Jump to content
  • Announcements

    Welcome! New around here? Take a look at the New Members' Guide for some pointers.

    Not a member yet? Sign up here and you can soon be chatting away with friends old and new..

    Check out our Handy Information section if you're after something quickly!

Bruce. You may find this of interest


Guest lordofsealand

Recommended Posts

Out of interest Paul (or anyone else) - can you see video mode on an SLR as vital to the future of SLR development? I must admit it's of no interest to me because I'd prefer to use a dedicated tool, but there do seem to be plenty of people who do want it and many recent cameras which have come out without it are being criticised for that reason so I expect it will end up being included on most, if not all, future models.

Live View is another one that didn't interest me - in fact I couldn't see the point at all when I bought my last camera. The camera I chose doesn't have it, but for just a few quid more I could have bought one which did (plus an articulating screen), I just chose not to as I couldn't see the point. However, I now question whether I perhaps got it wrong. The sunrise photo shoot, for example, and the still life bits and pieces on this forum - both times I found myself thinking how useful LiveView would be. Perhaps I will find I am equally mistaken about Video Mode. Then again, my compact has video mode and I've had that for 5 years and used it all of about twice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with you Simon.

I saw the Movie aspect as a nice to have but if you want to take movies rather than clips it is a dedicated product you need IMHO.

I did purchase a dedicated HD camera (Canon you will be pleased to know :naughty: ) after much searching reading and advice I plumped for the tape version despite all the hype around HDD or removable media The biggest issue when wanting to produce reasonable quality HD movies is editing and despite what many camera manufacturers say file formats are a real issue when it comes to editing (I think the 5D11uses .MOV). Tape does not present any of these issues although file transfer times are 1-1 which did not bother me.

You will be pleased to know that the video and sound editing software is Sony :clap they are the market leaders in this area.

I am just getting to grips with the editing which is quite a task but the initial tests on the final quality are very good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly wouldn't be using that type of camera for video work other than in a case of an "emergency" - which I can not think of any ! :P

I do not know how much HD video time you would get on say a 4gb card, but I only get just over 200 pictures on that size card with my 12.1MB camera.

I do have a digital CCD video camera that I have used for a few hours only, as some of you have seen on youtube, but I hardly ever take it with me.

My old Fuji digital camera had video facilities and I rarely used that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tape does not present any of these issues although file transfer times are 1-1 which did not bother me.

But it's a one off transfer so like you, I can live with that. Even though I have seen plenty of people with DVD-RAM and other type camcorders and I like the handiness, but to be honest I still find MiniDV the format if you want real quality. It would take just 20 mins of standard def uncompressed DV footage to fill a single DVD plus I wouldn't trust the DVD writing system to record a one time only special event - too many disc errors to risk it. Tapes, on the other hand....

You will be pleased to know that the video and sound editing software is Sony :clap they are the market leaders in this area.

:P Mine is Adobe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Paul - a kind thought.

Like others, I can take or leave the video function. It didn't feature in my decision to buy the camera. I will find out how to use it properly just in case the need ever arises (and that website will help), but I'm sure it won't get used very often (I started it off by mistake yesterday and got a few seconds of very nice footage of the carpet, but otherwise haven't tried it).

Simon, live view is very important to me, which is one reason I ruled out the Sony A900 (which as you know hasn't got it). The other main reason was that Sony have no tilt/shift lenses in their range, and I have bought 2 Canon tilt/shifts (the 24mm and 45mm). And guess what's the best way to focus a tilt/shift lens on a DSLR? Yes, live view! I can zoom right in on any part of the image to get any part of the image plane in focus, and it works like a charm.

Back to video - reports of the 5D Mk. II's video quality have been good, but if I wanted a video camera that's what I would have bought. Some wedding photographers are talking about using the 5DII to add value by shooting a bit of video as well as stills, but I think their workflow will be a nightmare and they risk causing themselves total confusion and schizophrenia.

Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest chriscraft

vids, after my recent stint at "grandad dancing" (as described by sue) at a recent wedding i hope they drop it :oops: i can,t really see the point of it on a still camara personaly it seems just a sales gimmick ,or are the researshers looking to amalgamate the two systems into one camara in the future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trevor,

I agree with you that it seems to be a gimick. I can't think of a single reason why anyone wanting to take video would lug around a heavy DSLR, when the video cameras of today are so small and pocket friendly. I have a MiniDV camera not much bigger than a compact P&S that I bought about 5 years ago. The thing is that video really does not interest me in the slightest (too much time needed infront of the PC editing etc), so why would a DSLR be of the slightest interst?

Maybe I'm out of touch...... :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest chriscraft

Well there you go ,remember when mobile phone,s where as big as a brick?if they can get the cost down to an affordable level,we may all be using them..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like others, I can take or leave the video function. It didn't feature in my decision to buy the camera. I will find out how to use it properly just in case the need ever arises (and that website will help), but I'm sure it won't get used very often (I started it off by mistake yesterday and got a few seconds of very nice footage of the carpet, but otherwise haven't tried it).

Ah the classic carpet footage. I have much footage (most of it shot by Susan) of the giant word "YNOS" in a grey drifting mist.

(Aka the inside of the lens cap).

Simon, live view is very important to me, which is one reason I ruled out the Sony A900 (which as you know hasn't got it). The other main reason was that Sony have no tilt/shift lenses in their range, and I have bought 2 Canon tilt/shifts (the 24mm and 45mm). And guess what's the best way to focus a tilt/shift lens on a DSLR? Yes, live view! I can zoom right in on any part of the image to get any part of the image plane in focus, and it works like a charm.

Tilt shift lenses are something I keep hearing about - mostly people making the point that Sony has none (though there are a couple of third party ones available but they are hideously expensive). I don't know what they are so I'd be interested in an explanation. But no, Sony doesn't have any and Sony's system lenses are made by two sources - Minolta and Carl Zeiss and I don't think either maker has ever had a tilt / shift lens so I can't imagine we'll be seeing one any time soon.

Live view I wasn't interested in at all at the beginning but now that I am using a tripod more and more I have actually found myself in situations where I wished I had it. Sony's implementation of Live View is somewhat different from Canon and Nikon as I understand it and I believe there are many advantages but one of the disadvantages is the impact on the OVF. I've never handled an A900 but I believe the view finder is considered to be something special so I can only guess the designers had a bit of conflict there and the OVF won out. With hindsight I might have been better to get an A300 (same specs but with live view and tilt / twist LCD) but what's done is done. At the time it was all that I needed, I wasn't to know my shooting style and subjects were going to change in the way they have. I understand there's a big camera event coming up in March and there are a plethora of rumours about what Sony is set to announce at that (most of them wrong probably). The safest bet though, is a successor to the mid range A700 and most smart money says that will have live view. I expect, in the fullness of time, my next SLR purchase will be from this market sector and live view will be a factor - though who knows what else will have changed by then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

It's superb Perry. The level of detail is amazing, and I am very pleased at having taken the plunge (which involved a lot of expenditure on pro Canon lenses as a result of the change from Nikon :o ). Watch this space - I may well take you up on your subtle suggestion of doing a review!

Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • NBN Mobile App

  • Our Sponsors

    Norfolk Broads Network is run by volunteers - You can help us run it by making a donation

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.