[shuttertalk]

If you haven't already heard, DSLRs have made the foray into the realm of video capture, with a couple of new DSLRs (Nikon D90 and Canon 5D MkII) sporting movie capability. Sounds great doesn't it - not having to carry a separate handy cam, and being able to use your favourite lenses and having that same image quality translate to a movie format. However, it appears there are some caveats...

Here's a quick write up from gizmodo about the D90 movie experience:
http://gizmodo.com/5055525/nikon-d90-vid...-the-shaky

The main points I could pick up on are the lack of autofocus in video mode, and also being conscious of what aperture you use.

On the Canon side of the fence, the 5D seems to be getting some attention with full HD video ability. In fact, one Pulitzer prize winning photographer decided to make a (pretty breathtaking) short movie using totally unenhanced footage from the camera.

http://gizmodo.com/5050819/canon-5d-mark...es-explode


What do you guys think? Do you think video on a DSLR is a killer feature? Would you be getting rid of your handy cam anytime soon?

[Irma]

I am possible one of the few that is not happy with the upgrade of the 5D. I really was expecting to have more posibilities to take my pictures, expanded exposure compensation +/-3 EV, and more than 3 frames AEB, at least 5 frames. Auto ISO and water and dust ressistance not environmental proteccion. I really didn't need bigger files, bigger files imply to rebuilt my computer and more storage. And the idea of having the video funcion integrated, to me, just killed the fun to buy it.

I want to have a dedicated camera for taking pictures, I am not into video, otherwise I would have bought a video camera as good as my 5D to take videos. Now mixing funcions and pay for something I don't like and I won't use is just ridiculos. So these kind of cameras are not for me. I'd like to be clear here, I am not against videos, I am not against having a multi-functional camera, good for the people that like that. It is just that for me it doesn't work.

[NT73]

I am with Irma here. Why not add a teasmade and built in hand warmer glove while they are at it. It will appeal to some, but I am of the old school of thought. If you concentrate your energy on one type of product, it should be better than if you multitask. Look at Clive Sinclair's failures.
We have the gas board trying to sell us electricity, and the electricity board trying to sell us gas. One spark and ba-ba ba-ba boom.

[shuttertalk]

I tend to agree with you guys. I mean video functionality has been around on compact cameras for ages. With my wife's P&S, while the video function is handy and she uses it occasionally, the quality is simply not up to the task. If I were serious about capturing video, then I would probably invest in a separate handycam, which is what we did at the start of the year.

That being said, I've got a feeling that Canon/Nikon might be trying to appeal to the "hey let's capture a video for fun, since it's built into my camera" crowd, rather than those seeking to combine both devices into one. I mean think about it the other way - handycams have also been having "still shot" functionality for ages, and while people do use them, I don't think it's made people replace both devices with one. If you're serious about making videos or taking photos, get a dedicated device that is purpose built for it.

Thoughts?

[Zig]

I'm pretty polarised(arf!) in my thoughts about this. My gut reaction is, use a phone as a phone and not a camera; use a camera as a camera and not as a vid-capturer..and I'm quite alarmed that supposedly "top" wedding shooters and the like are letting joy flow quite so unconfin'd about this. If Nikon/Canon are serious(and who knows the inscrutability of the maketing mind?) then the whole thing falls apart due to shutter lag when doing "normal" stuff like pulling focus, I'd have thought. On the other hand, I'm wondering if the stills would open new ways of combining shots in new and creative ways.
Sadly, it's this bizarre mentality that's marketing-led, that restricts providing photographers from what they need...but it's really the ill-educated fanboy-trolls on laughable forums that have helped push things into piixel-bloat, multi-assist AF points and the rest.
However, why does having a 21MP image necessitate a pc upgrade? We don't swap computers when we do an HDR or mosaic. Surely, if one rattles away in Point and Hope mode, then the HD will fill up, and we'll just get hyper-sharp poor shots: why not go into "medium format" mode mentally, restrict the amount of 21MP conversions or the amount of shots one takes and imagine you've got a roll of 10 shots only? Or shoot in sRAW, saving the full-on size ones for extra-special occasions?
I confess I'm in a dilemma as I stand on the edge of full-frame..and am committed to Canon really because I have 2 good copies of L lenses: I can perfectly understand why present 5D users, for instance, consider the MK2 quite underwhelming: a large amount of cash for a Digic 4 and not much else. And yes, definitely, I'd have sacrificed 21MP for wider bracketing and increased dynamic range. It will make my pc chug a bit.....but I'll have the extra bit under the hood for the odd occasion when I do want that extra bit more...and as I'm only now "going FF", I'm telling myself that if I get the Mk2, I'll be getting(in Zig-land in my head) a IDsMk3 in funny trousers.