You and Paul both make good points about the value of video within a DSLR.
So, I will stipulate that video does have value to some. Do I care if it is included on my own camera? Not really, it doesn't bother me as long as its presence doesn't impede my use of the camera for still images (e.g., by making stills-related buttons smaller and harder to get to in order to have more room for video-related buttons.) I might mutter about sharing in the amortization of video functions which I don't need, but I can also imagine that the engineering to facilitate video has given me better Liveview, larger buffers with faster card-write speeds, etc. So, end of the day, I don't really care, but I remain baffled that all of the manufacturers obviously see value in including video capacity. I was, and still am, baffled by the popularity of "crossover" vehicles. My limitation of course; 80-90 years ago I might have been baffled by the proliferation of color films. Just change for the sake of change; mutter, mutter. . . In my ideal world, I would like to see video as an add-on option. If you want/need that function, pay $200-300 extra for the YT version of the body. But that ain't gonna happen since everybody is accustomed to seeing video as part of every camera's feature set. stan On Oct 28, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > There are good situations for when the larger sensor in a DSLR or > TTL-electronic camera, as well as the availability of the range of lenses > they can use, makes sense for video work. At least at the price point I can > afford in video cameras … Even professional movie makers choose DSLRs and > TTL-electronic cameras for some purposes to save on equipment costs. There > are other times when a DSLR or small TTL-electronic enable shots that could > not be done with a pro video camera due to size, weight, etc. > > My sum-up of the LuLa article: "Just another old git who wants the good old > days to come back." ;-) > > I have plenty of simple cameras that address the basics, from the stone axe > of my plain prism Nikon F up to and including my Leica M9. > > And I have a couple of very complex cameras. One of the most complex is my > latest - the Olympus E-M1. It also has the best controls of any camera I've > owned, and I can configure them to work *exactly* the way I want the camera > to work, from fully manual with instant access to ISO, exposure time, > aperture, and focus, to fully automated. > > I have no complaints about what manufacturers make. I applaud the diversity > of design and ideas their products represent. I choose what I want to work > with from that, and make what I choose do what I want it to. If it's too much > trouble, I sell whatever it was and buy something else that does it more > easily. > > To me, that's the only sane way to do things. Manufacturers don't make a > product for 100 people, or even 1000. They never have, not for anything that > costs under $10K anyway. You pick from what they make to suit your needs > best, and adapt. > > A fresh pack of Impossible Color Protection film is in the SX-70 now. :-) > > G > > > On Oct 28, 2013, at 7:30 AM, Stan Halpin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> … I am still baffled by the whole video thing and haven't been able to think >> of a single instance where I would want my DSLR to record video, much less >> sound. I have owned and used video cameras in the past, and if I wanted to >> shoot video again the last device I would consider for that purpose would be >> a DSLR. First choice would be a video camera. ... > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
