[Soupdragon]

.............. on digital Slr's.

The future is digital video.

Feel free to argue and I will reply in about 8 years time with "I told you so!"

Further to that, Nikon are as good as dead as far as imaging goes, if I had to bet on a survivors it would be Canon or Sony, both of whom have active video camera manufacturing.

[Sparhawk]

Sorry I cannot see it happening. The whole idea {IMO} is to take a snapshot of time suspended and {to me} video would not give the same impact.
I would except that it can and will work along side photos but not replace them. As for the demise of Nikon, that is possible as Canon seem to be the market leader and I think they will go on and on
regards
Sparhawk

[pinemom]

I agree with Sparhawk. You can't hang a video on the wall. Although video is important to the world around us. there is something about having that picture of your child that you can say look at what he/she was doing and doesn't she in this picture look like an angel. Video of my 2 year old would put that image of the little angel far far far into the recesses of my mind but that perfectly still smiling boy in the snapshot.... heaven

[Dabhand16]

Having dabbled in video before returning to a dSLR, (and continuing to do so), I don't agree with you at all, Soupy.

Video is so much harder to do well. Pretty much essential to use a tripod all of the time, sound management is vital, as is a decent external mic that the enthusiast will spend around £3-500 (or more) on. My hobbyist model was a modest £100. Shooting requires a carefully planned approach, and camera techniques are totally different to stills.

Anyone who has suffered watching unedited video will realise why so many people buy video cameras and never use them after the first holiday. The production of a half reasonable DVD requires much more input and effort than stills. Almost everyone I know who has a video camera hardly ever uses it because they either can't be bothered with the editing, or they don't know how to. Their results are so bad that even they do not want to watch them. They tend to use digital compacts.

In short, video is so much more labour intensive to achieve anything. Digital stills has captured the market, because anyone can end up with something they are pleased with.

[Soupdragon]

There are now video cameras available off the shelf which sport 4+mp ccd sensors.
So if you think about it? that's at least 25 reasonable quality stills per second.
Just cos it's video don't mean you can't break it down to individual frames.
The eos 1d mk 111 can't match that for frame rate and I'll wager it will not be srtopping @ 4mp.
It certainly improves the chance of capturing "The Decisive Moment!."

[Dave]

I raised the point months ago about exactly the same concept. As technology improves you will have video camera able to capture frames of quality similar to DSLR's now.

For a Sports photographer this would be a god send, as you will never miss the definitive moment. Could a landscape photographer leave the vide going then choose the frame with the perfect light ?

Portraits....capture that perfect pose, smile etc....

Makes you think

[Steve]

So you leave your video running for an hour then have to watch it back frame by frame to find that one perfect moment, I don't think so

I have enough problem now going through the sequence of 5 shots my better half always seems to shoot of the same subject. In most cases her first shot is the best so why waste the time, energy and storage space on the other four? Multiply that by 25+ frames a second and that by an hour or more of footage and even someone who is confident, quick and able to edit video will soon lose interest.

That's after ignoring the challenge of doing proper stills photography as well...I very much believe video and still photography are completely different animals and each has its supporters and haters...I'll stick with my DSLR's for now thanks very much.

[orangepeel]

wot a lot of hogwash. u seem to be missing the glaringly obvious downside to a video cam.

1/25th or 1/30th shutter speed. GL catching anything moving faster than a slug in a coma with that!

As for Canon and/or Sony being the only two players... Well given that it's predicated on complete nonsense I hardly think it'll happen.
In any case, as consumers we never want it to happen. Monopolies are not good for us. No matter how much you like/dislike a given camera manufacturer their competition is necessary.

For example, do u think the new canon would have anti-dust thingamies if oly hadn't brought it out? Now that Canon has it, how long do u think it'll be till Nikon does? This is an effect of competion.

Sorry soupy but you are wrong. I'll gladly come back in 8 years and say I told u so.

[Dave]

But the Canon Eos-1D MKIII is already at 10 fps for short bursts. It's nearly half way there to the 25 fps of video. With technology moving forward so fast, the storage capacity will also be able to take the hit. Hi end SLR's will start to blur the line between video & stills, albeit for short bursts ?

[Steve]

And that camera is designed and aimed at a very specific market section. It also has many other capabilities that from a stills point of view far outweigh any advantage a video camera used in anything like the same circumstances could even come close to matching.

This argument is very much along the same lines as saying DSLR's are dead now due to Samsung etc having large MP cameras built into their mobile phones

[Dave]

Don't get me wrong , I don't see one format taking over the other, but just a gentle blurring of the lines in some of the functionality. We have Video cameras currently with ability to take JPG stills & Digital still camera that can take a certain amount of video (albeit at small sizes at the mo).

Over time we will just end up with multiple devices that do the same thing, with dedicated ones each field for optimum function / quality.

[orangepeel]

Originally Posted by Dave

Over time we will just end up with multiple devices that do the same thing

They call it convergence. Generally it leads to a device that doesn't do any of it's tasks very well.

[Dave]

Ain't that the truth