Is it just me?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Member's gallery
Interestingly enough, I shot my first camera video about two weeks ago. I noticed two mockingbirds were doing a little dance in the driveway so grabbed the camera to get a few photos. But as I was sneaking out onto the porch I realized still photos weren't really going to effectively record the action. While the birds continued their dance I was able to figure out how to get into video mode and was actually able to record the show. And last September when I saw a black bear walk down a neighbors driveway into the back yard I knew it would have to come back out as the yard was fenced. I ran to get the camera and instead of the dozen photos I shot I think a video would have been much more interesting.

I'm still fully occupied with becoming a competent stills shooter so video is not high on the learning list. But I do want to spend the time to at least be able to activate it on short notice just in case.
 
Member's gallery
We are probably lucky that the videographers have embraced the traditional DLSR cameras and now the mirrorless cameras. If the still photographer market had to support the development of new cameras they might cost twice as much.

If you have not tried video, give it a shot, you might find it really interesting.
 
I'm not interested in video but if including the feature in a stills camera increases the market volume the net cost to the stills user could be less than if the camera were stills-only.
 
Member's gallery
Replytoken said:
Technological progress comes in many forms, and video has heavily contributed to digital photography this past decade. I would hate to see them split apart and lose the spillover even if I never shoot video.
Click to expand...
Much of what has enables video is needed for a live view that updates quickly and for mirrorless cameras. The industry started down the road to full video when a live view function was put on a camera.
 
Member's gallery
I’ve had four Nikons that shoot video. Haven’t ever used it but that’s OK. Someday I may. Also to not include it would slow the assembly line and probably make the ones without video more expensive.
 
Member's gallery
hsjd700 said:
I have no interest in movie mode. I just want to take photographs. So, why is it then, when I purchase a new camera, I have to pay for the unwanted Technology of movie mode? If I wanted to make movies I would bye a dedicated movie camera. I Wonder, would Nikon sell more or less cameras? Would Nikon's dedicated still camera have a market? and if so, could we see a Z7 ll stills camera (Hypothetically) sell for a $1000 dollars cheaper? Or is it just me having a rant? : (
Click to expand...
I very rarely take videos but I am glad to have that option. I may shoot vids to analyze a grandkid's baseball swing or a fly casting motion or maybe a granddaughter's performance in a play or recital etc. These are memories that will be enjoyed and understood in a way a single photo cannot. I've also used the vid capability to shoot moose in brush so high that you could barely see them unless they moved. I was very happy to have the capability then.

At Christmas the kids usually put on talent show. Watching and hearing them sing verses of Jailhouse Rock or Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition or Hear the People Sing from Les Mis are hilarious memories that cannot duplicated in a photo.

Overall, tho I rarely use it, I am glad to have the option to use it. The video capability adds little to the cost but that is not really an issue because the cost of a camera is NOT based solely on the cost. Generally speaking, the price is based on what the market will bear.
 
Member's gallery
hsjd700 said:
I have no interest in movie mode. I just want to take photographs. So, why is it then, when I purchase a new camera, I have to pay for the unwanted Technology of movie mode? If I wanted to make movies I would bye a dedicated movie camera. I Wonder, would Nikon sell more or less cameras? Would Nikon's dedicated still camera have a market? and if so, could we see a Z7 ll stills camera (Hypothetically) sell for a $1000 dollars cheaper? Or is it just me having a rant? : (
Click to expand...
I completely agree. I have rarely ( and I mean rately ) used movie mode on my D500..
 
Member's gallery
JANuser said:
I’ll be honest, this is kind of funny to read. You all seem to want 20+ FPS from your cameras, but you hate video. You are basicly shooting video at that point. Heck if you want fast frame rates shoot video. 30FPS, 60FPS, 120FPS+. 8k and beyond, you want that too. Once video is high enough resolution just take a freeze frame from the video. Never miss a shot again. You’ll also never have to worry about the buffer again, shoot video till you get what you want. Just ignore video centric shutter speeds and you get what you want.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with you. Lol. I love my 10 shot per second d500. If video would advance with fast focus tracking I could see myself trying it out. Lol I love your post.
 
Member's gallery
EricBowles said:
Before you write off video, take a look at the Split Second function. This allows you to capture up to 120 fps as small JPEG files with the Z cameras. It creates a series of JPEG files during a 1-3 second burst. The file size is as large as 8 megapixels, which would provide an uncropped 16 x 20 print. There are limits on exposure and focus changes.

Click to expand...
Thanks for the reminder! I had forgotten this was possible, played around with it a little today.
 
Member's gallery
I 'll bet that if you took a look at the age of users who prefer stills over video you may find that those who prefer stills are in an older age demographic while those who like or need video are of a younger group. I being older, prefer stills. I feel that stills capture a single point in time while the video is capturing a period of time. I prefer stills but I can understand why there is a desire for video and why a videographer would gravitate to a certain model.
 
Member's gallery
I don't doubt that age may play a roll in people's feelings on the matter. Then again I'm younger (under 40), but I still shoot mostly stills myself, might take 1 video for every thousand stills. I don't ignore video features for when I think it is a better option to use it . I sure wouldn't consider myself a videographer though.
 
Member's gallery
There was a time not long ago that I too had zero interest in the video capability of my Nikon DSLR bodies; then I took my granddaughter on her first real vacation, six days in the Pac North Wet and the Oregon Pacific Coast; June 2019 I took her to Disneyland and California Adventure for three days. I kick myself regularly for not taking the time to learn the video functions of my D7100 at the time. She is a 3rd degree black belt and junior TaeKwonDo instructor and high school freshman; now I video all her martial arts testing functions. Some moments a priceless and you can go back and select individual shots from a video for printing when needed.
 
Member's gallery
Why movie components are becoming more important in SLRS and Mirrorless cameras......
I also have no desire for video, I only want to do still photography.........however

The driver of change and video demand in our cameras is the internet, Smart phones, 5 G, and consumers.
5 G is the gate way to faster streaming, web designs are now incorporating more video than every before, media groups are now using more video than before.

5G is enabling much larger and faster capacity to stream or send video clips than ever before, media groups and internet platforms are all rapidly growing with adds in video.
Smart phone owners are taking more video and streaming them in 5G at super fast speeds, video is trending rapidly under the 5 G and 5 G II roll out.
Camera manufactures trying to survive need to adapt offering video and connectivity or die, the higher level of consumer demand is more with newer generations ............simple as all of that.

Remember its the adaptable that survive not necessarily the large and powerful.

Only an opinion
Oz down Under
 
Member's gallery
I am of the older set and I have been shooting stills for almost 50 years. I did not get into shooting video much until I purchased my Z6. It is just so much easier to shoot video through the viewfinder and it is easy to quickly switch from stills to video on the Z6. I think I will always prefer stills for some situations but feel like I am slowly gaining enough video shooting skill to capture some quality video. Learning to edit videos has been a fun challenge and during the pandemic it has given me something to do.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I haven't done video so far, simply because it's too cumbersome on a D500 and D850 - you can't seamlessly go from still to video and stills are (still) my priority. But I have to say, I have been watching the videos Ray Hennessy puts out with his Z6ii and it's compelling. He gets some beautiful footage and can grab shots very seamlessly. More than anything else, his videos have made the biggest dent in my belief that I don't need a mirrorless at this point - I know a Z6ii won't do BIF like my DSLRs and that the FTZ adapter will slow down my lenses, but learning how to create beautiful footage would be a new challenge that could be worth the adventure. I like getting into new creative challenges, keeps the neurons young ;)

Shoreline Bird Video
 
Member's gallery
JANuser said:
I’ll be honest, this is kind of funny to read. You all seem to want 20+ FPS from your cameras, but you hate video. You are basicly shooting video at that point. Heck if you want fast frame rates shoot video. 30FPS, 60FPS, 120FPS+. 8k and beyond, you want that too. Once video is high enough resolution just take a freeze frame from the video. Never miss a shot again. You’ll also never have to worry about the buffer again, shoot video till you get what you want. Just ignore video centric shutter speeds and you get what you want.
Click to expand...
First of all, not everyone wants or needs 20, 30, 60, 120 FPS. Second of all, after spending 10 years shooting competitions (not editorial use but direct sales) the thought of having to deal with tens of thousands of frames to find sellable images strikes me a non-starter. This would have taken my normal 3500 to 4500 images per competition to ten (?) times that. The workflow of the company I shot for would not/will not handle this. The "video" approach may work for editorial action photography when looking for 5 to 10 images to integrate into an article or blog, but not for volume youth sports or the like. The end use and final application of the image does inform the method and approach for capture. Just my two cents based on my experience.
 
Member's gallery
No use for video in any of my camera bodies. When I want to take a short clip, my first thought is to grab my iPhone, not my Nikon. On the other hand, I am kind of glad to have the little red video button and assign it a useful photography function, just like having another Fn button ;)
 
Member's gallery
No desire here to post any video on the Internet nor on You Tube specifically; only family and a few very close friends get to see videos taken with my D7100 and D850. Was at the Space Needle on New Years Day 2020, took video from the rotating deck after taking stills, would like to go back and video and/or time lapse of Seattle at night from that same deck and shoot down through the rotating glass floor. Have video of final approach and touch down at PDX just as the weather was clearing; have landed at Chicago Midway after sunset numerous times, the view is very cool; finally got video of approach and final last trip I made there.

"COOL" is wave action on the Oregon Coast at Cannon Beach, Smelt Sands state park and the Cape Perpetua area. Have gotten some cool wave shots out there; only wish I had some video of the same wave action there and at the South Jetty area of the Columbia River around Astoria, OR. Waves at the jetty start way out and make their way along the length of the jetty. Have watched fisherman get drenched by the wave action along that jetty. Stills just do not do that wave action justice. Multnomah Falls is very cool "live" as is fog rolling into the valley pockets around Mount St Helens when conditions are right.
 
Member's gallery
I can appreciate the skill set needed to shoot video. While related to and overlapping there are some separate skills from photography. I watch a lot of nature documentaries and frankly a high level production is a remarkable feat. Sometimes hard enough to take sharp BIF photos but imagine keeping the subject centered and in focus for 15-20 seconds straight. Getting easier with the new auto focus systems but the framing/steadiness/panning has no technical magic button.
What video I do shoot is 95% slo motion video. The other 5% is pretty much just behavioral recording if I want the sound. The analogy I make to extol slo motion video to others is consider the film industry and when a Director wants to make his signature moment in action/war/thriller movies he uses hi speed slo motion frame rates to pull the audience in.
In the field you can take stills of polar bears shaking off water, spoonbills bathing, cheetahs running down prey. But it never captures the entire scene like video. First you have to be fortunate to have enough stills of the action to be sated to consider "what else can I do here?". It gets easier shifting back and forth with some practice. Kind of like the speed to engage a teleconverter. I used to think 20-25 seconds was fast until Steve showed how to do it in 10. Now I can mimic that also.
I find it ironic that we all appreciate Steve's videos, and I will add in Mark Smith here as he does a lot of field video, but then will not open up to adding it as a skill. The techniques learned in shooting video will enhance your photography skill set. Especially action/nature shooters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top