Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paul Mayall

Todays cameras being marketed more for Video

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Paul Mayall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

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......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.   :D

Edited by digi2ap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.