I hate to say it..but

[bfitzgerald]

Having been in touch with a number of folks I know, in person mostly..and some who are into camera clubs etc. levels from new DSLR users to mid point ones. I do detect an interest in video in DSLR's, from many people (I admit my sample is not huge, but they are varied) Not all are interested in it, but possibly half, maybe more. Some comments about upgrading from mostly Canon bodies, 400 and 450d uesrs, looking into the 500d model. And many are telling me, video is something they want to play with, and "one reason" to upgrade. They are curious, and interested.

I have argued that I don't really want video, nor really does it interest me a whole lot (on a serious level), however..I believe that Sony will not be adding video to DSLR's any time soon, and I think from a marketing and potential customer perspective, that is clearly a mistake.

My only request is that other camera areas are not sacrificed in order to deliver the video aspect to models. But I do feel, even though I don't want it, Sony really must add it, for their own system appeal. As a more traditional user, I don't object to the presence of video. I am somewhat puzzled as to why Sony is resisting this area so much, as the company has a strong history in this area. Neither do I buy the "cannot do it properly" don't do it argument. If that were the case for many areas of camera development, then even AF would never have got off the ground!

I am still left with the impression that Sony are not really in touch with the market, in some areas. They really do need to sort this one out.

[Javelin]

Sony will undoubtatly have to add video. the question is if they add it in the same condition the others added it or whether they invent a new implementation. People are interested but did you ask how many are actually going to upgrade? say within the next year? I'd bet not many but still thats the logical upgrape path for those useres. ones who already have competent SLR's can move laterally into one that offeres a few new tricks with out having to go to the top line stuff. I'll bet the A500's are going to be positioned still below A700 and the new A700 is going to be above the A700. guess we shall see

[KevinBarrett]

Besides a few other interface tweaks to make the controls work, all a video capable DSLR has to do is record the output of a main sensor live-view system. There's literally no compromise at all--you get better live view, maybe a larger buffer, plus the ability to record a crummy bit of video with an ill-suited instrument. More importantly, Sony would get to check the box next to "video" at the Best Buy camera display case.

I don't necessarily want it in my next camera purchase, but if it helps Sony sell more to others and expand the system, then like you Barry, I'm all for it.

[Javelin]

Hey Don. welcome back

[KevinBarrett]

Sony fanboys will never change... Most of them continue trash and bash what they don't have, or don't think they will use, until death do them part. Looks like it's time for me to start posting more frequently to combat this sort Cinnabar colored nonsense.

I guess my a700 is an "ill-suited instrument" that shoots nothing but "crummy high ISO stills" so I guess that would make the entire alpha line crummy instruments since they are not up to snuff when it comes to noise control and noise reduction.

I got your ill-suited right here...it's called a Sony kit. Maybe a few of you could stop elevating Sony for being late to market with video, live view, sports cameras, and strong high ISO performance.

Sony is bringing a bunch of junk many of us don't want....Give us faster frame rates, better high ISO, lens fine tune, and live view and video on an a700 based model or higher!

It's becoming quite clear Sony is after the low end consumer and that's about it. They don't try to keep up with the competition because they can't keep up with the competition! Sony is stripping features from cameras and not adding LV, or Video, or faster FR, or any other meaningful features! Sony is living off of the M/KM Anti-Shake legacy and anyone that does not see this is BLIND. Sony has yet to add anything seriously worthwhile to a camera, they don't do JPG engines all that well, the high ISO raw files still leave a lot to be desired, and frame rates are stuck in 5 years ago standards.

Sony...pull your head from the low end consumers a$$ and make a camera that has a decent feature set for a change. Thanks.

-Sonolta

Don, sometimes I can't tell whether you're arguing against me or taking the same side, but I think you misunderstood this last post either way. By "ill-suited instrument" I meant a DSLR as a piece of video equipment. I certainly wouldn't mind having a video feature in my next camera, but if I was serious about film-making I wouldn't go out and buy a DSLR for it. I certainly didn't mean that the a700 was crummy--I own one and I love it! I think it's the best darned camera Sony's ever made! As for Sony's absurd strategy of stripping features from cameras and charging more for them--I'm as baffled as you are, but I haven't given up hope that they'll produce a good camera in the pro-sumer range again.

"Give us faster frame rates, better high ISO, lens fine tune, and live view and video on an a700 based model or higher!" Amen to that!

[bfitzgerald]

Maybe Don is right.

Harsh words, but I do detect something a bit consumer pandering about Sony, esp with the latest releases. I hate to say this, but every chance that the next mid range models won't be what some are looking for. That of course varies from person to person. But by far the biggest shocker, is the fact they seem to be so into gearing their stuff to consumers, that they ignore the one aspect that appears to appeal to "some/many" video.

I have long said, and still feel it's not something I really want/need (that does not mean I would not play with it..just not for serious stuff), but I get the vibe many folks are interested in it. Seems a bit silly to ignore that. After all they want to sell cameras right??

Now Pentax has joined in on the game, it's only a matter of time before Olympus do..and that leaves Sony with no other choice than to follow, probably last of all the makers. If Sony were blowing socks off in just doing cameras, then fine..they could wing it, but they are not..least at the moment.

[stevecim]

with regards to video, someone please correct me if I'm wrong but don't all the Can/Nik DSLRs with Video on work in manual focus, I have a camcorder has do most of my family memebers and friends and I've seen a lot of people using them at the zoos, etc... I never seen anyone use a "camcorder" type video camera in manual foucus, 100% of very camcorder users,, I've seen, use them in auto-focus mode single handed and about 85% use the LCD not the VF. The SLR is not really made for single handed use, try following you kids or pets around the house with a SLR + 10x lenses and try and manually controll zoom and focus at the same time while using OVF.

I have a a350 and use it's LV 50% of the time it's great when walking around, when you want to shoot over head or shoot from the waist it's great for kids too use, both my 8 and 4 year old use it. I feel Sony's version of LV is the right way to do. When Sony add Video to the Alpha range it had better work with auto focus, which is not going to be easy to do. how would the focus sensors work if you have the lens stopped down to f8 or smaller. I wonder if Sony could add a external focus sensor to the body that could be used for focusing the lens in video mode, It would be no good for macro work but it would be a lot better than a manual focus video. To me manual focus video on a slr is just a marketing option not a real feature but I must be the only person that thinks this way since I've never seen a review that state manual focus video is only good for filming static objects or objects that move parrallel to the camera


Cheers, Stephen

[bfitzgerald]

I am pretty sure those top notcho Panavision cameras (I mean the serious movie stuff now) are MF only.
But I admit to knowing next to nothing about video and filming etc. Of course it's correct to point out that video cameras are not designed the same as still ones. Hence the SLR is never really going to be the ideal platform for that. It's a tack on feature.

But then consumers love tack on stuff, and features. That's the whole point. Much as I don't want it, it's rather inevitable..esp considering Canikon and Pentax seem to think it's worth shoving on..

Features must help sell cameras, else they would not do it??

[David Kilpatrick]

I have used all four of the current video capable DSLRs (this excludes the Panasonic GH1 which does have active AF during filming). While AF is an issue for camcorder-style shooting, it's not much of an issue for a more cinematic style where short takes (7-20 seconds per shot) are accompanied by techniques such as dolly-type camera tracking and constant distance. Also, the Canon 500D for example will by default stop the lens down far more than you would imagine if you use a long focal length - set 200mm, and it will set f/16 outdoors along with a high ISO. Canon has had to introduce new firmware (release June 2) for the 5D MkII just to allow people to over-ride this behaviour and set manual apertures.

Sorry, but although I do not NEED video I certainly want it and I'm about to jump for either the 500D (if they provide a firmware update similar to the 5D MkII) or the D5000. There is a quality to the results from these cameras which makes an entirely different type of video possible. They are not suitable for shooting the kids playing at home or chasing the pet dog on a beach, anyone who thinks they replace a domestic camcorder is going to be seriously disappointed. But they do stuff no camcorder can do and I would like to explore some of that.

In Don's case, the overall distance for a movie of match action (you do not close right in like your do on stills, movies need more space) means refocusing would not be needed - and the low light performance of these new V-DSLRs is amazing.

I thought the idea was completely misplaced when I first tried the 5D MkII, so much that I did not even bother to explore it properly. The slight changes in function and handling with the smaller models, especially the Nikon D5000, have been enough to persuade me that it's a workable, useful addition to the DSLR. It costs almost nothing by way of a premium and you don't have to use it, but if it is there, you can. Sony will suffer defections/lost sales if they don't offer a mainstream DSLR with HD video capture in 2009.

David

[peterottaway]

I am sure that I am not the only one who remembers the Rollei 2000 - for those of you who are too young it was a 35mm film camera that was somewhat similar to the Pentax 645.If you are serious about providing sports photographers and photojournalists with a good enthusiast/pro level camera with decent video clip functions this may be the way to go.

Over the last few weeks I have read comments that a number of newspapers are providing their photographers with training to shoot video clips and then giving them new Canon 5 Mk II so that these can be used to transfer straight away to the papers web site.

Not my scene but it does mean that video is not required " just " on the consumera type cameras.

[stevecim]

david can you expaned on "There is a quality to the results from these cameras which makes an entirely different type of video possible" and "But they do stuff no camcorder can do" I really do want to hear what you have to say It would be interesting if someone could do a real review of the video preformance of say the 5D MKII to a similar priced video camera.

Cheers, Stephen

[David Kilpatrick]

It's all down to lenses and format. The depth of field - or differential focus - effects are unlike anything you will ever see from a camcorder. So is the low light quality. Those two things alone can be combined, not that I have done so. I can not post some of the clips I shot as they show people in conversation in a private meeting, but I was sort of pretending to film it as if it was a news report. The result was very different to any camcorder shoot and quite distinctive. These cameras have a lot of creative potential.

David

[stevecim]

Hmmm. bit curious now, was looking at different video cameras stuff. noticed that one of the spec they give with video cameras is min light needed film, like the Canon pro camcorder GL2 can film in 6 lx, cost about the same has a 5D MKII body has a f1.6-2.9 lens and the SONY HDR-FX1000 down to 1.5lx and has a 20x G lens (29.5 -590mm 35 equiv, cost less than a a900 body) I wonder how low the 5D can go?

Cheer

[Javelin]

Yes they are manual focus. like the Sony ones with the Canon lenses are too but it takes a second operator called a focus puller to focus it. there are DOF issues that have to be dealt with as well as framing. DOF is hard enough to get right in still shots. on video it would be even harder and they usually have the camera man and focus puller working as a team.. But these things aren't on consumer camcorders where its turned on and recording for an hour. the DSLR can get you those short DOF too. Done right it's perfect for short few second maybe minute long shots. longer than that isn't practical. Ever visit a friend and have them show you their vacation video? it's 2 straight hours of riding the monkey bus through a zoo. thats what people want camcorders for. I don't think the DSLR is suited for that sort of thing. But for creativity for the next George Lucas out there. I've never seen a scene in a movie that was more than a few minutes long from one camera. the longest feature movies even. there all short pieces from different perspectives with all scenes scripted ahead of time then directed and posed for the best results. A DSLR could do that.. and Laforet did it. (I think he showed some flaws too though) especially from a tripod with a scripted chain of events... not my bag. but if DSLRs are going to have it then so be it. I think it could be done easier with a regular camcorder though but if a photographer wants to dabble it could be available in his next still body upgrade, or use the DSLR video to supplement his camcorder for the slim DOF stuff and longer and wider shots to supplement his videos.

I am pretty sure those top notcho Panavision cameras (I mean the serious movie stuff now) are MF only.
But I admit to knowing next to nothing about video and filming etc. Of course it's correct to point out that video cameras are not designed the same as still ones. Hence the SLR is never really going to be the ideal platform for that. It's a tack on feature.

But then consumers love tack on stuff, and features. That's the whole point. Much as I don't want it, it's rather inevitable..esp considering Canikon and Pentax seem to think it's worth shoving on..

Features must help sell cameras, else they would not do it??

[caporip]

I guess my antipathy towards video stems from the time when my four teenagers were babies/toddlers. Yes I used a camcorder (not digital of course) for those special moments but used the camera more even then, probably as a careerr in the movies did not beckon on the results i got. Gradually the camcorder became obsolete in my household at least. Do I need video? no and with the current line up I have, the introduction of it in a Sony camera would not make me upgrade/change purely for it alone. However if i do ever change my lineup to a video capable DSLR it will be fun to see what would be achievable with it but i suspect it would likely be something i would use intermittently once the novelty has worn off.

I think it would be interesting to do a straw poll of those still photographers who now have video capacity in their DSLRs to see how much it is used by them. I know for instance that some of my daughter's friends at uni use it a lot but then they are on a film/visual arts course while i have have colleagues who have it but say its not a function they use a lot.

My view is that Sony will introduce it fairly soon as the market has more or less dictated its inclusion in future mid range models. I agree with Don (shock horror) as regards to the new recent models but wonder if this some sort of "cunning plan" by it to get a sigificant (and new) market share from the P&S users who then have a clear upgrade path (the A700 & A900, and their eventual replacements and possibly a video capable A500 or whatever) should they need it.