POLL: How much do you use the video function?

[bakubo]

I'm not quite sure you left anybody here doubting of what your views really are...

I am not sure what you think my views are about video included in still cameras and I don't think I have said much about it here or elsewhere. I did make some rather positive statements about it in the past and that is about it, I think.

Also, I am flummoxed why anyone would think there is any relevance to this poll no matter what my thoughts are and any imagined motivation I might have for creating it.

[UrsaMajor]

There are obviously different viewpoints on the merits of including video in a DSLR. I have no problem with differing viewpoints on this or any other subject, but I am very disappointed that this thread has tended to turn into a series of personal insults. If I were to desire to read that kind of "discussion", I would go over to DPReview.

FWIW, I have not participated in this poll, as I do not own a DSLR that has video capability and am therefore not in a position to provide any personal input to a survey that asks how much I use that capability. Accordingly, I do not have a horse in this race - but that does not mean that I do not consider the personal insults in this thread to be very disappointing.

I have always liked David's approach of minimal moderation, and it has normally provided a pleasant environment here, but some people seem to be forgetting why DPReview leaves a sour taste in the mouth of many people. When differences of opinion degenerate into personal attacks, the result is a mud-slinging contest, not a discussion.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[bakubo]

There are obviously different viewpoints on the merits of including video in a DSLR. I have no problem with differing viewpoints on this or any other subject, but I am very disappointed that this thread has tended to turn into a series of personal insults. If I were to desire to read that kind of "discussion", I would go over to DPReview.

Thanks for speaking up. Most stay silent when name calling and insults get made around here. This sort of simple question and thread just, unfortunately, seems to attract people who rarely post unless it is an attack or insult. I admit to not understand at all why a few people seem to often be so negative and want to turn things negative.

[Greg Beetham]

Yep you're right Henry most stay silent, I don't know why that OneGuyKs guy hasn't been given a warning about his insults. The next time he has something useful to say, it will be the first. And both of the Sony attack dogs don't seem to do any photography (or video) themselves....I don't remember seeing any of their photos here anyway.
Maybe you should have included the question "Should video even be in a still camera?" that might have given them something to actually complain about.
I have a question OneGuyKs, why should we go to a video site to talk about video in a still camera?
My only interest is how much harm inlcluding video in a still camera does to it's still taking attributes, apart from that my interest in video is zero, and as these cameras were presented as still cameras that can also do video; they will be assessed as a still camera first and their video capabilities second.
If they aren't a still camera first and foremost, why are they being represented by Sony as one?
Greg

[OneGuyKs]

The poll claims to be about Nex and A55 users. And neither you, Barry, or Walt (and maybe many others) who are posting to this poll and voting don't own either of the cameras. Basically, this is just another ant-video ant-liveview thread by usual attack dogs.

[Birma]

The poll claims to be about Nex and A55 users. And neither you, Barry, or Walt (and maybe many others) who are posting to this poll and voting don't own either of the cameras. Basically, this is just another ant-video ant-liveview thread by usual attack dogs.

Ok. I'm fed up too. The "attack dogs" in this thread do not appear to include Henry from where I sit. If you don't like the thread then don't read it. I must say, I was highly amused when someone told Henry to "calm down" . If there was a competition for being calm I think Henry would be a top contender!

[bfitzgerald]

I treated it as a general question remove said models and think "how often do you use video on your DSLR"

[Greg Beetham]

OneGuyKs I can't speak for Walt about whether he voted or not, I don't know, I don't know how you know either. But if you were paying attention to what I wrote you would find that I didn't vote as I do not own a DSLR that does video. Get your facts straight.
Greg

[levieuxrenard]

I think the OP’s question is perfectly legitimate. I don’t see any sneaky hidden agendas here which may have prompted it. To those who do, maybe you’re reading too many John Le Carré novels and seeing non-existent conspiracies …

And I’m not convinced there’s a strong link between the frequency of use of a function and its value. You may use a thing rarely or not at all but it can be great to have it there as a just-in-case tool. As a recent NEX owner I have been in a few situations photographing social events like christenings where guests have asked me to shoot some short video footage for them. They’ve been very happy I could oblige them, given the NEX’s decent performance in this role. For personal work I’ve not often seen a need for video but I don’t regret its inclusion and I am glad that I will have one piece of gear less to carry.

I know the analogy isn’t perfect, but many of us who travel a lot take out insurance: does the fact that we rarely, if ever, make claims on it mean that we have been wasting our money? I don’t think so.

John

[Greg Beetham]

I quite agree with that levieuxrenard, I’ve nothing against having the video feature included in most models; it’s probably handy to have on occasion I admit. I wouldn’t mind a NEX myself as a fun camera if it had a better user interface, (or an SLT) who knows I might even dabble with video, just for kicks.

My argument is simply that if they can’t build a really good still camera without any compromises due to including video, at least build ONE model without it, AND build it PROPERLY. The only thing is, that would now be a niche camera, most likely, and the price would probably be extreme.
Greg

[Scooterman]

The trouble is these days unless a camera has everything in it and on it the reviewers in the glossies will mark it down.
It is also a “Must have” feature for the majority of buyers to have HD video, even if you dont want it your self.
So the manufacturers bow to the “must haves” so they can sell their products, it is all about marketing no more no less.
Richard

[bakubo]

And I’m not convinced there’s a strong link between the frequency of use of a function and its value. You may use a thing rarely or not at all but it can be great to have it there as a just-in-case tool. As a recent NEX owner I have been in a few situations photographing social events like christenings where guests have asked me to shoot some short video footage for them. They’ve been very happy I could oblige them, given the NEX’s decent performance in this role. For personal work I’ve not often seen a need for video but I don’t regret its inclusion and I am glad that I will have one piece of gear less to carry.

Yes, that is a very good point. Thanks for posting.

[tom power 53]

I think the OP’s question is perfectly legitimate. I don’t see any sneaky hidden agendas here which may have prompted it. To those who do, maybe you’re reading too many John Le Carré novels and seeing non-existent conspiracies …

And I’m not convinced there’s a strong link between the frequency of use of a function and its value. You may use a thing rarely or not at all but it can be great to have it there as a just-in-case tool. As a recent NEX owner I have been in a few situations photographing social events like christenings where guests have asked me to shoot some short video footage for them. They’ve been very happy I could oblige them, given the NEX’s decent performance in this role. For personal work I’ve not often seen a need for video but I don’t regret its inclusion and I am glad that I will have one piece of gear less to carry.

I know the analogy isn’t perfect, but many of us who travel a lot take out insurance: does the fact that we rarely, if ever, make claims on it mean that we have been wasting our money? I don’t think so.

John

Yes this is the way I see it also. Not used often maybe but very nice to have on occassion. I hiked in to Gore Canyon last summer the second most dangerous raftable river section (of the Colorado) and while I got some nice still shots it would have been incredible to take some short clips shoowing the power and sound of the river. Could not do it with my A700. Bummer. Difficult to get to so have not been back and no video anyway.

[tom power 53]

I quite agree with that levieuxrenard, I’ve nothing against having the video feature included in most models; it’s probably handy to have on occasion I admit. I wouldn’t mind a NEX myself as a fun camera if it had a better user interface, (or an SLT) who knows I might even dabble with video, just for kicks.

My argument is simply that if they can’t build a really good still camera without any compromises due to including video, at least build ONE model without it, AND build it PROPERLY. The only thing is, that would now be a niche camera, most likely, and the price would probably be extreme.
Greg

I think that really is the crux of the matter. Because of low volume sale of a pure stills camera (how much better would the A850/900 be doing if they had video/liveview) it is just not economic to do that. If the new A77 A99 etc. are substantially better than there predecessors are they a failure just because they could be a little better for stills? MY opinion is no but I don't do the things that the SLT effects. Also for an astro or microscope photographer the mirror of the SLT's can safely and easily be removed in less than a minute so CDAF can be used with no mirror to effect the image and in many situations worked around. Not all but many.

Almost having your cake and eating it too albeit maybe a smaller slice instead of the whole cake.

[agorabasta]

My argument is simply that if they can’t build a really good still camera without any compromises due to including video, at least build ONE model without it, AND build it PROPERLY.

The necessities of the video functionality have brought us that 16Mp sensor with its incredibly low read noise. That's because having the sensor doing very fast readout also means that the slow readouts are done with much better precision.
Moreover, that sensor is capable of keeping the noise very low despite higher temperatures it needs to operate at. In fact its thermal noise is lower than IR background generated by the heat. It means the sensor is already near-perfect noise-wise.

Now the sensor speeds are about doubling every year. That's been brought to you exactly by developments commanded by the video functionality needs.
But now there's another application for that newly developed speed capability - we'll soon have an EVF that can really put to shame any imaginable OVF out there. And there's yet more important application for the high-speed sensors - we will finally have a capability of stacking multiple short exposures within the time period of a single normal exposure. It means much higher effective resolutions becoming possible, it means very low noise in near-darkness, it means practically infinite DR at ISO speeds as low as you wish; in fact, it means capabilities much higher that those of the human eye-brain system becoming really possible, and very soon.

So really, video is neither a purpose nor a real priority of the recent developments. It's just a natural ability of a sufficiently developed visual registering system - exactly as it is with the human vision (that resides mostly in the brain/intellect).