DSLR's + Video

[Ben H]

So, just a general forum poll.

Now that DSLR's are starting to include HD video, and that although it's a bit first generation at the moment, the video feature is likely to become more popular and added to more and more cameras - how interested are you in shooting video / video clips in high quality from your camera?

Do you think it's a great feature to explore? Or could you care less about video - stills is the only thing that interests you?

For me - it's *definitely* a useful tool that I could use, being that home video cameras have such poor crappy video quality...

[Mad Aussie]

So, just a general forum poll.

Now that DSLR's are starting to include HD video, and that although it's a bit first generation at the moment, the video feature is likely to become more popular and added to more and more cameras - how interested are you in shooting video / video clips in high quality from your camera?

Do you think it's a great feature to explore? Or could you care less about video - stills is the only thing that interests you?

For me - it's *definitely* a useful tool that I could use, being that home video cameras have such poor crappy video quality...

At this point I have no interest in video. I'd have a video recorder if that was my passion.

[kat]

With two young children it is a nice option!

[tirediron]

I'm in agreement with the guy from down under. I look at the D90 and 5D Mk II in the same way I do 18-200mm lenses and swiss army knives. That is: "Do-all" gimmicks. Any time you try and make a tool do too many things, the overall quality suffers.

[Ben H]

I'm in agreement with the guy from down under. I look at the D90 and 5D Mk II in the same way I do 18-200mm lenses and swiss army knives. That is: "Do-all" gimmicks. Any time you try and make a tool do too many things, the overall quality suffers.

While I understand and often agree with that statement (just look at the video cameras that also take stills - horrible!), it's interesting to note that the video capability doesn't make the 5D2 any lesser a camera, and the video quality and potential *vastly* outweighs any camcorders at that price.

No - the 5D isn't going to be a replacement for a real video camera to shoot films or documentaries just yet - it's use in this *is* flawed (first generation, remember, there are definite tradeoffs). If you are primarily making films, one of those cameras is not the right tool for the job.

However, if you do want to capture some video in a decent quality, it appears (to me) to be an excellent additional feature that lets me do things I previously couldn't (or with far less quality).

So yes, as long as the compromises and tradeoffs are in the right direction for me, I'm all for these cameras getting better at video, as long as it doesn't interfere too much with their primary function of shooting stills.

[tirediron]

...it's interesting to note that the video capability doesn't make the 5D2 any lesser a camera...

I'm not entirely sure of that. I've seen a number of fairly learned people express concerns about what recording HDMI video may do to the sensor's life. After all, a five-minute video clip must surely equate to months, if not years of use when compared to taking stills only. I suspect that these cameras, at least for the next few generations are going to be much more susceptible to burned pixels, excessive noise, and shortend life-spans.

[Duane]

So, just a general forum poll.

Now that DSLR's are starting to include HD video, and that although it's a bit first generation at the moment, the video feature is likely to become more popular and added to more and more cameras - how interested are you in shooting video / video clips in high quality from your camera?

Do you think it's a great feature to explore? Or could you care less about video - stills is the only thing that interests you?

For me - it's *definitely* a useful tool that I could use, being that home video cameras have such poor crappy video quality...

I'd really rather if the manufacturers of DSLRs concentrate on still photography. I think that adding video will make an SLR go up in price. I have a very nice video camera with built in HD for video. I doubt I'd ever use the option if it was on a DSLR. I never used the option on past none DSLR cameras when it was available.

[mindforge]

If you want to get into videography, a dslr with video is not the way to go. The sheer amount of features in professional video equipment is massive compared to the video features on a dslr (which is nil).

The video features on DSLR's have not pushed prices of DSLR's up any more than other features do. Here is why.

In business, well, smart business anyway -- you never, ever, ever reduce prices for long term. Sure, a sale on something for a month is different, that all has to do with hitting the quarterly blacks. You never reduce prices, you increase value and features. Technology has reached the time where the price of DSLR's should be plummeting now, like computer technology has done. So, instead of dropping the price, you add features to make your camera a good option for the price.

I think we will never see prices drop, we will only see higher quality and more. Within a decade, these cameras will be amazing compared by where they are now... a digital sensor recording 11 stops for a thousand dollars with blueray recording etc...