Paul Mayall Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I have had some time in the past week to pay some attention to the latest camera gear. One could not help but notice that manufacturers seem to be making the once still camera into a video machine, seems like most improvements lean toward moving pictures and not still. Dose this mean that still photographers will be paying more for the video functions that will not be used just to get a half ways decent still camera. From what i have seen recently it would seem that way. Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Could be. We now have a world in which few people sit still, even when they're mesmerized by a screen of one kind or another. Also, camera manufacturers now have to be continuously coming up with new models and features in order to keep up with the pack, and still photography has its limits (but then so does video). Perhaps it's time for a "back to basics" movement in the camera world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Apparently "analogue" photography (both taking and in the darkroom) is seeing something of rekindled interest as a means of learning photography and getting back to the basics. I saw it somewhere but can' think where last week - when I remember/ find the reference I will post it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Mayall Posted October 17, 2014 Author Share Posted October 17, 2014 Apparently "analogue" photography (both taking and in the darkroom) is seeing something of rekindled interest as a means of learning photography and getting back to the basics. I saw it somewhere but can' think where last week - when I remember/ find the reference I will post it. Will look forward to that Martin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I have had some time in the past week to pay some attention to the latest camera gear. One could not help but notice that manufacturers seem to be making the once still camera into a video machine, seems like most improvements lean toward moving pictures and not still. Dose this mean that still photographers will be paying more for the video functions that will not be used just to get a half ways decent still camera. From what i have seen recently it would seem that way. Paul. Pretty handy though. When I replaced my dropped Sony last winter the new one had video. HD too. I paid no extra second-hand. Oddly for an ex-film student I thought I hadn''t much use for it, but it's dead handy for selling kit on Ebay, folk club tracks, faulty cash machine funnies- you name it. They even make a few pee on Youtube. Feature films are being made with the high-end Canons. All of a sudden it's five grand instead of 100 for an Arriflex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSnapper Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Increasingly i'm finding my newspaper pic eds are asking for 20-30 seconds of video to go with the online version of a story, short GV's or quick talking heads... having a camera that will do that is an essential, not a luxury.. km Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Increasingly i'm finding my newspaper pic eds are asking for 20-30 seconds of video to go with the online version of a story, short GV's or quick talking heads... having a camera that will do that is an essential, not a luxury.. km Yes, I can see that having video capability must now be indispensable if you regularly supply images to newspapers. However, I don't think that video is absolutely necessary -- not yet anyway -- for most other types of photography. If it were, then I think that agencies like Alamy would be asking for videos to accompany stock photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I think strictly video coverage on news sites is very annoying. I wait for it to load up,sometimes have to view a commercial,then see the content. So on average,many minutes for something than could have taken me 1 minute to read. I notice that certain lenses are also being noted as 'better for video than stills.' L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I think strictly video coverage on news sites is very annoying. I wait for it to load up,sometimes have to view a commercial,then see the content. So on average,many minutes for something than could have taken me 1 minute to read. I notice that certain lenses are also being noted as 'better for video than stills.' L At least they usually let you skip the annoying ads after a few secs. Sony is definitely now optimizing their newer e-mount lenses for video, but I guess that is understandable given that video has traditionally been their main focus. It sounds as if other manufacturers are doing the same. Hopefully, these new lenses will perform well in both departments (still and video). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Ventura Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I have not had any call or need to shoot video in my work but I have to say that I am very impressed with video image quality on the little Sony RX100 mk3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Increasingly i'm finding my newspaper pic eds are asking for 20-30 seconds of video to go with the online version of a story, short GV's or quick talking heads... having a camera that will do that is an essential, not a luxury.. km GV? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 I have not had any call or need to shoot video in my work but I have to say that I am very impressed with video image quality on the little Sony RX100 mk3. Do you feel the RX100 mk3 is much better than the Mk2? L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Didn't expect to do so but I've used video on my NEX 6 quite a bit, nothing fee earning to date, but useful for social stuff. Have learned the hard way that you need to set a white balance if shooting indoors as the video appears to be the equivalent of JPG, and you can't change it overmuch once shot. Have a couple of embarrassingly poor indoor Youtube efforts...... I can see the usefulness for news reporting, but not sure how to get any financial reward otherwise. Clip of bridge opening, fireworks etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Increasingly i'm finding my newspaper pic eds are asking for 20-30 seconds of video to go with the online version of a story, short GV's or quick talking heads... having a camera that will do that is an essential, not a luxury.. km GV? A view generale...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digi2ap Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Increasingly i'm finding my newspaper pic eds are asking for 20-30 seconds of video to go with the online version of a story, short GV's or quick talking heads... having a camera that will do that is an essential, not a luxury.. km GV? General Views - much more eloquently written by Geoff above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 I think strictly video coverage on news sites is very annoying. I wait for it to load up,sometimes have to view a commercial,then see the content. So on average,many minutes for something than could have taken me 1 minute to read. I notice that certain lenses are also being noted as 'better for video than stills.' L Especially when it loads up and runs automatically even worse if it has sound. I want to decide how to use my bandwidth. And as for auto noisy video ads ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Increasingly i'm finding my newspaper pic eds are asking for 20-30 seconds of video to go with the online version of a story, short GV's or quick talking heads... having a camera that will do that is an essential, not a luxury.. km Interesting, do you shoot video hand-held or on a tripod? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Walker Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 I get excellent video results from my RX100 Mk1. What I particularly like is that you don't have to alter anything to switch from video to still. Press one button and I have a RAW image, press another button and its recording HD video. I understand many art colleges are using RX100s for their students with top results. That's the 'up' side. The 'down' side for me is that it doesn't look like a video camera. At a recent re-enactment event that I was asked to video, people kept stopping and posing for their photo whereas I wanted them to just carry on as they were. I could have done with a pop up sign that said - Keep moving - it's a video! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Ventura Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 I have not had any call or need to shoot video in my work but I have to say that I am very impressed with video image quality on the little Sony RX100 mk3. Do you feel the RX100 mk3 is much better than the Mk2? L Sorry Linda, I don't know the answer, this is my first Sony RX100. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian58 Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 May it be Canon, Nikon or whatever top of the range, they all give a slight typical digital "plasticky" look. For pure investment and rather then giving the Tax-man, I bought the monsterous Leica-S2 with two lenses, last year. Its 99% as close to Velvia as you possibly can come, totally slaughters any Phaseone digi back as well. Trouble is, its too much for just plain stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Allison J Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I have had some time in the past week to pay some attention to the latest camera gear. One could not help but notice that manufacturers seem to be making the once still camera into a video machine, seems like most improvements lean toward moving pictures and not still. Dose this mean that still photographers will be paying more for the video functions that will not be used just to get a half ways decent still camera. From what i have seen recently it would seem that way. Paul. I think you are probably right Paul However, unless I have not read the spec correctly, the recent Nikon Df has no video but neither has it hit the "sweet spot" being rather too expensive and downgraded in other respects Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.