DSLR v Movie

[derekbez]

My 2p...

I don't like the idea either. You don't go to a pizza place and order a burger. It's a specialist thing. If the pizza place were to start making burgers because they had a grill and a license to sell food, I think you'll agree with me that it's quite likely that the quality of the pizza is going to go down.

It is good to see innovation from the camera companies. And it's fine that they have proved their point that they can put video on a dSLR. But I'm not a videographer, and I don't care to have the feature on my camera thanks.

I have a question about it though... you know if you take a long exposure - say of star trails - the sensor heats up and generates extra noise and hot pixels? So how to they control that in video mode?

If Canon and Nikon R&D want to spend money on something useful to everyone, they might want to give us cameras with greatly increased dynamic range. Apparently our eyes can see the equivalent of about 24 f-stops, but most cameras can only shoot around 12 f-stops of dynamic range. Think of the possibilities of a camera that could capture 30, 40, or 50 f-stops worth of data! That will be a whole new world for us!

[sassan]

Originally Posted by derekbez

My 2p...

I don't like the idea either. You don't go to a pizza place and order a burger. It's a specialist thing. If the pizza place were to start making burgers because they had a grill and a license to sell food, I think you'll agree with me that it's quite likely that the quality of the pizza is going to go down.

Also to answer Jenie;
I am agree with both of you, when there is a choice and excess money to be paid.
But what you need to realize is that Will you consider to go to same quality burger shop, when the other competitor gives you this burger for the same money but keeps a FREE (even medium quality) PIZZA in you plate too! Business and marketing is about what that could be sold over competitor or competing entity and we are looking at one spectrum of marketing trial.

Originally Posted by derekbez

My 2p...


I have a question about it though... you know if you take a long exposure - say of star trails - the sensor heats up and generates extra noise and hot pixels? So how to they control that in video mode?

If Canon and Nikon R&D want to spend money on something useful to everyone, they might want to give us cameras with greatly increased dynamic range. Apparently our eyes can see the equivalent of about 24 f-stops, but most cameras can only shoot around 12 f-stops of dynamic range. Think of the possibilities of a camera that could capture 30, 40, or 50 f-stops worth of data! That will be a whole new world for us!

1- Oh dear, your are too optimistic about the video capabilities on todays still cameras. There is a lot or may be more limitations in Video function than what Still camera features offers you in terms of AFing, Exposure, etc etc. So I am sure you will be a lot sorry if you had one of these super doper hybrids in your hand right now.

2- We are way away from reproducing any camera with capabilities close to that of human eye.

3- It is always possible and probably easy to reduce the number of F stop (Narrower hole) but the question is after a magical number, simple photons do not exist and therefore you can not take a decent picture of anything except the hottest core of sun or likewise. Now if you are talking of adding F from the other end, that is making lens wider in its maximum hole size, the you should take a 50mm F 1.2 and and same focal length lens F2 in hand and see for yourself the difference in weight and more importantly the added price on the first lens If you take Canon F1.8 as the eg 2, then you are looking at $100 vs $3000 and then at higher F, the DOF is less than a paper thin, Chromatic aberrations are excessive and in other worlds, there is limitations on both ends otherwise the oriental sons and daughters of Zeiss and Schneider know all the tricks in the book at their best.