I saw in another thread on here, that a couple of the newest DSLR's to hit the market now have HD video capturing, even shooting in different quality modes, such as 720p as opposed to the full 1080. It's pretty amazing, seeing as its coming from a stills camera, not a dedicated video camera, but my question to you guys is, is it really worth it?

A mate of mine was considering buying the Nikon D90 simply because of the new video feature. I'm not convinced its really needed, I can see the point of having it on a compact camera as a novelty, so people can capture fun bits from the night, but for DSLR users, surly its just putting the price tag up without need... which is a bit of a concern for me, a student photographer on a budget.. I wouldnt be able to afford the cards needed to cature long takes, and im sure a lot of people may not have the computer power to edit and render high-def footage effectively.

As a video student it would seem logical to me that if you want to shoot video at a venue, you take a video camera.. so many more options in the menus and the quality is undoubtably better, especially when you're using something like Sony's EX1 like I have.

I can't seem to grasp why canon would start to bring out video modes in their top spec DSLR's. If they make them too good, they may just be shooting themselves in the foot with regards to their low end video cameras.. i dunno, just a side thought..

Anyways, I've had a bit of a rant, i'll leave it to you to discuss, is it really worth it??

Cheers.

I've not any experience with any of the video-enabled SLR cameras, however I would suggest that the Nikon D90 cannot compete with say the Canon 5D Mk II.

Have a look at videos of Vincent LaForet to see how the video enabled SLR's are more akin to a "movie camera" than a video camera.

I'll see if I can dig out a link or two for you.
Overall, the quality is rather amazing, and it is meant to compete with dedicated movie cameras versus a video camera, so you ought to compare like-for-like.

I have the 7D, although still messing around with it, i think its just a gimmick as the focus has to be done manually if you pan. OK if you dont move. You can set ISO and all that for the film mode. The guy in the shop said any cheap dedicated video camera would be better!

still to make my decision on it

IT'S NOT A VIDEO CAMERA!!!
It's a MOVIE camera. It's meant to be used in a professional manner, with the benefit of large aperature lenses etc.

if you want "point and shoot" video, this isn't it!

true say

Yeah, i think i see what you're trying to say about it being a 'movie' camera, but with the inclusion of all the RED gear you'd have to throw at it to make it work. Unless you're a professional photographer with £10,000 to spend, its not going to be worth anyones time trying to make something because it just wont have decent enough production values. I think that Angelo-p is right when he says its just a gimmick, because it is to the likes of you or me..

Still, this seems like a really hot topic at the moment, I may even change this to my dissertation question :P


Could you elaborate on this, because i'm not too sure what you meant? Do you have an example of each?

THIS IS THE VIDEO DEMO FOR THE 5dII
youtube.com

I think it got a lot of people excited - me too!. Video in HD does eat a lot of memory though.
I still think its a great idea, but needs a lot of thought when planning to shoot.
I see the point of it bing a movie camera and not video

Just imagine what shots you can do with all the lens available!

super wide
Macro
fish eye
telephoto!

Dr Crank suggesting canon over nikon, theres a fucking surprise!

The user that posted this comment has been banned from DontStayIn. To view the message, click here at your own risk.

Durr, one costs 4 times more than the other.

If money were no object I'd be shooting with a D3x while one of my porters would be carrying a canon pro vidcam. A couple of page three girls keeping me cool with fans would be nice too.

The user that posted this comment has been banned from DontStayIn. To view the message, click here at your own risk.

True. I guess I'm saying a comparison between the D90 and the canon 500d would have been more useful. Both in the same price bracket and both with vid output.

I like the colours of the D90 and the contrast range of the canon 500d, difficult to decide which is best. They'll both do whatever you ask them.

A lot of photographers go on to film making, some things just look better moving, with sound. Having a good stills camera with movie capability sounds a great idea to me.

lol

no blad then?

Yea. And shooting DSLR in any mode other than P is also a gimmick because you have to manually set some values? lol

The only reason cheapo camcorders does not require you to manual focus is because of it's tiny sensor size coupled with tiny aperture giving massive depth of field. You can replicate this effect somewhat by using the minimum aperture (f/22).


All you really need down to the core is knowledge of how to use your gear. Even without a massive budget you can still produce startling results. The DSLR gives you a massive advantage that is full manual control over the settings, and with that a massive potential to produce greater videos. Sure, if you don't know the fundamental basics of cinematography then it would seem like throwing a manual car at an automatic driver.


A fan cannot see past the their dedicated brand and would rationalise the decision however they see fit.