Why doesn't this camera exist? Good high ISO, High FPS, 1080p Movie Mode - Page 2

SgtCaboose · 15th October 2009, 6:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alpha2k6

Also why do you need 1080p?? 720p is very good, and saying you don't need more might be like saying 640k is enough for everyone.. but 720p is very very good for home equipment IMHO.

This.

There is no valid reason why a consumer would requre anything above 720P.

I have a 720P tiny little handheld as well as a 1080P chunky camera (relatively) and honestly the quality difference is only just noticable (1080P monitor).

1080P also creates a lot of other issues such as post-processing and the export/render time.

There is no valid reason why a consumer would requre anything above 720P.

birdie · 15th October 2009, 8:34 AM

Looks like I've opened a can of worms here...

ya3: No... I was just saying for myself its not really a "need" but my point still is why don't they do it...

FB008: are you putting me in that category? Well I'm not... Yeah I enjoy the gear its a fun part of the hobby but yes I also totally enjoy the actual part of going out and spending time taking photos...

it_inspector: I know the D3s is full-frame...

I guess the reason that most people want video in their DSLRs (me included) is the fact that you can get very nice videos out of the DSLRs (as has been seen from the 5DMkII) because you have the good lenses to achieve similar from a dedicated video camera, costs alot lot more... Also the convenience and cost savings of having everything in one is great from the prosumer...

I guess both Canon and Nikon are nearly there... If the 5DMKII had a bit less MP so they could get a decent FPS and also resulting in the better ISO performance and a firmware update to add the 24fps it would be prefect. Also Nikon just needs to add 1080p to the D700 and it would be perfect... So its nearly there...

As far as the pro's don't need it argument... i guess none of you listen to TWIP podcast, their argument is, that maybe yes now, and maybe into the future there will still be the purists but you will need to be at the top to do any good just doing stills... The middle and lower section will need to adopt video, Esp documentary togs as the newspapers budgets are getting smaller so if they can send one guy to get some photos and while he's there get a few short videos so they can add it to their website or whatever, its much better value for the newspapers.

*puts on flame proof clothing*

hippyhippy · 15th October 2009, 8:39 AM

D3s is still 12MP .. and for a FF .. guess pixels dont matter.

wish i could afford a d700

... low light would be so much easier .. i got a d90 and i rarely take videos, nice feature to have but thats the last feature i'd consider when shopping for a dslr.

led_blind · 15th October 2009, 8:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SgtCaboose

This.

There is no valid reason why a consumer would requre anything above 720P.

I have a 720P tiny little handheld as well as a 1080P chunky camera (relatively) and honestly the quality difference is only just noticable (1080P monitor).

1080P also creates a lot of other issues such as post-processing and the export/render time.

There is no valid reason why a consumer would requre anything above 720P.

One thing that is forgotten with 1080 is bit rate. Canon's new 7d has a slightly higher bit rate for 1080 than most and it shows in sharpness...

FB008 · 15th October 2009, 9:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by birdie

FB008: are you putting me in that category? Well I'm not... Yeah I enjoy the gear its a fun part of the hobby but yes I also totally enjoy the actual part of going out and spending time taking photos...

Yeah, for the gear whore part anyway. It's a continual whinge for many people. Once something is released they always whinge about how it's not right and they should have done X, Y and Z. As ya3 already pointed out:

Quote:

Originally Posted by birdie

why don't they do it...

Quote:

Originally Posted by birdie

I guess its not really a need...

Well, you go enjoy your consumerism. Because with bigger resolution comes bigger processing and storage requirements.

I'm glad nikon hasn't jumped on the megapixie fairywagon.

chilloutbuddy · 15th October 2009, 9:55 AM

Lets face it, we're screwed.

First, some idiot decided that video is a nice feature to have in DSLRs, then before you know it we're assessing still cameras based on video performance.

Next, some other idiot will decide "why not have video games on the LCD?". Then you will have gamers coming here whingeing that their DSLR doesn't support Wii. Then telephony, then GPS etc etc

Bend over you silly photographers...

BigandY · 15th October 2009, 10:25 AM

If you want true-HD video buy a fucking HD video camera for fucks sake.

I would prefer to see NO video on SLRs and have the development and production costs used to work out how to cram HD video into an SLR go towards developing a camera which takes better pictures and provide better features as a stills camera.

Although I do agree with your sentiments regarding sensor size, megapixels and image quality & noise. That's been my beef for years. Take the current noise reduction tech, full frame sensor, 10 megapixels and you've got a camera that can take pics in a black hole, sans-flash.

proffesso · 15th October 2009, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigandY

If you want true-HD video buy a fucking HD video camera for fucks sake.

I would prefer to see NO video on SLRs and have the development and production costs used to work out how to cram HD video into an SLR go towards developing a camera which takes better pictures and provide better features as a stills camera.

Although I do agree with your sentiments regarding sensor size, megapixels and image quality & noise. That's been my beef for years. Take the current noise reduction tech, full frame sensor, 10 megapixels and you've got a camera that can take pics in a black hole, sans-flash.

I would prefer mobile phones ONLY stuck to calling only, you want games? buy a psp, music? an ipod...forget this 1 device crap, I want to require a golf-cart to carry all my shit around

its just convergence and overlap. video was an easy enough feature to add, and proved to be popular enough to make it a selling point to those who wanted it (a lot of people)

man you photographer types are amusing. purists....in name only.

^catalyst · 15th October 2009, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by proffesso

I would prefer mobile phones ONLY stuck to calling only, you want games? buy a psp, music? an ipod...forget this 1 device crap, I want to require a golf-cart to carry all my shit around

its just convergence and overlap. video was an easy enough feature to add, and proved to be popular enough to make it a selling point to those who wanted it (a lot of people)

man you photographer types are amusing. purists....in name only.

Word.

SyN · 15th October 2009, 12:29 PM

i sound cooler if i pretend if i need stupidly high specifications and anything less wont suit my (made up) 'style of photography'

edit: not sure if i need a sarcasm tag or if its obvious enough already

BigandY · 15th October 2009, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by proffesso

I would prefer mobile phones ONLY stuck to calling only, you want games? buy a psp, music? an ipod...forget this 1 device crap, I want to require a golf-cart to carry all my shit around

its just convergence and overlap. video was an easy enough feature to add, and proved to be popular enough to make it a selling point to those who wanted it (a lot of people)

man you photographer types are amusing. purists....in name only.

If wanting better still photography features instead of video capabilities makes me a purist, then brand my ass and call me Jeebus.

chilloutbuddy · 15th October 2009, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by proffesso

man you photographer types are amusing. purists....in name only.

I can live with being amusing, better than going to video forums and being annoying

birdie · 15th October 2009, 12:54 PM

Ok i think we can all agree... there are the purists who don't want video... just the best possible features to get the best photo... and there are the rest who like the convergence and the bonus of not having to have multiple devices...

csimpson · 15th October 2009, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigandY

If you want true-HD video buy a fucking HD video camera for fucks sake.

But using a DSLR for video is far superior to using a <$10k dedicated video camera, purely due to the interchangeable lens system.

BigandY · 15th October 2009, 1:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by birdie

Ok i think we can all agree... there are the purists who don't want video...

Why the hell is someone considered a purist simply because they think video (HD no less) in DSLRs is a waste of money? I haven't visted the photography forum for quite a while, is "purist" the buzzword of the month or something??

Quote:

Originally Posted by csimpson

But using a DSLR for video is far superior to using a <$10k dedicated video camera, purely due to the interchangeable lens system.

The only reason I can think of why it would be superior would be the ability to go ultra-wide and telephoto - which I concede would be a benefit, but highlight that that is a very niche segment of users to identify; sure there's a market there (albiet fairly limited), I argue that it's existence doesn't justify every DSLR having an increased price or lack of stills features as a trade-off for true-HD video capabilities, or even video capabilities full stop.

15th October 2009, 8:34 AM	#17
birdie Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Bundaberg, Queensland Posts: 1,264	Looks like I've opened a can of worms here... ya3: No... I was just saying for myself its not really a "need" but my point still is why don't they do it... FB008: are you putting me in that category? Well I'm not... Yeah I enjoy the gear its a fun part of the hobby but yes I also totally enjoy the actual part of going out and spending time taking photos... it_inspector: I know the D3s is full-frame... I guess the reason that most people want video in their DSLRs (me included) is the fact that you can get very nice videos out of the DSLRs (as has been seen from the 5DMkII) because you have the good lenses to achieve similar from a dedicated video camera, costs alot lot more... Also the convenience and cost savings of having everything in one is great from the prosumer... I guess both Canon and Nikon are nearly there... If the 5DMKII had a bit less MP so they could get a decent FPS and also resulting in the better ISO performance and a firmware update to add the 24fps it would be prefect. Also Nikon just needs to add 1080p to the D700 and it would be perfect... So its nearly there... As far as the pro's don't need it argument... i guess none of you listen to TWIP podcast, their argument is, that maybe yes now, and maybe into the future there will still be the purists but you will need to be at the top to do any good just doing stills... The middle and lower section will need to adopt video, Esp documentary togs as the newspapers budgets are getting smaller so if they can send one guy to get some photos and while he's there get a few short videos so they can add it to their website or whatever, its much better value for the newspapers. puts on flame proof clothing __________________ Main PC: Intel C2Q Q6600 G0, Gigabyte GA-EP35-DS3R, 4GB Corsair PC6400, Albatron 8800GTX, 1TB Samsung, Antec Nine Hundred, Corsair TX750W, Dell 2407WFP 24" LCD Laptop: T2310, 2GB RAM, 320GB, 14.1", Intel X3100, DVDRW, 802.11G Camera Gear: Canon EOS 40D, Sigma 10-20 F/4-5.6 EX, Sigma 18-50 F/2.8 EX, Canon 50 F/1.8, Canon 70-200 F/2.8 L 2x 8Gb Lexar Pro 133x, Lowepro Computrekker Plus AW Rolling, Manfrotto 190X PRO B and 804RC2

15th October 2009, 9:55 AM	#21
chilloutbuddy Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 3,114	Lets face it, we're screwed. First, some idiot decided that video is a nice feature to have in DSLRs, then before you know it we're assessing still cameras based on video performance. Next, some other idiot will decide "why not have video games on the LCD?". Then you will have gamers coming here whingeing that their DSLR doesn't support Wii. Then telephony, then GPS etc etc Bend over you silly photographers... __________________ Done OCAU'ing, cya

15th October 2009, 12:54 PM	#28
birdie Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Bundaberg, Queensland Posts: 1,264	Ok i think we can all agree... there are the purists who don't want video... just the best possible features to get the best photo... and there are the rest who like the convergence and the bonus of not having to have multiple devices... __________________ Main PC: Intel C2Q Q6600 G0, Gigabyte GA-EP35-DS3R, 4GB Corsair PC6400, Albatron 8800GTX, 1TB Samsung, Antec Nine Hundred, Corsair TX750W, Dell 2407WFP 24" LCD Laptop: T2310, 2GB RAM, 320GB, 14.1", Intel X3100, DVDRW, 802.11G Camera Gear: Canon EOS 40D, Sigma 10-20 F/4-5.6 EX, Sigma 18-50 F/2.8 EX, Canon 50 F/1.8, Canon 70-200 F/2.8 L 2x 8Gb Lexar Pro 133x, Lowepro Computrekker Plus AW Rolling, Manfrotto 190X PRO B and 804RC2

15th October 2009, 8:39 AM	#18
hippyhippy Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Sydney Posts: 2,887	D3s is still 12MP .. and for a FF .. guess pixels dont matter. wish i could afford a d700 ... low light would be so much easier .. i got a d90 and i rarely take videos, nice feature to have but thats the last feature i'd consider when shopping for a dslr.