You and Paul both make good points about the value of video within a DSLR.
So, I will stipulate that video does have value to some. Do I care if it is
included on my own camera? Not really, it doesn't bother me as long as its
presence doesn't impede my use of the camera for still images (e.g., by making
stills-related buttons smaller and harder to get to in order to have more room
for video-related buttons.)
I might mutter about sharing in the amortization of video functions which I
don't need, but I can also imagine that the engineering to facilitate video has
given me better Liveview, larger buffers with faster card-write speeds, etc.
So, end of the day, I don't really care, but I remain baffled that all of the
manufacturers obviously see value in including video capacity. I was, and still
am, baffled by the popularity of crossover vehicles. My limitation of course;
80-90 years ago I might have been baffled by the proliferation of color films.
Just change for the sake of change; mutter, mutter. . .
In my ideal world, I would like to see video as an add-on option. If you
want/need that function, pay $200-300 extra for the YT version of the body. But
that ain't gonna happen since everybody is accustomed to seeing video as part
of every camera's feature set.
stan
On Oct 28, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
There are good situations for when the larger sensor in a DSLR or
TTL-electronic camera, as well as the availability of the range of lenses
they can use, makes sense for video work. At least at the price point I can
afford in video cameras … Even professional movie makers choose DSLRs and
TTL-electronic cameras for some purposes to save on equipment costs. There
are other times when a DSLR or small TTL-electronic enable shots that could
not be done with a pro video camera due to size, weight, etc.
My sum-up of the LuLa article: Just another old git who wants the good old
days to come back. ;-)
I have plenty of simple cameras that address the basics, from the stone axe
of my plain prism Nikon F up to and including my Leica M9.
And I have a couple of very complex cameras. One of the most complex is my
latest - the Olympus E-M1. It also has the best controls of any camera I've
owned, and I can configure them to work *exactly* the way I want the camera
to work, from fully manual with instant access to ISO, exposure time,
aperture, and focus, to fully automated.
I have no complaints about what manufacturers make. I applaud the diversity
of design and ideas their products represent. I choose what I want to work
with from that, and make what I choose do what I want it to. If it's too much
trouble, I sell whatever it was and buy something else that does it more
easily.
To me, that's the only sane way to do things. Manufacturers don't make a
product for 100 people, or even 1000. They never have, not for anything that
costs under $10K anyway. You pick from what they make to suit your needs
best, and adapt.
A fresh pack of Impossible Color Protection film is in the SX-70 now. :-)
G
On Oct 28, 2013, at 7:30 AM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote:
… I am still baffled by the whole video thing and haven't been able to think
of a single instance where I would want my DSLR to record video, much less
sound. I have owned and used video cameras in the past, and if I wanted to
shoot video again the last device I would consider for that purpose would be
a DSLR. First choice would be a video camera. ...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
