Videos vs. Photos?

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
Bottom line for me: Since 1979, I buy my cameras to make photos.
I do have an action vid camera on one of my Harley's that I light up and use some.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I starting learning to shoot video while watching wolves and grizzlies in Yellowstone. The viewing was often at a considerable distance and what was interesting was tying to capture the interaction between the predators and their prey. I also enjoy shooting video while traveling and of course videos of family. I am still learning to edit videos and really create and interesting story through video.

What I like about photos over video is that you capture a specific moment of an action or event that can often tell the story as well as or better than the video. The event may pass very quickly in a video, but the still image taken at the right moment can capture something that is never noticed in the video. I shoot a lot sports and to me the still images capture expressions and emotions better than video. The still image allows you to study all of the elements of an event that you might never even notice in the video.
 
Member's gallery
I was so so happy I had my camcorder such as below on our trip to Iceland. Living in the south of England one bird I particularly want to get some of was a puffin in its natural habitat, we don't get them this far south in the UK. The time of year we went all the puffins were well out at sea catching sand eels. with the naked eye it was hard to even see them

did you spot them? 0.09 and 0.26 sec in.

In the tour group we were with (about 30 people) not one of them managed to get a photo of them with their cameras. Stopping for a meal in a building they all said how disappointed to miss them. Then I showed what I had videoed. at the same distance as the video above.

hand held unedited


They were amazed at what this camcorder PanasonicHC-X1500 was capable of. Most of the group were from the USA, and have to say a pleasure to meet them. The videos I showed them created a lot of interest and took note of my camcorder make etc, saying when they got home that is what they were going to get. I didn't have the handle on it at the time just this Azden SMX-30V mirophone which they also asked about as we as many had never seen a "deadcat"

P1000803.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
another a bit later into this video, same area as above. Needless to say I had managed to at last after a very long time complete a dream of videoing them. Hence doing 2 videos more or less the same.If you only knew how happy this made me actually seeing them let alone getting videos , I was and still in photographic heaven

As I said above those with cameras didn't even managed to get a photo of them
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
MikeA said:
I always make photos up to just recently, when I tried my first few videos on my last trip to Yellowstone. I also tried out iMovie for the first time, mixing photos and videos for my showing to family and friends. I had the feeling it was more interesting for the audience by also including compelling music.

I was just curios - on this site one gets the impression everybody (like me up to now) is shooting photo images and no videos, even though our cameras (like my D850) can do both. It is a question of quality, photos vs. video on these cameras? Or just the preference for photos?
Click to expand...
Hello, I mostly shoot photos, but not many videos. Some times it will not play on my LG TV. That is when I convert the files to mp4 and put it on a thumb drive. As for photos, I print or transfer to my I pad.
 
Member's gallery
Ever so slowly transitioning to more video, but still a fraction of my still work. Transitioning to more video when/because
- certain scenes are better captured as video (leopardess nuzzling a leopard to arose him, speed of baby warthogs running, often scenes where capturing the sound integral
- I find my audiences greatly prefer a bit of video mixed in with stills; the Variety keeps it more interesting
- BY FAR THE BIGGEST: when heat diffraction would drive stills to an immediate rendezvous with the delete button, I find video very consumable. Great for yielding great content where it would otherwise be hopeless.

Still greatly prefer stills and 95% of my content, but video has found a valuable place in my toolkit.
 
Member's gallery
MikeA said:
I always make photos up to just recently, when I tried my first few videos on my last trip to Yellowstone. I also tried out iMovie for the first time, mixing photos and videos for my showing to family and friends. I had the feeling it was more interesting for the audience by also including compelling music.

I was just curios - on this site one gets the impression everybody (like me up to now) is shooting photo images and no videos, even though our cameras (like my D850) can do both. It is a question of quality, photos vs. video on these cameras? Or just the preference for photos?
Click to expand...
I rarely record videos, mainly for two reasons: (1) making good videos takes a completely different skill set than still photography, and (2) they require an inordinate amount of time to create something compelling. Anyone can throw together nice little video clips (just witness the popularity of TikTok, YouTube, etc.) but if you care as much about the resulting quality as you do your still photography, editing a great video is an energy sink, at least in my experience. I've done some decent videos for specific not-for-profit projects, but generally don't seek them out for the reasons cited above. A good videographer doesn't necessarily make a good photographer, and vice-versy.
 
Member's gallery
Abinoone said:
I rarely record videos, mainly for two reasons: (1) making good videos takes a completely different skill set than still photography, and (2) they require an inordinate amount of time to create something compelling. Anyone can throw together nice little video clips (just witness the popularity of TikTok, YouTube, etc.) but if you care as much about the resulting quality as you do your still photography, editing a great video is an energy sink, at least in my experience. I've done some decent videos for specific not-for-profit projects, but generally don't seek them out for the reasons cited above. A good videographer doesn't necessarily make a good photographer, and vice-versy.
Click to expand...

Exactly why I did not carry on with video. If you want to make something reasonable it takes a lot of input into planning/storyboard, a lot of different kit, a lot of effort into the sound and background music - probably as important as the video itself - and there is a reason why pro video is shot by a team. On top of that, the editing is so boring!!
 
Member's gallery
I've been taking photos for 30 years or more and I prefer photos, but I sometimes take videos when there is something that will be better captured by video such as motion or sound. I've started to do a little more video now that I have my drone.
 
Member's gallery
I'm not a pro so as cameras move closer to doing everything you ever wished for, that good old buzz of thinking you've nailed it, getting home and going through a great burst hoping that it nailed focus on the one you really wanted has diminished. If it didn't there's always another day of hope and anticipation as you get back out into the field and go for it again. I'm moving more into video because I'm finding it more fulfilling. It's a steep learning curve but I'm really enjoying the process. I suppose; 'be careful what you wish for' comes into it here..
 
Member's gallery
I do both at the same time. I use a Atomos Ninja hooked up to my camera to record what I am seeing and shooting. I then shoot in a mode that has no blackout. In the end, I have the photos with the action as well as a video with that same action. It’s not perfect as the camera does not have a ton of options when videoing in this way. But it is good enough for now.
my main focus is the photo and not the video, so the video can suffer. I would feather get the amazing photo, than the video. The video is just the Cherry on top.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
The key to video and making it a bigger part of what you enjoy doing in the field is a high quality fluid head, even an entry level Sachtler like the Ace XL. And I’d bet a very high percentage of photographers would ditch their ball heads and even higher end gimbals for photography if they spent some time with a quality fluid head. Note I said a quality fluid head not a cheap one!! Morten Hilmer is such an inspirational wildlife photographer and relies primarily on a fluid head for his wildlife photography. I’ve owned the best ball heads and have a very nice gimbal gathering dust in favor of the Sachtler which covers just about all the bases, photo or video!
 
Member's gallery
MikeA said:
I always make photos up to just recently, when I tried my first few videos on my last trip to Yellowstone. I also tried out iMovie for the first time, mixing photos and videos for my showing to family and friends. I had the feeling it was more interesting for the audience by also including compelling music.

I was just curios - on this site one gets the impression everybody (like me up to now) is shooting photo images and no videos, even though our cameras (like my D850) can do both. It is a question of quality, photos vs. video on these cameras? Or just the preference for photos?
Click to expand...
The growth in doing video clips is by far outgrowing stills, according to internet viewer statistics and platforms.

No surprise, the internet is the driving force it seems. The camera industry is defiantly responding, i mean does it have a choice.

615 views of the still frozen surfing shot, 96K views of the video footage of the same event including the still moment but moving.

Club members in competitions are doing stills, prints are totally dead for competitions, some clubs are now introducing short video stories, and embracing Phone sourced content as a segment. The short videos are judged on storytelling and evocative content.

I feel and agree Its nicer to hear a child laughing and calling mummy while running towards its mother, all taken and shared instantly from the I Phone, rather than looking at a frozen still frame in need of post processing if taken with a conventional camera.

For many Its nicer to see and hear a exotic bird in its environment with sound rather than looking at a static still.

There is no right or wrong better or worse, just change, one goes with it or you don't.

More club members seem to be progressively doing more video especially since moving to mirror less and that's across all brands.

Even now more members own drones and are doing short video clips and enjoying the new perspective.

Do i do video now absolutely, simple and easily, i use a I Phone............done, sent and loved.

For wild life and long glass its a completely different ball game, the Z9 shines here for video, i feel the Z9II will really be and update to compliment video, Nikon's glass is certainly there.

Interesting times ahead

Only an opinion
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Cameras and camcorders both have their place in photograph, I still use both. The question is what are you photographing. Using a camcorder for portraits shows how usless a camcorder is. On the other hand using a camera for continuous smooth zoom limits a camera to what the lens can do.
This is why I use both and usually take both if on a trip/holiday.
Ok some may reject camcorders out of hand or suggest using a mobile phone or a camera with video capabilities. That is down to individual choice.

What gets under my skin are those who, in my opinion, blind to what a camcoder can do. Usually when challanged actually never pick up one to try out. But that again is up to them and don't realise how much they are missing out on.

As I said nothing wrong with using a camera in a lot of cases the better option. I have been taking stills since the Brownie 127 came out right through to digital age including film camera. For the last 13 or so years edging more into vidoes for my pleasure and memories of places and surroundngs. A still shot only shows what is infront of tghe lens and misses out so much.

Choosing the right camcorder ,depending on ones budget, can be as hard as choosing a camera. God forbid I found out the hard way. I have my own particuler favourit brand for both stills and camcorder, so inserting a stills into a video is made that bit easier. Used to be a Nikon fan for many many years but age and camera weight basically forced me to swap.
I did try out a differnt make of camcorder but just could not get used to it (site rules prevent me from adverse comments maybe ) as to which one it was. So went rapidly back to Panasonic the HC-X1500 namely . This a bit more expensive but what a great bit of kit. Yes it has a couple of minor drawbacks such as wireless remote control unless using an android touch pad type of thing. but what it can and does have well outweights anything it is missing.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
In regards to the OP "It is a question of quality, photos vs. video on these cameras? Or just the preference for photos?"
The answer from my perspective is we are in an era where its a PREFERENCE for video from the viewer, technology is heading us in that direction, the video quality from the Z9 is so good, its even becoming better in the next generation of cameras Better focusing tracking in lower light, better next generation IBIS, better lenses corner to corner performance, with more silent and faster drive motors, etc etc etc.

Its clear we are in a cycle largely transitioning in every way from photography to videography.

The internet started with text, then text with pictures, now video with sound equally transmitting sharing has evolved.

The new generation of young are evolving, many not actually knowing what a music cassette tape is.

Wedding photographers are being asked for video of the wedding with just a few stills.

I think still photography has its place but may just become smaller as time goes on.

Sight and sound connects, evokes emotion, holds interest, we are entering an age where we can share a 2 minute video clip as fast as we can send a 10 word text.


Interesting topic, and times,

only an opinion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top