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

[creator311]

Originally Posted by chilloutbuddy

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...

GPS there are a lot of camera phones thats record your location when you take a picture, its a good idea. Because there is software around that can tell record the details of where you are, eg London Bridge.
You never know a SLR may come out with GPS LOL

[DaCrusader]

Originally Posted by creator311

GPS there are a lot of camera phones thats record your location when you take a picture, its a good idea. Because there is software around that can tell record the details of where you are, eg London Bridge.
You never know a SLR may come out with GPS LOL

Its call GeoTagging, its very useful.

[BigandY]

Originally Posted by DaCrusader

I highly doubt that video has any effect on the quality of ISO performance, framerate or over all image quality. I am a firm believer in the fact it would cost Canon a total of $4 in parts for the speakers + microphone and a little bit of coding.

Again, please read my posts. I never thought video would affect IQ. But if it were to cost (an arbitrary figure for the sake of example) $200/camera to implement video (in R&D as well as production), I would much prefer that $200 to go to development of stills features or IQ.


Am I making sense yet?

[DaCrusader]

Originally Posted by BigandY

Again, please read my posts. I never thought video would affect IQ. But if it were to cost (an arbitrary figure for the sake of example) $200/camera to implement video (in R&D as well as production), I would much prefer that $200 to go to development of stills features or IQ.


Am I making sense yet?

Sorry, when I quote you I am mentioning parts from other discussions in this thread. I see what you are saying, but when Canon is selling these cameras to people who only do video. So it makes sense that canon is putting video R&D into DSLR's. look at cinema 5D... http://www.cinema5d.com/index.php Look at all the mounts and accessories being made for DSLR's for video. That is a market. What you may prefer is your opinion, but it makes more sense in canon's eyes to go spend $X amount on video as well.

[BigandY]

Originally Posted by DaCrusader

What you may prefer is your opinion

Of course it's my opinion

[DaCrusader]

Originally Posted by BigandY

Of course it's my opinion

Of course, thank you for having an opinion!

[chilloutbuddy]

Originally Posted by creator311

GPS there are a lot of camera phones thats record your location when you take a picture, its a good idea.

For even the weirdest of features there will always be somebody who will claim that his creativity, his job, the future of his family and the survival of the red panda hinges on this particular feature. I'm not arguing with that. I like super Mario myself, I wish one day my camera will have it for the train ride home

I just dont think it relates to photography or should be a discussion topic in a photography forum thats all. Video and photography are entirely unrelated and if you mix them together, most discussions will either turn to shit, or be full of noise and the eternal dead-end discussion "why have video in DSLRs in the first place". Again, and again, and again... Take this thread for example, how many times did it pop up already?

We should have a video subforum.

[csimpson]

Originally Posted by chilloutbuddy

We should have a video subforum.

I think that would be a great idea, actually - it would promote discussion and I know I have a fair bit of content to post in it. I might make a site discussion thread suggesting it.

[BigandY]

Originally Posted by DaCrusader

Of course, thank you for having an opinion!

Some of that stuff on Cinema5D looks awesome. If it is only a couple of bucks extra per camera then why not eh

[birdie]

Originally Posted by csimpson

I think that would be a great idea, actually - it would promote discussion and I know I have a fair bit of content to post in it. I might make a site discussion thread suggesting it.

I'd be interested in that... even though i don't have a video camera as of yet... there are more and more cameras with it so theres going to be more discussions...

[chilloutbuddy]

Originally Posted by csimpson

I think that would be a great idea, actually - it would promote discussion

My point exactly. There's very few people here who actually understand video and can give a meaningful response to a video question, and its only a coincidence that they even frequent a photography forum in the first place.

[Merudo]

I just wish my DSLR had video.


Anyone wanna trade a K-7 for a K200D ? hahahaha

[csimpson]

Here's the thread - if you want it (or don't), go nuts.

[Zee]

Originally Posted by it_inspector

I am not an expert by any means but aparently 24vs30 fps, there is viewing difference and somehow 24 is better and is the standard.

No, it's not.It just happens to be a cinema standard. It works - at the cinema. But my experience in the home environment is that it is jerky.So then people go buy 100/120/200hz TV's with frame interpolation to make up for it. *sigh*.

Be better off with 25fps, 50fps or even 60fps. But anyway...

I still can't believe how well the marketing types did with 24p!

Originally Posted by Athiril

24fps is what is shown in cinemas with film projectors

AMEN!!!

Originally Posted by Mitch01

I don't understand the fascination with HD video. 1080 in particular.

Lets say I record somethingg from my HD Set Top Box. 2 hrs video in decent quality = 14GB.

How in hell does one transfer that to disk?

Either:
1. Use Blu Ray recorder which costs a bomb and then only people with a BR reader can view it.; or
2. Downscale to DVD. Which means downscaling to 576.

Therein lies your problem. If you are intending to put the footage on DVD, there is no reason to need anything past 576.

He must be making documentaries for Nat Geo or Discovery...

Originally Posted by BigAndy

Again, please read my posts. I never thought video would affect IQ. But if it were to cost (an arbitrary figure for the sake of example) $200/camera to implement video (in R&D as well as production), I would much prefer that $200 to go to development of stills features or IQ.


Am I making sense yet?

Once again, Amen. Whilst I'll be happy to have video whilst scuba diving with whalesharks in the Philippines, chances are I'd rather have better high iSO to help me get a cleaner shot of the bloody thing, because strobes;
a) make the whalesharks run away
and
b) only light up the nostril hairs before the water sucks up the light...

Z...

[SyN]

Originally Posted by Zee

a) make the whalesharks run away

i never knew whalesharks could run
is this a new evolutionary function like 'sharks with lasers'?