DSLR v Movie
 

Has anyone noticed the trend with DSLR's recently to include movie capability? I've just been reading the specs for the new Nikon D5000 - it boasts 24 fps with mono sound ?? Yet in Camera mode its only 4 fps. Does anyone want/use/need this feature? Has anyone tried it or is it just marketing gone mad?

I confess to being 'irritated' by the trend towards high-lighting the movie capability. I wish they would stop trying to make devices all things to all men.

I presume the faster shot rate is linked to the smaller image from which the movie is formed.

If you've got a need for the movie mode then buy the camera; if you haven't, don't.

The difference in speed from still to video must mainly be to do with the mirror. I guess it is the eternal search by marketing for some exclusive selling point with everyone then jumping on the bandwagon for fear of being left out in the cold. I want a still camera for taking photographs and have no interest in video so the main thing is I hope there is never any compromise of the main purpose of a stills camera or an increase in price because of the feature.

Andy,

Video ........... not something I have any interest in, but my thought is that there must be some demand from this feature. Nikon introduced it on the D90 closely followed by Canon in the 5DMkII. I have seen the Vincent Laforet video using the 5DMkII and that is very impressive. So in each case I think the manufacturers were testing the market. Now there is no way of knowing how many sales of each of these cameras was primarily driven by the ability to shoot video and neither have been on sale for that long really. I think it quite logical that the latest offerings from Nikon ( D5000 ) and Canon ( 500D ) are aimed a bit lower in the budget range so a different target market. Those releases must help give both manufacturers a fair base to understand the desireabilty of this feature among their customers.

" Does anyone want/use/need this feature? Has anyone tried it or is it just marketing gone mad? ".
I have it from a reliable source that a current TV commercial was made on the Canon 5DMkII, and having seen Vincent Laforet's video I have no reason to doubt him.
How big is the market ? ......... at the moment no idea, but this sort of technology is far more likely to appeal to the new generation of photographers so lots of potential.

There is no doubt though that using a DSLR for video gives a control of dof that simply cannot be matched by handycams and the same seems to apply to low light applications. As I understand it at the moment the biggest problems at the moment are the method of image capture off the sensor ( rolling line by line rather than grabbing in one go ), and a more effective autofocus ( not using the live view system ). If the market is there then no doubt it will pay manufacturers to solve those problems. Just look at the advances in DSLR technology since 2001. In your minds eye travel back to 2001 the year of the D1X release. Cutting edge stuff then. Now look at your D3 and its specs and remember that was announced just 6 years later for a lot less money in real terms.

In the long run perhaps the question should be how much we stills shooters will benefit from advances in sensor and associated in camera processing engines if this takes off, and then if it becomes a regular feature of DSLR's how much of a price premium will we stills shooters are asked to pay for a feature we feel we are unlikely to use.

That does beg a question though. If you bought a camera with that feature built in would you be tempted to give it a bash just for a bit of fun, or even for grabbing single frames from a sequence. Thoughts of action stuff springs to mind. I seem to remember something about concern being voiced in some quarters about the use of such cameras at major sporting venues.

So marketing hype, I personally don't believe so. I expect this to be a regular feature at least in part of the ranges offered by the various manufacturers.

Don

Well if (and hopefully when!) I buy a new camera which happens to have a video feature I am sure I would try it out just for fun and to see what it can do and there might be the odd occasion when it would be useful especially grabbing single frames from a sequence. That point about such cameras at major sporting venues is an interesting one. I believe that in the States "professional" cameras like a DSLR are already often banned especially if it has a big lens but what happens in the UK? I would be interested to know. One thing is for certain, the feature is set to stay and rapidly improve, just hope it is never detrimental to us still photographers.

Thanks for the excellent reply Don; I stop being irritated forthwith!

Thanks Don, an "action" burst would be interesting to try. I seem to remember a thread when I first joined WPF where we tried to predict where digital and lenses would go next. We already have a 50-500f2.8 which I think someone thought of, although it's miniaturization is a bit behind.

The main attraction of a DSLR having cine/animation capability is obviously being able to utilize those large investments on lens done earlier by photographer, to pay back in terms of quality motion picture. The prior rechargeable lens digital motion video cameras all were extremely pricey, none made for average Joe.

HD capturing and then ease of rendering that to a HD easily viewable image on a large screen LCD TV that is a common phenomena of today in every house using HDMI out put and then add that great sound capabilities have all added a vast potential for bringing a swiss knife concept to DSLR at a reasonable price. The real deal is manufacturer do not need to add anything to weight or tools to provide this feature. In other words, this is the bonus of improved technology when "Live View" was discovered.

5D is a big bang for many professionals that look into this body for a long time due to its all needed features for professional use, say extra ordinary color rendering through excellent sensor (That surpass or equals the very much expensive higher class line of product sister cameras i.e. 1D), full frame format and then professional grade rugged body. Now add the movie capability and think of if this doesn't make the photographer covering a Marriage a function or a reporting location, the happiest person around. That is the theory. In reality there are still a lot of short comings just to say a few, AFing, pause you get in motion picture as you use the camera for still picture accusation, in middle of running movie, location and sensitivity of microphone capturing even lens' IS motor sound, inability to use a huge number of functions offered under still camera when it is use for motion capture, etc.

The reverse concept also exist. I recently bought a Sony camcorder SR-11 (I buy always a generation older for the obvious advantages) and gush what has happened with the videocameras since I knew them... This one has High Definition movie picture quality like nothing I have seen before. It is just A m a z i n g quality that you don't believe unless you see with your own eyes. Then it has a 10.2 MP still camera built in that is excellent for a general use photography. In fact it can catch images better for those unexpected situations better than any still camera but of course doesn't come with all the manual overrides that I expect to see from my still camera.

Back to still cameras, any older DSLR that has "Live View" capability is actually able to take movie and if you have one, you may find the recipe on line with a yahooing or googling as to how to hack it. Its simply the technology that is advancing even without need for additional hardware. This is a given and not a taken process.

So any way you look at it, we as users are getting these new features for almost free on the newer models. Tell me if you can't be happy with free bonuses, then what else makes you happy?

i myself dont like the idea of bringing video and photography together.. you want a good camera who shoots video, get a video camera.