Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,496
With the greatest respect, not really, no..
Why would the video function be detrimental... I don't get that logic
There are problems associated with getting DSLR's to perform, but with a little bit of studying and the willingness to overcome issues, you can create outstanding production quality. Although I use my 5D Mkii primarily for video, if I decide to go for a RED Scarlett or a RED One... in the future, I will keep my 5D for its stills ability.. so on the flip side, I like the fact that it can also take lush photographs.
Lighting... this is the 5d's strong point... you can film in very low light and achieve fantastic results, if I put an ND filter on my camera and go shoot with my 50mm 1.4, I can be outside in bright sunshine and achieve wonderful DoF shots, alternatively I could be in the same spot at midnight with a street light as my only source of light, up the ISO and still achieve beautiful shots with little noise...
Photographers who make their living in the media industry have all adopted the video function of their camera, in a world that is web driven; video functionality is imperative and a tool that many have embraced.
From an engineering PoV a compromise has been made somewhere to enable the cameras to do video.
It could be in R&D time or money, sensor tweaks, circuitry tweaks etc.
I would eat my hat if video has not had a single detrimental effect on still image IQ.
I agree that spending time and money to get results is possible, but I don't need the video option (and where video might be useful - people are using proper HD video cameras), hence not going to do that