HD Vid DSLRs - passing fad, or something we're stuck with?
Poll: HD Vid DSLRs - passing fad, or something we're stuck with?
Total Members Polled: 29
Discussion
I used to own a camcorder. I had young kids. They were starting to grow up. I'd want to keep memories of them. I used it about twice.
I thought I'd try it on the BTCC at Brands. I did so once.
Now I see that the new 500D is getting on for twice the price of my 450D, and why? Primarily because it has sodding HD Video on it!
If I'd wanted a camcorder, I wouldn't have sold the one I had at a loss on Ebay!
Everything I enjoy about photography is missing from video. I have not the slightest interest in a documentary recording of the world in front of my eyes. I want to freeze the moment at the best possible instant, not capture all the dross either side. I want something which I can proudly display on my wall as a decorative item and a constant reminder rolled into one, not something that I have to proactively pull up onto a computer screen and take time to watch.
In short, I don't want video recording capability on my DSLR, so I certainly don't want to pay for it!
Am I alone in feeling like this? Do other people think this is a good addition, to the point where it's likely to become a permanent feature on all DSLRs, but hopefully with prices settling back down again, or will sales figures feed back to the manufacturers that most people willing to spend the sort of money required for a decent camera want it to be a camera, not a camcorder?
I thought I'd try it on the BTCC at Brands. I did so once.
Now I see that the new 500D is getting on for twice the price of my 450D, and why? Primarily because it has sodding HD Video on it!
If I'd wanted a camcorder, I wouldn't have sold the one I had at a loss on Ebay!Everything I enjoy about photography is missing from video. I have not the slightest interest in a documentary recording of the world in front of my eyes. I want to freeze the moment at the best possible instant, not capture all the dross either side. I want something which I can proudly display on my wall as a decorative item and a constant reminder rolled into one, not something that I have to proactively pull up onto a computer screen and take time to watch.
In short, I don't want video recording capability on my DSLR, so I certainly don't want to pay for it!
Am I alone in feeling like this? Do other people think this is a good addition, to the point where it's likely to become a permanent feature on all DSLRs, but hopefully with prices settling back down again, or will sales figures feed back to the manufacturers that most people willing to spend the sort of money required for a decent camera want it to be a camera, not a camcorder?
Personally I think it's here to stay. I love the idea of having video with the quality of my SLR lenses and I wish my camera did it!
It's not clear that the entire cost differential of the 500D over the 450D is down to the HD video, historically upgrades are about 150% of the unit they are replacing in my experience with or without video functionality.
What was the RRP of the 450D when it first came out - that's a better comparison as to how the 500D is priced and what price Canon think the extra features can command.
It's not clear that the entire cost differential of the 500D over the 450D is down to the HD video, historically upgrades are about 150% of the unit they are replacing in my experience with or without video functionality.
What was the RRP of the 450D when it first came out - that's a better comparison as to how the 500D is priced and what price Canon think the extra features can command.
_dobbo_ said:
Personally I think it's here to stay. I love the idea of having video with the quality of my SLR lenses and I wish my camera did it!
Bear in mind though that whilst you might have video with the quality of your SLR lenses, you'd have the sound quality - in the case of the 500D as I understand it anyway - of a crappy little built in mic, without the option to use an external mic. This is the sort of thing that makes me think it's gimmicks for the sake of saying you've got them.One of the reasons I opted for the D300 over the D90.
If the price of the D90 had been lower without the video I'd have been more tempted. I pushed myself into the D300 a little too early for my own good at the time, but I've learnt much more from it than I would have done with the D90
If the price of the D90 had been lower without the video I'd have been more tempted. I pushed myself into the D300 a little too early for my own good at the time, but I've learnt much more from it than I would have done with the D90
I bought a 5Dii, just for stills, before xmas. Tested the video function and didn't use it after that.
This weekend I was photographing my children's party at a hall we had booked, and in my rush had forgotten my small video camera. I therefore used the 5Dii for video as well as stills.
In one word - awesome!
Great in the low light, and great DOF effect. Amazing image quality.
I am now glad I forgot to take the video camera. Enough said :-)
This weekend I was photographing my children's party at a hall we had booked, and in my rush had forgotten my small video camera. I therefore used the 5Dii for video as well as stills.
In one word - awesome!
Great in the low light, and great DOF effect. Amazing image quality.
I am now glad I forgot to take the video camera. Enough said :-)
here to stay I reckon, I have an HD video camera that does 7MP stills & it's real handy sometimes, stills on video have been around a while but steadily gaining ground so must be a popular feature, if they start aproaching it from the other way as well soon they get machines that can do either job equaly well.
not worth having at the moment, soon maybe, not worth the extra on the 500 IMO
not worth having at the moment, soon maybe, not worth the extra on the 500 IMO
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff