes with my 5D.


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 11, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > Is the 50D a better still camera than the 7D? :
> ...



Ha, ok man. :


----------



## KeithR (Feb 11, 2012)

Fandongo said:


> "A photograph has much more meaning, I'm just not interested in video."
> - Every artsy person, wearing an artsy hoodie and artsy glasses


Don't do that, sunshine - you're just showing your ignorance.

I'm not _remotely_ "as described" - I'm a bird photographer who also does a bit of action photography - stuff like mountain biking, kite jumping/kite surfing, jet-skiing, some rugby, some martial arts, and I'll tell you why I photograph, rather than video these things.

*Because - depending on the subject matter, but in general - video is boring*.

People can appreciate an image of a bird caught in flight, but a _video_ of the same birds tracking across the screen? Boring. 

A mountain bike caught in mid jump is good subject matter: a video of the same thing? Boring.

Someone at the top of a big air kite jump is a cool image: the ten minutes of standing round under the kite waiting for just the right minute to "pop"? Boring.

And so on. Yes, it's eminently possible to edit sequences into something more useful, but - frankly - I'm not really interested in Youtube, thanks. Let's be honest: 99.9% of the stuff on Youtube _et al_ is _crap_. By all means contribute to that figure if you feel the need, but I don't.

So - just for the avoidance of any doubt - there are perfectly valid use-cases for photographs over videos that don't involve "artsy". Just because you don't understand that, it doesn't give you the right to be a smartarse about people who don't think your way.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 11, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> D.Sim said:
> 
> 
> > EYEONE said:
> ...




... if the key criteria is lack of weight ...

8) 8) 8)


----------



## CJRodgers (Feb 11, 2012)

KeithR said:


> Fandongo said:
> 
> 
> > "A photograph has much more meaning, I'm just not interested in video."
> ...




Surley this completely depends on how its edited?! I LOVE watching vidoes of mountain bikes and things such as kite surfing and all that, especially when its been ran through twixtor (slow motion interpolation programme) and edited well with good music. It looks incredible. Check out some the redbull stunt stuff if you can be just a bit more open minded about it. 

I like watching videos of birds flying through the air when its done well. BBC documenty team always seem to do a good job of making their videos on animals in their natural habitat interesting, so im sure its not impossible for someone else to do the same with the right editing and narrative.

I agree if someone puts no effort in at all and literally just films a subject such as bird flying about for 10 seconds yes it is boring, but thats the same as people taking very average photographs with no effort or though about how to make the subject interesting.


----------



## daveswan (Feb 11, 2012)

There's something else besides "birds in flight" "mountain bike jumping" etc.

It's called "narative". Ever heard of it?

The cinematic DoF that comes with a 35mm (Cine) sized sensor is wonderful for narative. No you don't have to use super-shallow DoF all the time, it's a creative tool, same as grading in post.

I'm thinking a lot of the "hate" I'm seeing is the mirror image of the cine-snobery I find on certain cine forums I go to, sort of "Thicko cheapskate photographers, why don't they use Cooke S5 lenses (At £20,000 a time)"


----------



## Jedifarce (Feb 12, 2012)

daveswan said:


> The cinematic DoF that comes with a 35mm (Cine) sized sensor is wonderful for narative. No you don't have to use super-shallow DoF all the time, it's a creative tool, same as grading in post.



Pro's such as Philip Bloom and Shane Hurlbut don't never shoot at anything below f/4. I was kinda suprised Shane Hurlbut encourages filming at F/5.6


----------



## Policar (Feb 12, 2012)

Jedifarce said:


> daveswan said:
> 
> 
> > The cinematic DoF that comes with a 35mm (Cine) sized sensor is wonderful for narative. No you don't have to use super-shallow DoF all the time, it's a creative tool, same as grading in post.
> ...



Day exteriors in narrative film are usually shot between t4 and t8 (there are tons of exceptions, Social Network way more open, New World way more stopped down) for the sake of the AC's sanity and so it doesn't all look soft and mushy. Taking into account the size of a 5d sensor relative to super35 film, that would be more like f5.6 and 1/2 to f 11 and 1/2. Plus that's where lenses perform best.

You can shoot whatever you want, though. Social Network was almost all t1.3 (f1.2 or f1.1 likely). On a 5d that feels like f2, maybe?


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 14, 2012)

torger said:


> My beloved "live view", which I consider a must-have for manual focusing from a tripod, is also a side-effect of the video function.



That's interesting, since a 50D had live-view and did NOT come with video.....


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Feb 14, 2012)

KeithR said:


> People can appreciate an image of a bird caught in flight, but a _video_ of the same birds tracking across the screen? Boring.



If you put up your still of a bird in flight next to my video shot at 300fps played back at 24fps, I'm gonna get more viewers.


----------



## daveswan (Feb 15, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> torger said:
> 
> 
> > My beloved "live view", which I consider a must-have for manual focusing from a tripod, is also a side-effect of the video function.
> ...



Magic Lantern has enabled video on the 50D
QED



HurtinMinorKey said:


> KeithR said:
> 
> 
> > People can appreciate an image of a bird caught in flight, but a _video_ of the same birds tracking across the screen? Boring.
> ...



And have you seen footage of starlings coming in to roost? Beautiful ever-changing patterns, or slo-mo of a fish-eagle taking a fish in flight?

As I said, the mirror image of the cine-snobbery I see on other forums.


----------



## Ryusui (Feb 18, 2012)

dilbert said:


> I know that there are many features that my digital cameras have that I don't use.
> But do I wish that they weren't there?
> No.
> Why not?
> Because they don't tailor make camera for me, they make a camera for everyone all over the world and everyone has different needs.


::applause::


----------



## CatfishSoupFTW (Feb 22, 2012)

when this whole idea came out of video on DSLRs i wasnt for it, just because i almost felt like it wasnt a pairing that shouldnt happen. but its evolved in such a successful manner well beyond the amateur level that i have accepted it and have even myself, shot shorts with it. its great. i shoot fully manual to begin with, so its fun and fairly easy to grasp imo


----------



## FredBGG (Feb 22, 2012)

Just go and shoot with a medium format digital and you'll see that sensors designed for stills only do a far better job. Both color and black and white is better. Today's 35mm DSLRs still can't match the color quality of 5 to 6 year old MF digital backs. It would be interesting to see what could be done with a 3 layer stills only sensor in one of today's high end 35mm bodies.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 22, 2012)

The colour quality of even the best DSLRs doesnt get close to good film. Resolution - yes, DR - no.


----------



## Ricku (Feb 22, 2012)

FredBGG said:


> Just go and shoot with a medium format digital and you'll see that sensors designed for stills only do a far better job. Both color and black and white is better. Today's 35mm DSLRs still can't match the color quality of 5 to 6 year old MF digital backs. It would be interesting to see what could be done with a 3 layer stills only sensor in one of today's high end 35mm bodies.


+1

I don't understand why they _(Canon + Nikon)_ won't give us at least one body designed only for stills. Me and many many other photographers would buy it in a heart beat, because we don't give a sh1t about video in our DSLRs. 

I really hate that IQ for stills is being sacrificed for stupid video.


----------



## tt (Feb 22, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> The colour quality of even the best DSLRs doesnt get close to good film. Resolution - yes, DR - no.



Doesn't even the RED need help with that though? If it's consistent, can you sort to some degree colour? I remember seeing the Zacuto shoot out and wondering how it'd pan out in a year or two (I think the Scarlet wasn't available at the time). The d800 and 5D successor should have sorted some issues out (eg wobble)


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 22, 2012)

OK, why the hate? Here is why ... in a hateful rant:

1. I never shoot video (except on rare occassions a brief crappy clip of a scene on my iphone). Main reason is that the creation of at least halfway decent moving images requires levels of visual and staging creativity and amounts of time I do not have. I find still photography including post processing more than challenging enough. 

2. I and millions of other photographers around the world would like to be able to choose cameras that are unfettered by any video features and unharmed by any of the many compromises inherent in enabling video capture along with stills capture. Those compromises manifest themselves like a bad disease ... starting with type and design of imaging sensors, data pipeline and processing, hardware and firmwar/software down to control elements and ergonomics of todays bastard stills/video cameras. Capable of 2 things, but none of the two at 100%. 

3. Rather than wasting half or more of the DIGIC's prowess on bloody video encoding I would like all of this processing power harnessed for the capture and processing of still images and to drive AF-systems with yet unheard of capabilities. Including a 2012-worthy reincarnation of the Canon Eye Controlled Focusing [ECF], the most intuitive and ergonomic interface man has ever created to get a picture in focus. 

4. I would like a camera body without a dedicated red video "record" button and without any other physical control elements, unnecessarily bloated "video" options in its menu tree and without any of the other video-related gimmicks that just get in the way of what I would like to do with my camera: capture the best possible still images in the most uncompromised and straightforward way! 

5. The most convincing tools are dedicated to one and only one prupose. A hammer is the best tool to drive in nails with as little effort as possible. For screws ... take a screwdriver, for gods sake! Seeing all these video types taking DSLRs and putting them into those monstrous rigs with follow focus control and steady cam rigs ... they would be way better served and overjoyed with dedicated video cams ... of course with a large sensor and of course not more expensive than a 7D, a 5D II or maybe a C300. The video types don't care for stills - and I fully appreciate that. 

6. For me please a 7Ds or a 5Ds or even better a mirrorless Canon SOL S (finally retire those old EOS-DSLRs of yesteryear!) with "s" for "stills only". 

Make it so, Canon ... engage!


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 22, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> 6. For me please a 7Ds or a 5Ds or even better a mirrorless Canon SOL S (finally retire those old EOS-DSLRs of yesteryear!) with "s" for "stills only".
> 
> Make it so, Canon ... engage!



Buy a 1Ds3 - and your wish will come true


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 23, 2012)

hehe, yes that would be an option. But way too much money for an outdated sensor.


----------



## NormanBates (Feb 23, 2012)

but without income from customers interested in video, there's very little money for developing new sensors and processors!
stick to 1Ds3, pay an arm and a leg, or be done with this silly argument

and in any case let me remind you that for decades the stills world was subsidized by the movie industry (which made film cheap thanks to its huge demand)


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 23, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> but without income from customers interested in video, there's very little money for developing new sensors and processors!



not correct. There were 15 years of enormous progress in sensors and processors development used in DSLRs ... way before any of them was video-enabled. Ever since, most of the development money seems to be spent on this effort to try and turn still cams into half-assed videocams too.

All those who want to put sorry little video clips on youtube would be well enough served with their smartphones or compact digicams. And "serious" videographers at all levels from semi-pro to Hollywood-aspiring Indie filmmaker would be way better served with pure and true video cams. Sony, Pana, Canon could have started making large-sensor videocams a long time ago - customers were not holding them back. 

Demand for HDSLRs was and is solely fueled by the fact, that they offered good video-quality for significantly less money than true videocams, but definitely not by overwhelming demand of users who wanted to have one combi-tool to capture video and stills with. It would be more than good enough, if both lines - stills and videocams - have the same or fully compatible lens mounts, so that quality 

Video-enabled still cams are just being stuffed down photographers' throats ... if there was free choice between say a 5D-V (video+stills) and a 5D-S (stills only) for 20% less money I would expect that 80% of cameras sold would be the stills version. But again, we are beinmg denied that choice.

outdated, end of life DSLRs without video - e.g. 1Ds III - are no solution. But offer me a 1D-S (1D X minus video functionality) for 4k and I take it any day. 

hammers for nails - screwdrivers for screws. 
trucks for heavy loads - sportscars for speed.
videocams for video - still cams for still images!


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 23, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> hehe, yes that would be an option. But way too much money for an outdated sensor.


 Used 1Ds3 are going for about the same price as a 5DII in the UK

It may be outdated but it still produces very fine pictures. If you are prepared to put up the 21mp, 5fps, 2 card slots, pro AF with a limitation of iso 3200 then it makes a lot of sense - and it is cheaper than the 5DIII too

A 1960s Rolls Royce is outdated by a VW Golf - but I would still prefer the RR if it was in good repair  And the RR would be less than the Golf too.


----------



## Cetalis (Feb 23, 2012)

I don't get it; is there any actual difference between a video camera and a non-video camera other than an extra button or two and a firmware change?


----------



## birtembuk (Feb 23, 2012)

While we all blah-blah about still/video capabilities, Canon are laughing all the way to the bank. Their mkt strategy in providing the masses w/ video DLSR is probably the right decision as their DSLR dept is making tons of money. So, it looks like photographers (seemingly soon to be extinct species) who don't give a damn about video have to get used to it. That's democracy. Now, what's frustrating is that we have no idea of what is the cost component of video in a VDSLR. If you tell me it's only 10% I'll swallow. If it's 30% it's bitter pill indeed. That's also why other alternatives become thinkable. Like going fishing instead ...


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 23, 2012)

Cetalis said:


> I don't get it; is there any actual difference between a video camera and a non-video camera other than an extra button or two and a firmware change?



yes. 

Please read post #35 ... http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3301.msg74696.html#msg74696


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 23, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Used 1Ds3 are going for about the same price as a 5DII in the UK
> It may be outdated but it still produces very fine pictures. If you are prepared to put up the 21mp, 5fps, 2 card slots, pro AF with a limitation of iso 3200 then it makes a lot of sense - and it is cheaper than the 5DIII too
> A 1960s Rolls Royce is outdated by a VW Golf - but I would still prefer the RR if it was in good repair  And the RR would be less than the Golf too.



I agree with all of this, except that I would not want to drive or maintain a 1960s Rolls instead of a current Volkswagen. 

Similarly, I do not want a 1Ds III ... i am neither lusting for FF nor for yesteryears' top cameras. All I want, is a highly capable APS-C camera as successor to my 7D. Preferably as a compact but "pro-grade" mirrorless camera, featuring 
* top-notch, latest generation APS-C sensor [possibly a backlit CMOS?], electronics, image processing pipeline - all geared to deluiver highest IQ for stills capture, with video being no consideration at all
* top-notch AF system [dual system with CD-AF plus on-sensor PD-AF ... similar to Nikon 1, just in APS-C size]
* tough body with full sealing and ergonomics / control elements 100% dedicated to stills capture, no unnecessary buttons ["video record" etc.], no unneccessary video options cluttering the menus. 
in one word: WITHOUT any video-stuff built in. 

Should not be difficult to make ... right?


----------



## Cetalis (Feb 23, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> Cetalis said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get it; is there any actual difference between a video camera and a non-video camera other than an extra button or two and a firmware change?
> ...





AvTvM said:


> 2. I and millions of other photographers around the world would like to be able to choose cameras that are unfettered by any video features and unharmed by any of the many compromises inherent in enabling video capture along with stills capture. Those compromises manifest themselves like a bad disease ... starting with type and design of imaging sensors, data pipeline and processing, hardware and firmwar/software down to control elements and ergonomics of todays bastard stills/video cameras. Capable of 2 things, but none of the two at 100%.
> 
> 3. Rather than wasting half or more of the DIGIC's prowess on bloody video encoding I would like all of this processing power harnessed for the capture and processing of still images and to drive AF-systems with yet unheard of capabilities. Including a 2012-worthy reincarnation of the Canon Eye Controlled Focusing [ECF], the most intuitive and ergonomic interface man has ever created to get a picture in focus.
> 
> ...



2: Can you give specific examples? I'm still not seeing this one.

3: The 1Dmk4 has good AF and can also shoot video, same with the 1DX, which has 3 DIGICs. I am led to believe that video functionality does not affect AF, which appears to be limited more by the AF unit than the processor.

4: The 5DmkII has all its video settings in the live view menu, away from all the other stills settings. The 7D has one video setting in the menu, and again, nowhere near stills settings. Can you give a specific example where the movie record button has displaced something useful?

5: Specialized tools are often more expensive and relatively unpopular; midrange zooms sell more than say, the 14mmL, 800mmL and the MP-E.


----------



## SPG (Feb 23, 2012)

It's kind of funny to see some of the reactions to DSLR video from the purists. The reality is that having video features doesn't impact the photo functionality of the current cameras in any meaningful way. OTOH, photo functions definitely impact video functionality, but I have yet to hear any filmmakers complain that their DSLR takes photos. 
Over my career I've had a foot planted in each camp. I've been a freelance photographer, senior staff photographer, photo editor, and also a DP, TV producer, independent film producer, editor, and a few other things. Getting the 7D was a great day for me. A single camera to take stills and I can get shots that we could only get before with 35mm movie cameras? Why couldn't I have had this twenty years ago!
If you're going to get upset that someone is shooting video on a stills camera, then definitely don't take a look at any of the modern mobile phones, and make sure you stay far away from instagram.


----------



## distant.star (Feb 23, 2012)

If the strongly rumored specifications for the new 5D3 are an indication, we now know exactly what the actual difference is "between a video camera and a non-video camera." It's about $1000.

And it's $1000 because the video crowd are happy to pay that for a camera that will nearly equal what they'd have to pay $15K to $50K for in a dedicated video camera. Very astute on Canon's part, but also somewhat tragic as they're throwing the still photographers who made them under the bus -- where we probably now belong anyway in a world transitioning to full HD video!





Cetalis said:


> I don't get it; is there any actual difference between a video camera and a non-video camera other than an extra button or two and a firmware change?


----------



## daveswan (Feb 23, 2012)

He he, just wait until Canon takes away the pentaprism and replaces it with an EVF to satisfy the video brigade.

I'm only joking, but I *have* seen video guys lambasting Canon for not doing just that.

Oh, and BTW you *can* get a "video" camera (Actually digital cinema) with specs out-doing film, 14 stops DR and a wider gamut than cune negative.

It's called the Sony F65, and that will be £85,000 sir. Oh and would sir like lens with that?


----------



## kubelik (Feb 23, 2012)

distant.star said:


> If the strongly rumored specifications for the new 5D3 are an indication, we now know exactly what the actual difference is "between a video camera and a non-video camera." It's about $1000.
> 
> And it's $1000 because the video crowd are happy to pay that for a camera that will nearly equal what they'd have to pay $15K to $50K for in a dedicated video camera. Very astute on Canon's part, but also somewhat tragic as they're throwing the still photographers who made them under the bus -- where we probably now belong anyway in a world transitioning to full HD video!



uh ... no. that's the price difference for a 61-point AF system and 6 FPS shutter. the 5D Mark II came with video and it cost $2500.

they're not throwing anyone under the bus, they ran the numbers and predicted that the market could sustain a $3500 FF pro-AF camera. people on these forums love to assume that pricing structure is something 'owed' to them by the companies, whether Canon or Nikon. no such thing. they are pricing their goods the same way that you price your goods as a photographer. if I feel my potential client base is willing to pay $4000 for a wedding package there is no way you're going to get me to sell it for $3000.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 23, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> Used 1Ds3 are going for about the same price as a 5DII in the UK
> It may be outdated but it still produces very fine pictures. If you are prepared to put up the 21mp, 5fps, 2 card slots, pro AF with a limitation of iso 3200 then it makes a lot of sense - and it is cheaper than the 5DIII too
> A 1960s Rolls Royce is outdated by a VW Golf - but I would still prefer the RR if it was in good repair  And the RR would be less than the Golf too.



I agree with all of this, except that I would not want to drive or maintain a 1960s Rolls instead of a current Volkswagen. 

Similarly, I do not want a 1Ds III ... i am neither lusting for FF nor for yesteryears' top cameras. All I want, is a highly capable APS-C camera as successor to my 7D. Preferably as a compact but "pro-grade" mirrorless camera, featuring 
* top-notch, latest generation APS-C sensor [possibly a backlit CMOS?], electronics, image processing pipeline - all geared to deluiver highest IQ for stills capture, with video being no consideration at all
* top-notch AF system [dual system with CD-AF plus on-sensor PD-AF ... similar to Nikon 1, just in APS-C size]
* tough body with full sealing and ergonomics / control elements 100% dedicated to stills capture, no unnecessary buttons ["video record" etc.], no unneccessary video options cluttering the menus. 
in one word: WITHOUT any video-stuff built in. 

Should not be difficult to make ... right?
[/quote]

So you want every feature of the 1Ds3 except that you want an APS-C sensor that doesn't exist

I dont understand the obsession with APS-C technology


----------



## Neeneko (Feb 23, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> Used 1Ds3 are going for about the same price as a 5DII in the UK
> It may be outdated but it still produces very fine pictures. If you are prepared to put up the 21mp, 5fps, 2 card slots, pro AF with a limitation of iso 3200 then it makes a lot of sense - and it is cheaper than the 5DIII too
> A 1960s Rolls Royce is outdated by a VW Golf - but I would still prefer the RR if it was in good repair  And the RR would be less than the Golf too.



They have not gotten quite that cheap here, but I am being patient. I will take a good outdated camera over a glitzy new one that doesn't do what I want all that well anyway ^_^


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 24, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> So you want every feature of the 1Ds3 except that you want an APS-C sensor that doesn't exist
> I dont understand the obsession with APS-C technology



No. I do NOT want a 1Ds III. I Do not want a FF camera. I do NOT want to buy 400mm+ superteles. I want a pro-grade APS-C 7D successor for the price of the 7D or 20% less, because there is no video gagdetry build in. And I would like that thing to have 1D-X AF system. Not possible? Yes, possible. Nikon did just that when they brought out the D300 with the D3 AF module. Full featured, pro-grade APS-C stills cam at 1/4 the porice of an FF camera.


----------



## Neeneko (Feb 24, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> No. I do NOT want a 1Ds III. I Do not want a FF camera. I do NOT want to buy 400mm+ superteles.



Ahm.. then don't buy a 400mm+ telephoto lens. You can always crop in post processing if you were not able to zoom in close enough.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Feb 24, 2012)

By the multitude of opinions and rants that Canon does not build the exact combination of features that each want, there will be no peace until they release a fully modular system so each could assemble whatever they wanted.


----------



## Neeneko (Feb 24, 2012)

SPG said:


> Over my career I've had a foot planted in each camp. I've been a freelance photographer, senior staff photographer, photo editor, and also a DP, TV producer, independent film producer, editor, and a few other things. Getting the 7D was a great day for me. A single camera to take stills and I can get shots that we could only get before with 35mm movie cameras? Why couldn't I have had this twenty years ago!
> If you're going to get upset that someone is shooting video on a stills camera, then definitely don't take a look at any of the modern mobile phones, and make sure you stay far away from instagram.



I think this is one of the perspective issues.
Photographers and videoographers often do not see the difference. Engineers, people who have worked in embedded systems and have a feeling for how the design and marketing processes go can take guesses at what hybrid cameras are actually costing the unfavored market. We also know how disconnected marketing group think can get from actual demographics, and right now 'video in DSLR' is the unchallengeable twuth in marketing, regardless of actual market demand.

In fact, producing a stills-only body is risky from an individual career perspective. Right now a lot of exeuctives have their reputation staked on this particular market. If their own company starts producing a line of still cameras again, that runs the risk of demonstrating that the market is still there and thus they were wrong, and that can be career killing. Thus they have a powerful incentive to insure that everyone agrees still only cameras are a dead end.


----------



## Neeneko (Feb 24, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> By the multitude of opinions and rants that Canon does not build the exact combination of features that each want, there will be no peace until they release a fully modular system so each could assemble whatever they wanted.



I keep hoping that makebots will become good enough that we will see a new rise in DIY cameras for just this reason. Right now the modular cameras are so bloody expensive due to small market, which keeps the market small, which keeps them expensive, rinse lather repeat.


----------



## Not Afraid Of The Future (Feb 24, 2012)

KeithR said:


> A mountain bike caught in mid jump is good subject matter: a video of the same thing? Boring.
> 
> Someone at the top of a big air kite jump is a cool image: the ten minutes of standing round under the kite waiting for just the right minute to "pop"? Boring.


If video of action sports is boring then why did Youtube/Vimeo completely obliterate the action sports magazine industry? While the standing around might be more boring for *you* market trends tell us the average viewer prefers video by a very wide margin


----------



## Not Afraid Of The Future (Feb 24, 2012)

FredBGG said:


> Just go and shoot with a medium format digital and you'll see that sensors designed for stills only do a far better job. Both color and black and white is better.


Apples to Oranges. It has absolutely nothing to do with MF digital being dedicated to stills but entirely with the size of the sensor. Of course you're going to get a better image with a sensor 4x the size. In the same way a point and shoot doesn't produce the same quality as a DSLR


----------



## distant.star (Feb 24, 2012)

kubelik said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > If the strongly rumored specifications for the new 5D3 are an indication, we now know exactly what the actual difference is "between a video camera and a non-video camera." It's about $1000.
> ...




I think you perfectly make my point on the pricing. Canon was surprised by demand for the video capability in the 5D2. They probably sat in meetings for two years saying, "Damn, if we'd know it would be this popular, we'd have priced it at $3K or more." With a 5D3, they'll now say they have addressed what the market said were the small deficiencies in the 5D2 video, do a business reset and price it at $3500 -- with certainty they'll sell as many or more to the same video crowd who paid $2500. That's simply how business works, and I wouldn't expect otherwise. But the demand that drives the pricing is coming from the video, not the stills.

And the whole discussion could be moot as that rumored $3500 price may be a kit price. Who knows!

What I will disagree with is the point that better AF and shutter are worth $1000. In a stills-only camera, they could never get away with that. Also, I'd be surprised if their unit cost for such an upgrade were over $100.


----------



## rocketdesigner (Feb 24, 2012)

Beautor said:


> why the hate?



The evolution of DSLR's into HDSLR's is hard to accept by those who will never use video functionality. 

And while I am on the video side of the end-user fence, I understand their feelings ...why are they paying for video in a form factor that- up to recent history - has been exclusively their domain .. still photography.

In fact, when I spend literally hours setting up and fine tuning for a shoot using an HDSLR, the effort involved is similar to shooting 35mm cinema ... the camera requires exact, metered lighting, the gear (mattebox, Follow Focus, external monitors, sound recorders et al) takes forever to properly assemble ... I wonder why I just didnt invest in a regular video camera to begin with (and probably saved money all the while). 

So let the pure photographers gripe, they have a point. But at the end of the day, I love the craft, the gear, and the final product that I am getting from my camera.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Feb 24, 2012)

distant.star said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > distant.star said:
> ...



My guess is this is accurate. I think the dual flash cards means a better video codec, or maybe even 4k. It kinda seems like it's gonna be the old 5dii with better AF and video, along with the requisite faster processing and fps.


----------



## Neeneko (Feb 24, 2012)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> My guess is this is accurate. I think the dual flash cards means a better video codec, or maybe even 4k. It kinda seems like it's gonna be the old 5dii with better AF and video, along with the requisite faster processing and fps.



I suspect the dual flash cards are for flexibility. Since the two slots are different formats you would not get any write gain, just choice of which card type to use.


----------



## Neeneko (Feb 24, 2012)

Not Afraid Of The Future said:


> Apples to Oranges. It has absolutely nothing to do with MF digital being dedicated to stills but entirely with the size of the sensor. Of course you're going to get a better image with a sensor 4x the size. In the same way a point and shoot doesn't produce the same quality as a DSLR



Actually, it has everything to do with them being dedicated stills.
DSLR manufacturers are including video because enough people want it to justify the costs. MF manufacturers are not including it because not enough of their market wants it to justify the costs.

This means that when building their systems, they don't have to make video vs still design compromises, they don't have to invest in the extra silicone, they don't have to do the extra R&D, they don't have to do the additional testing. Every piece of the development process can focus on 'what makes a good still camera' without having to take all those video elements into account.

By being able to focus on a limited use case, a larger percent of their resources go into making something that does that use case well. By splitting between cases, DSLR manufactures are forced to build a product that, for the same effort, does each of those cases less well because of the opportunity cost.


----------



## rocketdesigner (Feb 24, 2012)

distant.star said:


> Canon was surprised by demand for the video capability in the 5D2. They probably sat in meetings for two years saying, *"Damn, if we'd know it would be this popular, we'd have priced it at $3K or more." That's simply how business works.... *




"How business works" is if Canon truly thought that, they would have gone ahead with a price increase ... as other manufacturing companies do all the time.


----------



## distant.star (Feb 24, 2012)

In all the years I worked as a business journalist, I rarely, if ever, saw a major company do what you suggest with a major product. Next product cycle, yes, but not current product; such a move would generate too much ill will.

Small business might get away with it, but not a company the size and stature of Canon.





rocketdesigner said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > Canon was surprised by demand for the video capability in the 5D2. They probably sat in meetings for two years saying, *"Damn, if we'd know it would be this popular, we'd have priced it at $3K or more." That's simply how business works.... *
> ...


----------



## Rocky (Feb 24, 2012)

"HATE" is too strong a word. "Do not want " may be a better term. Let us face it, Canon or any other company will not give us 'Video capability" for free. Just the op[posite, they are using it to justify a higher price. So for the people that do not use it. They feel that they are throwing the money away. May be Canon can take a lesson from some of the software maker. Customer paid for the option and use a software key to unlock the option.


----------



## TheRascalKing0000 (Feb 24, 2012)

Rocky said:


> Customer paid for the option and use a software key to unlock the option.



Are you really suggesting Canon use a licensing model to lock capabilities that are intrinsic in the hardware? I think that would generate WAY more ill will than just a price increase.


----------



## SPG (Feb 24, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> DSLR manufacturers are including video because enough people want it to justify the costs. MF manufacturers are not including it because not enough of their market wants it to justify the costs.



The reason that medium format cameras don't shoot video is that they can't. The sensors are so large that they can't process that much information fast enough to produce a video image, or at least a video image that would be worth a damn because of all the line skipping and pixel binning that would be required. 
If you look at what is in that range, and again this isn't even anywhere close to the sensor size of a MF camera, the RED digital cinema cameras can shoot in 4k and they have to be on the bleeding edge of new tech to do that. REDs are big burly cameras that cost a lot, tend to break down, produce a ton of heat, and yet are very popular. 
Trust me, if any of the MF camera makers could figure out a way to add video to their cameras they would add it in a heartbeat to capture some of that RED market.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 24, 2012)

TheRascalKing0000 said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > Customer paid for the option and use a software key to unlock the option.
> ...



it would be hacked within the week the first cameras are out in the wild.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 24, 2012)

rocketdesigner said:


> Beautor said:
> 
> 
> > why the hate?
> ...



exactly. Except that we will not only gripe and shut up, but continue to tell Canon and the other manufacturers that we want "pure still cameras". One of those companies will (eventually) listen and get an amazing amount of business from us.


----------



## NormanBates (Feb 24, 2012)

would you buy the same camera, with the same stills capabilities, for the same price, if it didn't have video?

because offering a "stills only" camera is easy

making it take stills better than other cameras that record video, for the same price, or with same image quality but for a lower price, is not as easy as you make it sound (if it were, you'd be at sigmarumors.com)


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 24, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> Except that we will not only gripe and shut up, but continue to tell Canon and the other manufacturers that we want "pure still cameras". One of those companies will (eventually) listen and get an amazing amount of business from us.



No, their engineers will laugh at the request. I've yet to see a reasonable expression of how removing video will do anything positive for stills. All the engineering that goes into video actually makes stills better. Removing video will turn it into a niche product that has no better function, but carries a niche (i.e. inflated) price tag.


----------



## Neeneko (Feb 24, 2012)

Orangutan said:


> No, their engineers will laugh at the request. I've yet to see a reasonable expression of how removing video will do anything positive for stills. All the engineering that goes into video actually makes stills better. Removing video will turn it into a niche product that has no better function, but carries a niche (i.e. inflated) price tag.



As an engineer who spent years working in embedded systems.. no.. I would wager their engineers will not laugh.

No.. the engineering that goes into making the video capabilities not NOT make stills better, it makes them worse. Any time during the design process you have a requirement that the device be able to do A and B (rather then just A or B) compromises will be made, designs become more complex, more hardware is required, and testing time increases.

Now, it can be argued that adding video increases sales enough to offset the additional cost, but make no mistake, the same amount of development resources put into a pure still camera would produce a superior single purpose device. Though I imagine once the newness of 'video in everything' wears off we will see a reevaluation of associating this additional effort with every model produced... esp as I am guessing dedicated video devices will come down in price to compete.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Feb 25, 2012)

It all depends on wether in the long run a large enough body of costumers treat video as a core requirement in a DSLR. At this moment in time there is such a critical mass since there are no dedicated alternatives at this price range. That will probably change somewhat in the future but it is unclear if the magical combination of stills-video-price will falter. 

My point is that at this point in time stating that a non-video camera would be this or that much better at stills is as relevant as discussing the necessity and complexity of incorporating auto focus in cameras. There are many good reasons why it is not needed or even wanted but they are utterly irrelevant.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 25, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> Any time during the design process you have a requirement that the device be able to do A and B (rather then just A or B) compromises will be made, designs become more complex, more hardware is required, and testing time increases.



This is the part that confuses me: I'm a former programmer (though not a trained EE) but I don't see A and B being different here. To my mind, video is is basically 30fps of still images encoded in a single file, along with a bit of audio. You might argue that the algorithms are different, and perhaps they are. But the code must be written for consumer cameras, and the chips (presumably) use the same instruction set. (I doubt the DigicN for PowerShot is different from the DigicN for EOS). So the code is already written, and need only be incorporated into the EOS firmware. Furthermore, the high-speed sensor reading necessary for video can only help still images.

In short, I'd ask you this: what, precisely, of the following chain of events is substantially different between still and video? And which of that is not already a requirement of consumer cameras?

1. Expose sensor
2. Read data from sensor
3. Demosaic
4. Encode a frame
5. Save to media

Really, I don't get it: why is video not just a (nearly) free bonus?


----------



## SPG (Feb 25, 2012)

I shoot in natural light. I demand that Canon remove the hotshoe!

Ok, seriously though...removing every feature that you personally don't use is not going to make your camera better. The reason is that all these features increase the number of people who buy the camera and increase the amount of money that can be spent on R&D to make the next camera even better. 

I still haven't seen anyone show proof that video capabilities are harming the photo capability. Positing theories about R&D and engineering doesn't mean any more than the latest conspiracy theory. I want to see a video feature that has directly hurt photo performance.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 25, 2012)

Orangutan said:


> In short, I'd ask you this: what, precisely, of the following chain of events is substantially different between still and video? And which of that is not already a requirement of consumer cameras?
> 
> 1. Expose sensor
> 2. Read data from sensor
> ...



I am no engineer. 

But as I see it:

For video, a sensor with 2 megapixels (FullHD - 1920x1080) is all that is required. Videos are viewed on monitors or on screens/beamers - all of which offer - at best! - Full HD.
The sensor+readout+processor needs to be able to handle an ongoing massive stream of data without any interruption. Image quality of single frames however is a secondary requirement at best. 
The sensor needs to be of a type that can handle capture incoming light for "indefinite periods" of time. Cooling that thing is a major hardware issue. 
These requirements preclude certain sensor types (e.g. CCD-FT) from being used in regular video-enabled cameras altogether. This narrows the choice of image capturing device and layout friom the start to a much narrower field than for "stills capture only". 

For photography (stills) hat is needed/wanted?
Sensors with the highest possible resolution [currently 36 MP+ on 36x24mm "FF"sensor size], with the best possible S/R [translating into good DR, low hi-ISO noise, and all other goodies us photographers want). Image quality of each single frame/capture is paramount, speed is a secondary concern - 10 fps more than good enough for virtually anything. Exposure times are typically fractions of a second, typically max. 30 seconds, and only in very rae instances minutes. Cooling is much less of a concern than in video use ... and yes, live view has is blurring that requirement a bit. But bottom line: the whole data readout/processing pipeline needs to be geared to highest "single capture performance" vs. "streaming performance". 

These two sets of requirements are not 180 degrees opposite of each other, but there is a significant rift between them. Fulfilling both requirements necessitates an enormous amount of compromise on both ends .. for video and for stills capture, making the final product significantly more difficult to design, test, manufacture = more expensive, more prone to defects, less good in each of the 2 disciplines. 

"Video" in DSLRs of all things with all the mechanical stuff (anything inside the mirror box) and a lot of the optical stuff (prism, viewfinder etc.) really *in the way of video* rather than complementary is an aberration in camera design. Looking at mirrorless cameras changes the pictures a lot, but for DSLRs its madness. 

The sole reason HDSLRs got popular with videographers is their relative pricing compared to the "traditionally outlandish prices" for (relatively) large-sensored videocameras. All of a sudden, a $ 2,000 body comes with a sensor that rivals old-school videocams at $ 100.000+ ... that is the appeal in HDSLRs. It is a boon for videographers for sure, but not for photography/stills capture! HDSRLs are highly affordable to a large group of aspiring moving images people, and given the price they are more than illing to put up with all of the disadvantages HDSLRs bring to their work. Basically, all they use in a HDSLR is the sensor and the data processing pipeline. They (generally) don't want AF, but will rather add "follow-focus" contraptions and all sorts of bulky rigs around the poor little HDSLRs. They don't need an optical viewfinder (with heavy/bulky, costly glass prism). Basically, 50% of the cost of an HDSLR is "wasted" on them. Or, put another way, the money put into AF, mirrorbox, prism, optical viewfinder should go into even more video-suitable sensors+data processing capabilities. No reason, why there should not be 2k video cams with an FF sensor and an EF/PL mount in front. Without AF system, no OVF, but top notch EVF. In one word: a videocam! Something like a Canon C300, but at $ 2,000 not at an insane cost of $ 16,000 $

At the same time stills shooters should get a 5D III with e.g. a 24 MP FF "stills-optimized" sensor [whatever type/design may be best for that], top-notch AF, top-notch optical viewfinder minus all video-related features for $ 2,000 or less. 

I guess that should answer the question, whether video-capability is just "a little freebie" on a HDSLR. It is not. It is a product design aberration from the very start!


----------



## Cetalis (Feb 25, 2012)

AvTvM, all you've just said is theoretical; it's certainly possible, but I have yet to see a defect in current DSLRs caused by the addition of video.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 25, 2012)

Cetalis said:


> AvTvM, all you've just said is theoretical;



wrong. It's dead on, 100% real-life. 

For all the reasons a number of people have detailed in this thread, digital cameras designed to capture both still images and video are a huge comrpomise from the very start. All of the points I've made are valid and very real.


----------



## distant.star (Feb 25, 2012)

Thanks, Av.

This is a comprehensive explanation that makes a lot of sense to me.






AvTvM said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > In short, I'd ask you this: what, precisely, of the following chain of events is substantially different between still and video? And which of that is not already a requirement of consumer cameras?
> ...


----------



## Cetalis (Feb 26, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> Cetalis said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM, all you've just said is theoretical;
> ...



If this is such a huge compromise, then surely there are glaring defects in the current batch of video capable slrs, i.e. 1Dmk4, 5DmkII and 7D. I have yet to notice any, hence my skepticism. I can understand how these are not ideal for video, but I have yet to see stills functionality compromised by the addition of video functionality.


----------



## hollybush (Feb 26, 2012)

Cetalis said:


> I have yet to see a defect in current DSLRs caused by the addition of video.



Wait a few weeks and I suspect you will, in the form of the Canon 1DX. Look at the position of the "movie" button on that. Maybe the testers' thumbs are shorter than mine, but it looks to be exactly where my thumb sits on the current 1 series bodies. That compromises steadiness and convenience for stills. If so, it's a catastrophic design error.

Putting faster and more CPUs in cameras to handle the video decreases battery life. Battery life is one of the biggest differences between good stills cameras and bad stills cameras. The 1D Mk IV has significantly worse battery life than the Mk III and the only extra thing the CPUs have to do is video.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 26, 2012)

hollybush said:


> Look at the position of the "movie" button on that. Maybe the testers' thumbs are shorter than mine, but it looks to be exactly where my thumb sits on the current 1 series bodies. That compromises steadiness and convenience for stills. If so, it's a catastrophic design error.



While that could be a legitimate complaint, it's not inherent to the inclusion of video tech; it's just a design error. They could easily have put some stills-oriented button there instead.



> Putting faster and more CPUs in cameras to handle the video decreases battery life...The 1D Mk IV has significantly worse battery life than the Mk III and the only extra thing the CPUs have to do is video.



This is completely specious reasoning:

[list type=decimal]
[*]It's only burning the extra juice when it's processing video. When processing stills it should be no worse than it was before. Embedded CPU's like this don't burn a lot of juice just idling.
[*]The extra demands of video will push Canon to design more efficient processors and higher-capacity batteries.
[*]The demands of video will push canon to design faster processors, meaning better/faster in-camera JPEG (if that's your thing).
[/list]

No, sorry: I've still yet to hear even a shred of cogent argument. All I've heard so far is speculation, hand-waving and imagination. If someone with real chip-design experience wants to chime in with an explanation of how video capability limits stills IQ at the sensel level I'd love to read all about it. Note that even the Leica M9 (a stills-only camera, if ever there was one) scores worse on DxOMark than the 1D4 for low-light, DR and color depth. Sorry folks: just not buying it.


----------



## hollybush (Feb 26, 2012)

Orangutan said:


> While that could be a legitimate complaint, it's not inherent to the inclusion of video tech; it's just a design error. They could easily have put some stills-oriented button there instead.



A previous poster described in detail how the design process worked, and why it is more difficult to design a product to do two different things.



> It's only burning the extra juice when it's processing video. When processing stills it should be no worse than it was before. Embedded CPU's like this don't burn a lot of juice just idling.



But it's not idling, and not halted. That CPU does things other than video. They had to use a bigger CPU, which has more gates and burns more power when it is doing those other things. In some alternate design for the 1DX, there might have been a 4th processor dedicated to video that could be halted, but that isn't what we got.



> The extra demands of video will push Canon to design more efficient processors and higher-capacity batteries.



I don't want a different, heavier, higher-capacity battery. I want to use my old ones. (Kudos to Canon, I can with the 1DX, but they are suspiciously silent on how many shots it wil last with an extra CPU on board, bigger than the old ones.) If there is new battery technology, I want smaller and lighter, not the same size with more capacity.



> The demands of video will push canon to design faster processors, meaning better/faster in-camera JPEG (if that's your thing).



It's not, but I will admit it is for roughly the same people for whom video is. No raw video for them yet with current CPUs.



> If someone with real chip-design experience wants to chime in with an explanation of how video capability limits stills IQ at the sensel level I'd love to read all about it.



Wasn't sensor heating and noise already mentioned?



> Note that even the Leica M9 (a stills-only camera, if ever there was one) scores worse on DxOMark than the 1D4 for low-light, DR and color depth. Sorry folks: just not buying it.



Strawman.


----------



## Cetalis (Feb 26, 2012)

hollybush said:


> A previous poster described in detail how the design process worked, and why it is more difficult to design a product to do two different things.


It is harder to design something to do two things well, but it appears that video is being compromised, and not stills. In any event, I have yet to see anything compromised in favor of video.



> But it's not idling, and not halted. That CPU does things other than video. They had to use a bigger CPU, which has more gates and burns more power when it is doing those other things. In some alternate design for the 1DX, there might have been a 4th processor dedicated to video that could be halted, but that isn't what we got.


There's an entire CPU dedicated to AF, a non-video function. The 1DX was designed by Canon to cater to photojournalists and sports shooters (and yes, they have said that http://www.megapixel.co.il/english/archive/28040) and thus high processing power is a necessity, regardless of any video needs. Also, who's to say that the CPU hasn't gotten more power efficient with new advances in technology? Modern computer (x86/x86-64 at least) CPUs can scale back their frequencies if need be, and are more efficient than older ones.




> I don't want a different, heavier, higher-capacity battery. I want to use my old ones. (Kudos to Canon, I can with the 1DX, but they are suspiciously silent on how many shots it wil last with an extra CPU on board, bigger than the old ones.) If there is new battery technology, I want smaller and lighter, not the same size with more capacity.


The 1DX is neither small or light; nor was it a design priority. Smaller and lighter would be an issue if it was a priority, yet right now it appears that the size of the reflex mirror and the relevant housing would prevent any change in battery size from making any substantial impact. As for lighter, I've yet to see any substantial changes in weight imparted by the battery, relative to the weight of the camera. 



> "The demands of video will push canon to design faster processors, meaning better/faster in-camera JPEG (if that's your thing)."
> It's not, but I will admit it is for roughly the same people for whom video is. No raw video for them yet with current CPUs.


The entire electronics industry has always pushed for faster, more efficient, cheaper, and in general better processors; often achieving more than a few of these goals. Canon will push for better processors as long as its profitable.



> Wasn't sensor heating and noise already mentioned?


Sensor heating, and the noise that comes with it, is only a problem during long exposures, live view and video. If one does none of those, it is not an issue. Also, every current digital camera suffers from the same issue, regardless of whether or not it has video. If anything, the video people complaining about it may mean that those of us who use live view and long exposures might benefit. 



Also, if one looks at it from a video perspective, the current batch of DSLRs is optimized toward stills with video functionality added on. What I see are two lines of cameras: one optimized for stills, and one optimized for video (Cinema EOS), with both being able to capture stills and video, but being better at one, and I cannot see how relatively bad video functionality(which isn't even that bad) is something to complain about when it is essentially free, especially if one will not even use it. If the 5Dmk3/X has no OVF, no AF, built in ND filters, a cooling fan, and a 4k sensor I'd agree that we need a stills optimized camera, but Canon is not going to do that.


----------



## NormanBates (Feb 26, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> But as I see it:
> 
> For video, a sensor with 2 megapixels (FullHD - 1920x1080) is all that is required. Videos are viewed on monitors or on screens/beamers - all of which offer - at best! - Full HD.
> The sensor+readout+processor needs to be able to handle an ongoing massive stream of data without any interruption. Image quality of single frames however is a secondary requirement at best.
> ...



I only read this part of that huge post

it shows you don't really know much about video, so there's no point reading all the rest

for a start, a 2 mpix sensor is not enough for 1080p video, as each photosite in the sensor captures only one color - ideally, for 1080p you want 8mpix, so you get full color for each pixel, as in the c300; if the sensor is 3:2, that's 10 mpix (3840x2560)

and if your final images will be 4K, you want a 18 mpix sensor (the RED EPIC is 5120x2700, make that 3:2 and it's 17.5 mpix)

so the resolution of the 1DX sensor is perfect for 4K footage - just make read-out times fast enough, and avoid overheating (that's a very fair point you made, but if you want high fps you have to take this into account too), and you're basically done

because all the arguments about the processor are utterly silly

processing video streams is NOT all that difficult

the digic-dv-III found on the $16K C300 can also be found on the $300 HF-R200, it's a dirt-cheap processor that does the job reasonably well (it can't do 10 bits, only 8-bits 4:2:2, but it's a 4 years old chip, the next iteration should do 10 bits)

THE WEATHER SEALED PLUGS IN THE 1DX COST A LOT MORE THAN A HIGH-END VIDEO PROCESSOR


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 26, 2012)

Since Cetalis addressed much of this I'll try to keep this reply short.



> A previous poster described in detail how the design process worked, and why it is more difficult to design a product to do two different things.



I saw little detail, and no references. That long "explanation" seemed like handwaving to me -- all suggestion, no substance. I saw little value in it.



> They had to use a bigger CPU, which has more gates and burns more power when it is doing those other things.



Performance per-watt continues to go up for mobile devices. As an example, consider netbooks, which have the performance of a Pentium 3, and use a trickle of power. And yes, one of the strategies is to idle the processor, or to idle parts of it that aren't being used. If that were not true, your camera would quickly run out of power just staying "awake."



> I don't want a different, heavier, higher-capacity battery...If there is new battery technology, I want smaller and lighter, not the same size with more capacity.



This is legitimate, though some people do want higher capacity at same size/weight.



> Wasn't sensor heating and noise already mentioned?



Mentioned? yes. Addressed well? no. Sensors only heat when active. If you're shooting stills then this is no problem for you. So what's the problem?




> Note that even the Leica M9...Strawman.



You did not specify how this is a strawman so I'll have to guess. If you mean it's irrelevant because it's not a Canon then I disagree. The premise of the anti-video crowd is that adding video features inherently undermines still photography, and that a camera that was designed, ground-up, as a stills-only camera would produce better-quality stills and a better still-shooter experience. The Leica is a counter-example to the assertion that stills-only produces better IQ, even though it is a substantially larger sensor and was selected/designed for stills-only. If there was something else you considered to be a strawman, please specify.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 26, 2012)

Orangutan said:


> Mentioned? yes. Addressed well? no. Sensors only heat when active. If you're shooting stills then this is no problem for you. So what's the problem?



The problem is: a stills+video camera needs to be able to withstand (e.g. heatwise) the requirements of running full-bore video capture and processing for the duration of up to a full battery charge [or 2 of them when gripped] - or some artificial limit like 29 minutes (owing to some wretched customs regulations).

A stills-only camera would not have to take that into account from the very start. That alone would enable a significantly different layout of the system and its components, geared more towards delivering highest IQ in each single exposure, rather than in a continous stream. 



Orangutan said:


> The premise of the anti-video crowd is that adding video features inherently undermines still photography, and that a camera that was designed, ground-up, as a stills-only camera would produce better-quality stills and a better still-shooter experience. The Leica is a counter-example to the assertion that stills-only produces better IQ, even though it is a substantially larger sensor and was selected/designed for stills-only.



Leica M9 IQ is sub-par not because it is a stills-only camera, but despite it ... its Kodak is a very old design (5+ years?), and at the time apparently the only sensor Leica could get their hands on. Leica has no sensor know-how whatsoever. If Canon (or Sony) were to design a dedicated "stills-only" camera now (in 2012) with sensor+processing pipeline targeted at highest possible stills IQ it would be quite a different beast, that's for sure.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 26, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> The problem is: a stills+video camera needs to be able to withstand (e.g. heatwise)
> 
> ....
> 
> A stills-only camera would not have to take that into account from the very start. That alone would enable a significantly different layout of the system and its components, geared more towards delivering highest IQ in each single exposure, rather than in a continous stream.



Maybe. Or maybe the heat-tolerance would lead to more efficient circuitry that results in better IQ. I don't really know, but it would be interesting to ask a true expert in the field. For now, this is open to speculation only.



> Leica M9 IQ is sub-par not because it is a stills-only camera, but despite it...If Canon (or Sony) were to design a dedicated "stills-only" camera now (in 2012) with sensor+processing pipeline targeted at highest possible stills IQ it would be quite a different beast, that's for sure.



Again, this seems like speculation with more certainty than is supported by the hard facts available to us.


----------



## tt (Feb 26, 2012)

May sound silly - but as PC DIYers have done with their systems, haven't photogs looked at creating cooling systems? It'd involve consideration from the starting design of the camera, but a cooling system would be pretty feasible? Bit of liquid cooling for those astro long exposure videos?


----------



## Cetalis (Feb 26, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> The problem is: a stills+video camera needs to be able to withstand (e.g. heatwise)
> 
> ....
> 
> A stills-only camera would not have to take that into account from the very start. That alone would enable a significantly different layout of the system and its components, geared more towards delivering highest IQ in each single exposure, rather than in a continous stream.


Long exposure work, live view, and high temperature environments, say a desert, would make overheating a consideration, even without video. Internally, long exposure work, fast burst rates, or extremely high resolution would mean that one would still need a continuous stream at some point in the pipeline; otherwise a buffer would not be necessary. Even as the data rides off the sensor into the buffer, it is also a continuous stream, albeit a short one in most cases. Even if IQ for one, and only one exposure is prioritized, large format scanning backs still deliver data in a continuous stream. 




Orangutan said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Leica M9 IQ is sub-par not because it is a stills-only camera, but despite it...If Canon (or Sony) were to design a dedicated "stills-only" camera now (in 2012) with sensor+processing pipeline targeted at highest possible stills IQ it would be quite a different beast, that's for sure.
> ...



Agreed. But even a dedicated stills-only camera can have video functionality slapped on with little extra cost.


----------



## hollybush (Feb 27, 2012)

Orangutan said:


> Performance per-watt continues to go up for mobile devices.



Not as fast as Canon is adding features, it seems. According to information in the following thread, the 1DX weighs 10% more and has 37% worse battery life than the outgoing model.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3650.msg76993/topicseen.html#new

I don't claim that's all due to video, and in fact in that thread I speculate that much of it is not, but I do think the marketing department would consider this less acceptable if video weren't in consideration.

(Edit for typo above)


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 28, 2012)

next thing that comes with video is ... AUDIO! 
Another bunch of electronics + processing stuff that drains valuable power and does nothing whatsoever for stills photography. Additional components, additional development costs ... making stills+video(+audio) more expensive than stills only.


----------



## stabmasterasron (Feb 28, 2012)

I used to hate video in dSLRs also. Until I realized that because of video, Canon probably sold many more 5dmkii than they would have it had been a stills only camera. And in the end, video may have made the camera cost less because they sold more. I have not use for video, and I would love a modern ff camera body that was stills only, but if it causes the camera to cost less, then OK. I am not saying for sure this is the case, just speculating.


----------



## archangelrichard (Feb 28, 2012)

consider the difference between the (still oriented) 50D and the (more video oriented) 60D

First the 60D is PLASTIC. they had to go plastic to put in that "articulated" rear screen (video oriented)

Second, you lost the micro adjustment for focus

Third you trade off features for features just because memory is limited on the processor

and on and on - yes there is a difference


Hate? I don't think hate is the right word, but there are also SNOB's who, shall we say, like to flaunt their own ignorance or intolerance of others and constantly seek validation of their superiority by insulting others.

I don't think that too many sane people would begrudge video capabilities if they did not detract from still capabilities; the problem is that they do and will simply because they use resources in the processor that could be used for something else

And they are Plastic .......


----------



## Waterdonkey (Feb 28, 2012)

Sounds like all you video haters should have bought a Kodak.... oh right they all but went out of business, why? They hung on too hard to film and I think Im right on this they never did an HDDSLR. 
Come on folks this is where the market is - Embrace technology

"And they are Plastic ......." Sure the 7D is plastic too  its not, come on the 60D articulating screens are for family video, you can't get reliable focus from that thing.

Begin the Smiting 8)


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 28, 2012)

Waterdonkey said:


> Come on folks this is where the market is - Embrace technology



no smiting. As a Non-video photographer I would embrace new technology enthusiastically, if only Canon would BRING IT ON! First things that come to mind ... 
* higher DR
* (even) better IQ at ISO 100-1600, I would forego ISO 6400+ in an instance for that 
* better AF-systems
* usable Auto-ISO function
* ... and and and

Video+Audio capture? Not on my list. As simple as that. 
Give me a stills only 7D II-S or 5D III-S for 200 bucks less than a "regular" stills+video 7D II or 5D III ... and everybody is happy!


----------



## Cetalis (Feb 28, 2012)

archangelrichard said:


> consider the difference between the (still oriented) 50D and the (more video oriented) 60D



1: The 50D line was split between 60D and 7D.
2: The 50D can be retrofitted with video via a third party firmware extension (Magic Lantern)



AvTvM said:


> Give me a stills only 7D II-S or 5D III-S for 200 bucks less than a "regular" stills+video 7D II or 5D III ... and everybody is happy!



If the 50D, a stills only, non-video optimized camera, can be retrofitted with video using only a firmware extension by a bunch of independent third party developers working in their spare time, I highly doubt that stills optimized and non-stills optimized DSLRs are that different. The cost of firmware development and adding in the microphones and an extra button is trivial, without even comparing it to how much more Canon can lower the price simply because it sells more. And as for R&D money, Canon sells TV lenses and cameras too. The difference between a video camera and a non-video camera is probably under $75USD, but it would cost Canon an exorbitant amount of money in either lost sales from videographers, or the increased cost of marketing two nearly identical models. In the end its simply not practical.


----------



## Frank209 (Feb 28, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I'm a still photographer, And every time i try to make a video it looks like an epileptic with parkinsons got hold of the camera.



first of all; BEST COMPARISATION EVER!!! 

second; Get a rig!


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 29, 2012)

Cetalis said:


> If the 50D, a stills only, non-video optimized camera, can be retrofitted with video using only a firmware extension ...



means the 50D was already a fully video enabled camera, rather than a stills camera. Canon just chose - for whatever reasons - to not unlock the video capabilities designed into the sensor and processing pipeline. Hardware is obviously already a compromised design.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 29, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> Cetalis said:
> 
> 
> > If the 50D, a stills only, non-video optimized camera, can be retrofitted with video using only a firmware extension ...
> ...




Classic "No true Scotsman" fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

AvTvM: I respect your desire for a stills camera that is uncompromised by extraneous features. You have given plausible arguments that video *could* compromise stills; however, this is not sufficient to show that it *has* compromised video. To do so, you would need to know enough about sensor design to make verifiable assertions about those trade-offs. I.e., you would need to be an engineer with specialty in this area. Others, including me, have also made plausible arguments that video could improve stills photography. I don't claim, however, that I have proved my case either. In short, we just don't know: aside from ergonomics / body design (which are subjective anyway) we simply don't have enough technical detail to resolve this debate.

In direct response to your post, it is at least as plausible that video is precisely the "freebie" that many of us claim. How far back would we need to go in the EOS line before you would concede that model xxD was *not* designed with video in mind and, therefore, if video can be enabled by Magic Lantern then it's a "freebie?"


----------



## Neeneko (Feb 29, 2012)

tt said:


> May sound silly - but as PC DIYers have done with their systems, haven't photogs looked at creating cooling systems? It'd involve consideration from the starting design of the camera, but a cooling system would be pretty feasible? Bit of liquid cooling for those astro long exposure videos?



Actually, you can get cooling kits/conversions. They are used by people into astrophotography.


----------



## Neeneko (Feb 29, 2012)

Waterdonkey said:


> Sounds like all you video haters should have bought a Kodak.... oh right they all but went out of business, why? They hung on too hard to film and I think Im right on this they never did an HDDSLR.
> Come on folks this is where the market is - Embrace technology



Ugh, I am starting to really hate the mythology around Kodak...

Kodak did not die because it failed to embrace technology or innovate. They died because their CEO was a corporate raider who kept selling off profitable divisions in order to get record quarterly 'profits' and drive stock prices up, then had to keep doing it till there was nothing left.

One of the problems with consumers (and all the blogs talking about Kodak) is they tend to forget that they are not the world, and that companies have markets that are NOT consumer product. Kodak's consumer division really was not it's biggest nor its most important, and its failure was not grounded in what was happening there.

But of course every analysis and blog tends to focus on that element because that is the only part the average person saw and, well, people are egotistical and like believing that their narrow demographic is THE important one.


----------



## Cinnamon (Feb 29, 2012)

This is a great forum topic. Since some people dismissed video on DSLRs as a gimmick without much practical use, I thought I would never use the video features on my video capable DSLRs. I figured for the situations I'll want or need video, I'll use my video camera. A few years later, I have over 1 TB worth of video shot with SLRs!

I can understand why people don't use the video feature - without a rig, or stabilization equipment of some sort, the video can be a bit shaky unless you really dedicate time to improving handholding techniques to get useable video. Once you do that though, it's completely worth it. The quality of the footage you can capture is remarkable...and in some unexpected moments, I've been able to capture priceless moments that still pictures wouldn't be able to truly do justice for. 

In retrospect, I think it's great that video is on new DSLRs, because I think it opened up a new world to many photographers who wouldn't have considered shooting video before. In the same way getting a macro lens makes you pay attention to all the small things that might previously have gone unnoticed, trying to master video techniques undoubtedly has given even seasoned photographers something new to strive for.


----------



## Neeneko (Feb 29, 2012)

Cinnamon said:


> In retrospect, I think it's great that video is on new DSLRs, because I think it opened up a new world to many photographers who wouldn't have considered shooting video before. In the same way getting a macro lens makes you pay attention to all the small things that might previously have gone unnoticed, trying to master video techniques undoubtedly has given even seasoned photographers something new to strive for.



While I can see your point, I think this is actually part of what annoys so many people.. this attitude of 'you will like video and agree with us if you just try it'. Some people simply have no interest or use for it.... and find 'this feature should be on all cameras, you just haven't tried it enough' to be kinda obnoxious and condescending.

Personally, I have done video. I did not enjoy it, I have no use for it. No amount of 'trying it more' is going to change this.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 29, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> Cinnamon said:
> 
> 
> > In retrospect, I think it's great that video is on new DSLRs, because I think it opened up a new world to many photographers who wouldn't have considered shooting video before. In the same way getting a macro lens makes you pay attention to all the small things that might previously have gone unnoticed, trying to master video techniques undoubtedly has given even seasoned photographers something new to strive for.
> ...



I think Cinnamon was trying to put the video aspect in a good light. the colder, harder truth for those people who don't want it in their DSLR's is ... it has now become a standard function of all digital DSLR's. get used to it. I have never used the airbags on *any* of my cars before. I do not use the FM radio on my current car anymore. I don't have a need for 18" wheels, because I remember driving quite well on 14" wheels about a decade ago. I don't need 200 hp out of my engine, because 135 hp really cut it fine. I don't need TPMS because really how hard is it to stick the meter into your tire valve and read what the PSI is?

you know what though, all those pieces of the modern car are here to stay. it's a simple fact of developing goods for a market- and marketing-driven society and industry. I'm not saying you can't voice your opinions on the matter, you're certainly free to do so ... but it's realistically a waste of breath at this point.


----------



## SPG (Feb 29, 2012)

If we ignore the emotional parts of the purist's argument, the only real concern is that stills functionality or quality might suffer from video functions. Since there is no proof of this there isn't really much to argue. 
I think we all need to remember that Canon's camera division is staffed by people who've dedicated their careers to producing the best stills cameras they can. I don't think it's too likely that these people would be interested in compromising the performance of their cameras to cater to a much smaller segment of their customers. 
They even spun off a new division to deal with video directly with their Cinema EOS line. I could see some cameras coming out of that lineup that might favor video over stills, but I just don't see how the regular photography division would let it happen.


----------



## Neeneko (Mar 1, 2012)

kubelik said:


> you know what though, all those pieces of the modern car are here to stay. it's a simple fact of developing goods for a market- and marketing-driven society and industry. I'm not saying you can't voice your opinions on the matter, you're certainly free to do so ... but it's realistically a waste of breath at this point.



The thing is, market driven and marketing are not really the same thing. Marketing tends to suffer from serious group-think. Every time an industry gets some runaway success (which the 5D2 was) everyone clamors to emulate it since it is the 'obvious future'. Often in a few years though things settle and and we see splits again as analysts figure out which market segments actually want something vs do not. Right now we are in that initial hysteria where it is simply accepted that all cameras must have video in order to compete. 3-5 years from now it is hard to say what the landscape will look like.

As for a waste of breath, true, in a forum it really is, but as a consumer in general not so much. If people talk enough about their wants in a product, eventually the right person might hear, and all it takes is one well placed executive to change the 'common knowledge'.


----------



## Cinnamon (Mar 1, 2012)

kubelik said:


> Neeneko said:
> 
> 
> > Cinnamon said:
> ...



Thanks for defending me, Kubelik! Great analogies, too.

Neeneko, I think you misunderstood my point. I'm not saying "once you use it you'll _have_ to love it"...I'm saying that for many people, video is an interesting feature that they might not have even considered before. I fail to see how it's 'arrogant' to say something is a good feature that'll probably have some use for people. 

I'm too young to remember this debate, but from what I've heard and read people slammed AF when it first came out, arguing that it's an unnecessary feature that 'real' photographers don't use or need. The vast majority of professional photographers in the field use AF because it's become incredibly helpful in capturing shots that they could otherwise miss (thus jeopardizing a potential sale). Similarly, while video isn't viewed as necessary by many people today, it's a useful thing to learn because as Kubelik points out, it's probably here to stay. More and more of my colleagues are incorporating video into their workflow - and the fact they even have the option to do so, I believe, is a good thing.


----------



## Neeneko (Mar 2, 2012)

Cinnamon said:


> Neeneko, I think you misunderstood my point. I'm not saying "once you use it you'll _have_ to love it"...I'm saying that for many people, video is an interesting feature that they might not have even considered before. I fail to see how it's 'arrogant' to say something is a good feature that'll probably have some use for people.



*nods* fair enough, I apologize for kinda going off on a tangent and attributing it to your post. And I can agree, giving people access to features they might not otherwise play with is generally good thing. Who knows, apparently the NEX7 UV performance is good enough that it can take video in in UVA and maybe I will explore that.



> I'm too young to remember this debate, but from what I've heard and read people slammed AF when it first came out, arguing that it's an unnecessary feature that 'real' photographers don't use or need. The vast majority of professional photographers in the field use AF because it's become incredibly helpful in capturing shots that they could otherwise miss (thus jeopardizing a potential sale). Similarly, while video isn't viewed as necessary by many people today, it's a useful thing to learn because as Kubelik points out, it's probably here to stay. More and more of my colleagues are incorporating video into their workflow - and the fact they even have the option to do so, I believe, is a good thing.



I was not around for it either, but heard a bit at least, and for a while Canon did produce a MF only EF camera. I think that was clearly a case where the market for AF was so large the engineering costs were swamped by the increase in market. Which I fully acknowledge as a possibility for video, I am simply not convinced it is a given.

(edited to add) 

I think one of the big reasons this bothers me though, I really think we, as a field, really loose something when products become so formulaic. When every major manufacturer is basically building the same device for sale to all markets, with very little variation between their own products and each other we all loose.. they stop taking chances, they stop discovering if there even IS a market for things off the current trend. It reminds me of the old marketing vs engineering gag of 'people don't want something new an unexpected, just take an existing product and add a clock to it!'.

So this isn't anti-change, it is anti-monoculture. I like a vibrant market where things are tried and there is more variation between devices then where they score on a dozen stats or so.


----------



## sjprg (Mar 2, 2012)

If I wanted a movie camera I would buy one. I have one that sits on the shelf and is gathering dust.


----------



## daveswan (Mar 2, 2012)

sjprg said:


> If I wanted a movie camera I would buy one. I have one that sits on the shelf and is gathering dust.



Then sell it on to someone who can make use of it


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 2, 2012)

from the 5D III press release:
".. the EOS 5D Mark III offers improved performance in virtually every area. A new 22.3 Megapixel (MP) full-frame sensor offers the ideal balance of resolution for stills and HD movies ..."

this is exactly one of the design compromises stills photographers get stuffed down their throats: just because 22MP offers some advantage for video capture (3x HD resolution), stills photographers have to forego an even better 28, 32 or 36 MP sensor and put up with a 1 Megapixel "upgrade" over the previous model.


----------



## NormanBates (Mar 2, 2012)

I came to this thread to post exactly that: maximum stills resolution is exactly (1920x3)x(1280x3), so the sensor was definitely designed with video in mind
if it ends up being sub par (i.e. worse than the D800), blame video-in-my-DSLR
if it ends up being better, please come back and thank us video shooters for forcing this reduced megapixels count

btw, one way in which this could be great is the following: it may mean a modified Bayer pattern with a 3x3 basic module, maybe with RGBW or even RGBWK - I think we would have heard about that already if it was the case, but anyway: it could be a very nice thing
http://www.similaar.com/foto/bayer/rgbwk.html


----------



## Neeneko (Mar 2, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> btw, one way in which this could be great is the following: it may mean a modified Bayer pattern with a 3x3 basic module, maybe with RGBW or even RGBWK - I think we would have heard about that already if it was the case, but anyway: it could be a very nice thing
> http://www.similaar.com/foto/bayer/rgbwk.html



(fixed broken editing).

That would indeed be very cool. I keep hoping that eventually someone will produce a body with a configurable bayer filter. I know that making a swappable one would be impracticable (lining it back up would be unfeasible) but something LCD like could potentially be done. Imagine the cool stuff you could do with that, including getting something similar to triple-shots again.. now there would be a solution to the MP war.... or just shut it off completely and mix your own wavelengths.


----------



## Rocky (Mar 2, 2012)

Canon should have make it as 39.32 MP. It will make most of the people from both still only camp and video camp happy. This will definitely trump Nikon D800. Highest Mp, 4X HD video. just hope Canon can give us low noise at low ISO and High ISO performance plus low price at the same time. We want everything plus the kitchen sink.


----------



## daveswan (Mar 3, 2012)

If it were *only* for video then 2(1930x1080) would be more sensible, but the resolution would have *all* the photographers (Rightly) up in arms in protest, so the fact that the resolution is where it is, shows that Canon have tried to find the best balance of resolution for both camps.


----------

