DSLR - where next?

V-Spec

V-Spec

V-Spec

Soldato
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Posts
3,698
Location
London
I was at my local camera shop last week in Lincoln, and one of the guys who works there who I know quite well was telling me about the features of the new Canon 1D MkIV.
Apparently the specs include 24fps video, and FIFA have had to approve it, as it can apparently produce very high quality video, and they're worried that the football photographers will end up doing more than stills.

It just seems a bit strange, on all these new cameras how manufacturers seem to be going crackers on making DSLRs do high quality video, as I honestly don't see the point. If I wanted to do proper video, i'd have bought one of the pro video cameras, and i'd be out filming something or other. a £3-4k pro DSLR and lens isn't the sort of thing you buy to video your kids, or your mates on the ***s either is it, like you would on your phone or mini P&S with video.
I do sell prints, and I also do my own printing and mounting up to A2 and I enjoy it, although I don't do it professionally, just a few images here and there, and for exhibitions. I don't produce video!


On paper, and when someone first says it - 24fps video at 18MP does sound very impressive, but what can I do with it? I want to take still images, becuase I like still images and capturing a moment in time and trying to convey feeling, emotion, action, mood etc - something i've got a lot better at over the years.
I honestly don't really see what can be added to DSLRs, they're already 20MP+ and out-resolving the glass they attach too, although DSLRs have evolved in a similar manner to computers in the last few years, even a 4 year old DSLR will take a good picture, where as a 4 year old computer won't play any games or modern software well..

Infact recently, i've been strongly inspired by a few books and photographers that i've had an overriding urge to do proper panoramic images on large format 617, as a result my new toy will be turning up sometime this week hopefully.. talk about going back in time in terms of technology, but i've seen an 800Mbit tiff drum scanned of a 6x17cm slide, and the quality is beyond anything i've ever seen apart from the Seitz 617 scanning camera printed out 9ft wide.

A camera is a camera, what else could it possibly be turned into?
 
I think it's more about 'value for money' by the intermediate consumers - those that want to shoot with their DSLR as it should be and yet, able to use it to do video (rather than lugging an extra V Camera) I can see with more and more emphasis on high quality video, pretty soon, 'snap shot' will just be stills from a video shot from a DSLR.

I personally see this as a shift only for the beginner/intermediate photographers, I'm sure the more DSLR 'traditionalist' will still stick with shooting manual shots rather than worrying if their camera can auto focus when videoing.

And as for FiFA being a pain about videoing football... it's just madness. Is everything and everyone going to cry anal copyrights and money when it comes to videoing things around us? That's another topic for further discussion next time.
 
IMO, it's just a response to what pro photographers/news hounds are asking for.

The Canon MkIV, or whatever comes next, is a pro camera, designed for professional photographers (obviously!). Looking around all the news sites, BBC website included, it would seem that editors want video clips amongst the written and still photo content, and that's where such a camera comes in. It's getting to the point where it's no longer enough just to get still photographs of the latest big news event, news editors want video too, and the market for stock video clips is growing very quickly. Income for stock photos is dropping off fast for a lot of pro photographers, and video is a potential new income stream, and not arty stuff either, just news events/archive footage/stock video is all increasingly in demand.

The people who want to video their kids or mates, probably won't spend £4k on a DSLR to do so, but such cameras aren't aimed at them anyway. There are lots of HD video recorders available for not much cash.

The way I look at it, you aren't losing anything by having video on a DSLR, as you don't generally get charged any more for it, and it doesn't take away functionality from it, but it does add something.

I was sceptical I'd ever use the video on my D90 (and I didn't buy it for that either), but actually I've found it fun to take the occassional video and try to make something of it with editing and putting to music etc. Nothing professional, but just a bit of fun! That's probably as far as I'll go with it for now though, as video just doesn't interest me as much as photography. But lots of people are interested in it, so it's a few more potential customers.

The bottom line is that all the camera manufacturers are in a very competitive market place, and if video is a USP that shifts cameras, then you can bet that they will all do it to remain 'competitive'.

I think it's a shame that in some respects photographic hardware is being turned into a bit of a 'box shifting' exercise, driven by consumers 'needs', but the antidote is to stick with what you have until you can no longer achieve what you want to achieve, and then see what's around. Nobody is forcing us to buy this stuff...

It sounds like you're turning into Joe Cornish Tim?? :) You'll be lugging around ancient kit and viewing upside down images in the viewfinder next! ;)
 
Last edited:
My friend and I have talked about 'where next' a few times. Now that megapixles are at a high level (24 really does seem enough, sure there will be a select few that need more but being realistic, its enough for most) all I really want to see is better focus, faster frame rates and exceptional ISO. A 24mp camera with the D3 ISO levels that shoots 12fps would be the ultimate for me. Video capture? No thanks, just make the future high end models in two flavours, one with video and one without for £1k less...I know what one I'll be getting!

Tim, have you seen Peter Lik's work? Sounds similar to what your talking about with pano's. I've been to both his Miami and Key West galleries and the quality of his work, viewed from a couple of feet away - and of a 6 foot wide print - is simply awe inspiring!
 
Honestly.....if you don't want it, don't press that button.

I can't say I have ever used Auto Mode...but i don't moan about it.
 
Yeh me and a couple of friends where only talking about this yesterday and we all came to the same conclusion, if we want Video then we will by a HD Video camera. As much as I love to watch films for me it is all about the still imagine. I'm like Peter would rather have a stripped down version with no video and 1k less.

All thought I picked up my first DSLR 10 months ago and I will soon be invested in a SLR film camera as my friends have been getting some great results and it really interests me.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Honestly.....if you don't want it, don't press that button.

I can't say I have ever used Auto Mode...but i don't moan about it.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I think raymond.

I also don't think the new video mode costs that much to implement as the sensor is already present. It just holds the shutter open and refreshes the sensor at 24fps? Unless i'm mistaken. Its all electronically done so I can't see it adding a huge amount to the final price.

sid
 
If you honestly think putting an extra feature in to a body isn't going to really put the price up compared to the same model without that feature, well...good luck to you...christ even my tooth brush cost a fair chunk more than the model below because it has an extra function that rotates the head in a different way even though the head and mechanics are already in place.

And when your looking at a pro spec bit of equipment costing several £k, you can be damn sure it's more than £20 being slapped on the RRP for the addition of something like video capture.

Any gagdet out there costs more the more features are on it, plain and simple.
 
Last edited:
SilverPenguin said:
If you honestly think putting an extra feature in to a body isn't going to really put the price up compared to the same model without that feature, well...good luck to you...christ even my tooth brush cost a fair chunk more than the model below because it has an extra function that rotates the head in a different way even though the head and mechanics are already in place.

And when your looking at a pro spec bit of equipment costing several £k, you can be damn sure it's more than £20 being slapped on the RRP for the addition of something like video capture.

Any gagdet out there costs more the more features are on it, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

I see what you're trying to say, but since when did any camera manufacturer issue a new pro model body and say 'we've taken a few unnecessary features off, and therefore it can now sell at £1k less'...?

It just doesn't happen. As camera technology matures, and the R & D costs are more than paid for, new features are found and added on to keep the 'factory gate' price at or above what it was before. Otherwise, they can't stay in business...

Adding HD video recording to a DSLR is not rocket science, and doesn't add much to the cost of a body. If it did, then either DSLR's with video would be hugely more expensive, or those without it would be cheaper. As it is, similar spec DSLR's with and without video features are all priced in the same ballpark.

It's a reasonable conclusion therefore, that DSLR pricing has little to do with actual manufacturing costs, particularly as you move up the range...
 
It would be much much better for the video functionality to be shifted to a separate body.

Keep the DSLRs as still cameras. Ok, maybe on entry level DSLRs it makes sense. But on anything like a D300/D3 I wouldn't want resources wasted on video modes. For a video camera I would want different body shape, different interface, different auto focus system, different firmware. In doing so a dedicated video sensor could be made without so much additional R&D cost. E.g., no need for 24MP sensors to record HD movies. Something optimized for high speed read out and long operation without heat.

I can see the appeal form video guys being able to record movies with a giant sensor and all the SLR lenses we have (fish-eyes, wide-angles, telephotos, fast primes for shalow DoF, tilt-shift lens. But then, most of the modern lenses are terrible for manual focusing!

If Nikon sold a Video body (that can take some lower quality stills) then I would buy one if interested. Otherwise I would prefer a clean SLR camera.
 
Tooks said:
I see what you're trying to say, but since when did any camera manufacturer issue a new pro model body and say 'we've taken a few unnecessary features off, and therefore it can now sell at £1k less'...?
Click to expand...

lol thats what I'm saying, they don't...but it would be nice if they did give us the option :D
Of course IF video absolutely added no extra the the cost of the camera then fine, but seeing as you'll never get the exact same model with and without, you can't really say what the price differences are.

I just pray they keep video in prosumer and leave proper HD video to actual HD video camera's and spend more R&D time on improving the features of the CAMERA side of the camera, speed, ISO, functionality...call me crazy if you want...lol
 
It looks to me as a lot of people here have some kind of snobbery on their SLR, like it is being polluted by a feature started on a cheap compact. If people just take a second to realise what it can do.....and with the lenses that you already have, you can make some really good stuff.

I mean sure you can spend another few thousand to get your HD video, but isn't it nice to have something more, so if you need it or want it, it is there. It's not like it bites....like the print button, i have NEVER even pressed it, i don't ask them to take it out.

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2326

http://www.jessicaclaire.net/index.cfm?postID=389

Bottom of the page.
 
No snobbey, we just don't want to pay for R&D on a feature that is already available elsewhere and also have it slow down the progress of the rest of the camera - which is the most important thing for me. For example, if say giving us autofocus on video capture is slowing down the release of a noise free ISO 6400, then I (and many other photographers) are going to be unimpressed.
 
SilverPenguin said:
lol thats what I'm saying, they don't...but it would be nice if they did give us the option :D
Of course IF video absolutely added no extra the the cost of the camera then fine, but seeing as you'll never get the exact same model with and without, you can't really say what the price differences are.

I just pray they keep video in prosumer and leave proper HD video to actual HD video camera's and spend more R&D time on improving the features of the CAMERA side of the camera, speed, ISO, functionality...call me crazy if you want...lol
Click to expand...

There will never be the '£1k less option', because it doesn't cost £1k to include in the first place!! :)

They won't do the with/without option either I don't think, because that would involve added production schedule complexity and increase costs.

Good DSLR's will always be around, it's just that some of them will have HD video capability/GPS modules/Wireless Broadband/whatever capability. At their heart will always be the ability to take great pictures...
 
SilverPenguin said:
No snobbey, we just don't want to pay for R&D on a feature that is already available elsewhere and also have it slow down the progress of the rest of the camera - which is the most important thing for me. For example, if say giving us autofocus on video capture is slowing down the release of a noise free ISO 6400, then I (and many other photographers) are going to be unimpressed.
Click to expand...

I really do think you're worrying about nothing to be honest! :)

I'm sure Canon/Nikon etc have the R & D capacity to sort autofocus as well as higher sensitivity/less noise sensors at the same time.

Sensors seem to develop at their own pace, and manufacturers just decide what to build around them for the various price points.
 
Tooks said:
There will never be the '£1k less option', because it doesn't cost £1k to include in the first place!! :)
Click to expand...
Oh god I'm going to regret saying that lol

Can I just clear it up for the record, it was just a figure I plucked out the air. I didn't actually mean I expect to pay £1k less lol. So I aplogise for randomly chucking in that figure which was OTT.

Now, can we stop quoting me on it :D
 
Tooks said:
I really do think you're worrying about nothing to be honest! :)

I'm sure Canon/Nikon etc have the R & D capacity to sort autofocus as well as higher sensitivity/less noise sensors at the same time.

Sensors seem to develop at their own pace, and manufacturers just decide what to build around them for the various price points.
Click to expand...

You know your probably right. BUT :D BUUUT if they were not spending any time AT ALL on video, and putting all that extra time and resource in to ISO etc, think how much faster and better the improvements would come along.
 
SilverPenguin said:
Oh god I'm going to regret saying that lol

Can I just clear it up for the record, it was just a figure I plucked out the air. I didn't actually mean I expect to pay £1k less lol. So I aplogise for randomly chucking in that figure which was OTT.

Now, can we stop quoting me on it :D
Click to expand...

Nah, you've said it now!!!! :D ;)

SilverPenguin said:
You watch what happens now...this time next year I'll be posting 'my latest video' threads lol!!
Click to expand...

If they're as good as your still pictures, I'll look forward to them!! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom