Canon are you reading this?

Tango · January 27, 2010

drop video frills... Im a still photographer and maybe a crappy one but I dont care to spend money on a video feature.....

I want a histogram live view display that's really in "real time" during exposure (for timing those really long exposures just right.... )
and of course I want it displayed from a LCD on a wireless remote trigger that controls everything like shutter, aperture, ISO, etc....

:dunno

say by 2011??

and if it can be intergraded to control my jet pack too, that would be cool...

comments welcome .... anyone?

Candid Arts · January 27, 2010

HD video I think would be kind of nice to have, but I'd like the option to buy the same camera w/o that frill... Say the 5DMKII or 5DMkIII. I think it would bring the price down enough where I get make that jump to FF sooner than later.

But again, having that HD video feature I think has it's benefits. There's been many a time I've wanted to shoot something in moving stills (not animated).

But yes, controlling my jet pack would be a nice add on.

WillCAD · January 27, 2010

Yeah, forget the video on anything other than the triple-digit series cameras (the Digital Rebels, which appeal primarily to the casual vacation snapper and soccer-mom crowds).

As for remotes, I'd be satisfied with a simple IR shutter release like those available for the triple digit series. Of course, an RF remote would be better (Bluetooth, perhaps, since BT tech is small, cheap, mature, and devices can be paired to eliminate interference in crowds). But whether RF or IR, the remote should function from either the front OR back of the camera.

I don't know if Bluetooth has enough bandwdth to transmit somethng as complex as a live view feed from a dslr, but it can certainly handle info like histograms, meter readings, and camera settngs, making a BT remote with an LCD display that shows all the same stuff as the one on top
of the camera a distinct possibility. I could even see a set of goggles with an OLED display in them, showing camera status info, and perhaps even a live view. Besides making it possble to shoot arond corners - or above a crowd- such a setup would make it much easier to focus in low light, and to work on a tripod without shaking the camera to check or change settngs.

ziggy53 · January 27, 2010

I doubt that "any" manufacturer is going to build 2 versions of the same camera (with and without video, for instance). Video is becoming a feature of dSLRs and that's just a fact. It's partly an adjunct of "Live View" (which some folks also said they didn't need or want) and partly just competitive market pressure. Woe be the camera company that lacks features that direct competitors have.

I haven't seen that a dSLR with video capabilities is any the worse for it. If you don't want video, don't use it. So far I have easily ignored the video capabilities of the 5D MKII when I don't need it, which is most of the time.

I do suggest that there will be a plethora of new uses for cameras with both still and video capabilities and eventually it will be so commonplace that we will just take it for granted.

Candid Arts · January 27, 2010

ziggy53 wrote:

I doubt that "any" manufacturer is going to build 2 versions of the same camera (with and without video, for instance). Video is becoming a feature of dSLRs and that's just a fact. It's partly an adjunct of "Live View" (which some folks also said they didn't need or want) and partly just competitive market pressure. Woe be the camera company that lacks features that direct competitors have.

I haven't seen that a dSLR with video capabilities is any the worse for it. If you don't want video, don't use it. So far I have easily ignored the video capabilities of the 5D MKII when I don't need it, which is most of the time.

I do suggest that there will be a plethora of new uses for cameras with both still and video capabilities and eventually it will be so commonplace that we will just take it for granted.

I get the don't want it, don't use it thing. But why pay for something you know you're not going to use? It's like buying a new truck with a 10,000 lb towing package and all you do is drive your new born to daycare and back home. I mean if you got the money, whatever, but for most people, they buy what they need. I need a good quality FF camera that works great in low light. Answer 5DMKII. But it's too expensive for me right now because it has features that will never be used. Ideal, would be like ordering a car from the factory at a dealership. Go into your local camera store, tell them what you want to do, and Canon ships you a camera in 3-4 weeks, custom to what you want. You don't pay for what you don't want, more attention can go into what you do want. Yes I'm sure you'll be paying some design fee, for the "custom" aspect, but I would imagine it would be a cheaper solution than they have now.

Ekaj · January 27, 2010

I doubt the video addition on many dslrs adds much cost to the product. It's reallyjust a gimmick to appeal to soccer moms and the few people who watch the vincent laforet video and think that buying the camera will give them similar results.

What is sad though, is when you realize that the addition of video is in place of researching and developing something that would actually be of use to STILL photography, which is why people buy the dslr in the first place.

Moogle Pepper · January 27, 2010

I third the jet pack motion!

DeeCajun · January 27, 2010

I don't want another gadget or item added to my already crowded camera base that could possibly break or distract me from what I enjoy, but that's just me.

kewlcanon · January 27, 2010

Well if you are a famous still photographer Canon will listen to you

but are you ?

AaronNelson wrote:

drop video frills... Im a still photographer and maybe a crappy one but I dont care to spend money on a video feature.....

I want a histogram live view display that's really in "real time" during exposure (for timing those really long exposures just right.... )
and of course I want it displayed from a LCD on a wireless remote trigger that controls everything like shutter, aperture, ISO, etc....

say by 2011??

and if it can be intergraded to control my jet pack too, that would be cool...

comments welcome .... anyone?

waygard33 · January 27, 2010

I absolutely love the video and the stills my 7D produces..

Rip it out of your camera if you want but leave mine alone.

Soccer Mom Wayne in Oregon

jonh68 · January 28, 2010

Ekaj wrote:

I doubt the video addition on many dslrs adds much cost to the product. It's reallyjust a gimmick to appeal to soccer moms and the few people who watch the vincent laforet video and think that buying the camera will give them similar results.

What is sad though, is when you realize that the addition of video is in place of researching and developing something that would actually be of use to STILL photography, which is why people buy the dslr in the first place.

I was shooting the Senior Bowl practice on Monday and I saw three video crews using Canon DSLR's. Video on a DSLR is not a gimmick, and when you run a news website, having a DSLR that can use pro lenses that produce the DOF as they would with stills, it becomes a very attractive package over dedicated HD camera costing thousands more.

Video does not take away from research in developing better cameras for still work.

Like any tool, we are limited by our imaginations on how to use it.

Ekaj · January 28, 2010

jonh68 wrote:

Video does not take away from research in developing better cameras for still work.

Indeed it does. Do you not think Canon or Nikon budgets the R+D that goes into a camera they are developing?

colourbox · January 28, 2010

Ekaj wrote:

Indeed it does. Do you not think Canon or Nikon budgets the R+D that goes into a camera they are developing?

Well, it's true what was said before, video exists largely because when they added Live View (for still photography

), they realized that in the process they had done the bulk the R&D for enabling video. Much of what DLSR video is, really, is saving the live view stream that's already being made for the stills.

Then, according to a recording of a Canon rep's speech that I saw, major news organizations started pleading with them to add video so that they could send out a still photographer to bring back stills and video, instead of having to send out both a photographer and videographer. Yeah, job elimination isn't that great, but the point is that video is in the SLR in part because major professional customers demanded it.

I, for one, am very happy that I got a free 1080p HD video camera with my killer still camera for only slightly more money, because I have a use for it. The incremental extra cost is not anything like buying a big truck at all. And the fact that there is now a wireless flash transmitter in the 7D means I don't have to buy that $220 Canon accessory: putting the 7D's real cost down near what the 40D was when it was new. The HD video becomes essentially free at that point, and the load on the camera UI is not much, just a switch on the one Live View button on the back.

Richard · January 28, 2010

I'm not interested in video either, but my 50D has quite a few "features" that don't interest me either: scene modes, face recognition, lame auto ISO, print support, etc. They're easy to ignore. What I want most is greater dynamic range and lower noise--the basics--not bells and whistles. Intelligent focus bracketing might be nice as well.

jonh68 · January 28, 2010

Ekaj wrote:

Indeed it does. Do you not think Canon or Nikon budgets the R+D that goes into a camera they are developing?

I am sure they do, but it doesn't take away from the budget in R&D of still photography.

Scott_Quier · January 28, 2010

A slightly different perspective
The argument about the video - I get it. Do you remember when LiveView first came out? I do and I used to feel the same way when it appeared on the 40D. Why not just put the camera to your eye, press the AF activation button (shutter button or back button, depending on how you have your camera configured) and let 'er rip. Who wants to spend the extra $$ on a feature that will never be used?

OK ... that was all pre-Acadia Shootout. There I had the opportunity to see Marc Muench at work and how he used LiveView. I'm sold on it now. For those instances where you need to manually focus (like with the TS-E 24

), looking through the viewfinder is not much of an option unless you get yourself a different focusing screen. LiveView is made for those times when you have time and the camera is mounted on a tripod.

Now, I look forward to those opportunities where using LiveView is "the right way" to do it.

I suspect the same thing will be said of the video feature in a couple or four years. It might be a case of "If I only knew then what I know now!" Of course, it may turn out that video will slowly die on the vine. Only time will tell.

Of course, YMMV.

Tango · January 28, 2010

Great comments from all!, honestly of course I don't believe anything I have to say will change anything with manufactuers. I was just curious what others had to say...

I really do want a fully capable remote that runs everything... I'm right there with you Scott about Marc... In low light I cant live without live view for focus when it comes to Landscape shoots.
I was watching one of my kids play their PSP game thingys and thought that would be cool to have and use for controlling my camera while on a tripod...
(zoom, focus, and all settings etc..etc...)

also a intergraded tripod head that was controllable would be cool too.... in otherwords, place the camera and tripod and sit back enjoy the surroundings and work the magic from a comfy position instead of being crouched with a neck crap and rocks hurting my knee all the while bumping my tripod for the forth time...all in the attempt of getting the comp just right....lol

again great points from all, and I agree with both sides of the coin.

but I think my main argument is: (which I know is not reality) is a custom order camera... take off the video feature and add the dynamic range feature(Richards point), sensor cleaner or no sensor cleaner (heck I will clean it myself to save $50 (I do anyway with the 5D2))lol, etc..etc.. I guess I just dont like the big ball of everything camera...

but when it comes down to it... these cameras nowdays sure are amazing and I'm quite a happy camper....:D

insanefred · January 28, 2010

kewlcanon wrote:

Well if you are a famous still photographer Canon will listen to you
but are you ?

Sadly, this is very true.
I have lost so much inspiration over the years due to over photoshopped photos winning, selling, or what ever over good field technique. Now it's video in DSLR's, soon enough many clients are going to see that neat video/still collage of someones wedding and demands you do the same.
I might even sell off most of my gear soon as it doesn't matter these days. It's post processing, lighting, and now the fufu videos. That's all you'll ever need.

Scott_Quier · January 28, 2010

insanefred wrote:

Sadly, this is very true.
I have lost so much inspiration over the years due to over photoshopped photos winning, selling, or what ever over good field technique. Now it's video in DSLR's, soon enough many clients are going to see that neat video/still collage of someones wedding and demands you do the same.
I might even sell off most of my gear soon as it doesn't matter these days. It's post processing, lighting, and now the fufu videos. That's all you'll ever need.

Today that may be true and I fear that those that fall into this trap will be less than happy in years to come. I don't think anything really replaces a well-done, timeless image.

Tango · January 28, 2010

kewlcanon wrote:

Well if you are a famous still photographer Canon will listen to you
but are you ?

What do you think? Do you ask in contempt? Seem's like that's the case....

Tango · January 28, 2010

insanefred wrote:

I have lost so much inspiration over the years due to over photoshopped photos winning, selling, or what ever over good field technique.

Search your roots and find what photography gives you... re-develop your vision that will give you the satifaction. (and if its money, fame or fortune disregard this post) come on! you're Insanefred for a reason I'm betting...:D

ziggy53 · January 28, 2010

It is my sincere hope that photography brings us (DGrinners in particular) some joy. Whether that is a personal satisfaction, monetary compensation or peer recognition, if it is not at least partly enjoyable maybe it's not worth the pursuit.

angevin1 · January 29, 2010

All of these ideas brings up a question.

Seems the camera makers could well charge accordingly for whatever you want to work in your camera. For Instance seems they could disable the 5DMkII video and charge you less money for it, say $200.00, or any number of other Key features that they feel represents real money they had to R&D. Question is, do you think they'd sell any 5DMkII-no-video cameras?

And, Insanefred. Dood, I feel your pain. But great imagery still stands on its own merits over time. If, like you suggest "....clients are going to see that neat video/still collage of someones wedding and demands you do the same." ..why not deliver the goods and take the cash, if cash is what moves ya? I'd bet ya, if you just shot B&W, there'd be a modicum of folks who'd want ya, just for that niche.

Cheers,

colourbox · January 29, 2010

angevin1 wrote:

Seems the camera makers could well charge accordingly for whatever you want to work in your camera. For Instance seems they could disable the 5DMkII video and charge you less money for it, say $200.00, or any number of other Key features that they feel represents real money they had to R&D.

Canon already does this. There have been discussions about how a certain Canon camera has the same chips and sensor across 2 or 3 DSLRs, the only difference is that certain features have obviously been disabled in the lower priced models. The "ideal world" way we would want your suggestion to work is that the photographer could have some sway over which features get left out, but the way Canon, Apple, Microsoft, and others currently and widely implement your suggestion is that they determine which features are left out of the lower models in order to serve their price ladder.

Matthew Saville · January 29, 2010

I have to agree with the sentiment that it is sad we are seeing so much effort continue to go into "gimmicks" when there are such huge leaps forward to be made in still photography. The live, long-exposure histogram readout would be INSANE!!! I can just imagine it now, no more blind guessing at 30-60 minute exposures! Just get a rough idea, open the shutter, and watch the histogram "grow"...

I understand that video is a huge revolution in the industry. The whole ability to capture video on such a large sensor in such low light at such shallow depth is surely an amazing thing for those who will really use it. Good luck with that. But please don't spend entire generations of R&D on JUST HD video development! The 1D mkIV is almost a joke, in my very humble opinion. Unless you really need the video, the mkIV is nothing but an opportunity to buy a cheap 1D mk3... In my humble opinion, the Nikon D3s gets bonus points for completely re-designing their sensor and NOT increasing the megapixel count, actually.

Thankfully, the 7D shows promise from the Canon camp. I'm very excited to see if the 5D mk3 holds the same improvements, even though it surely won't offer a pop-up flash commander. Who knows, maybe we'll get a full frame version of the 7D, AND an even better, "digital EOS 3" with 45 point AF and a bit more speed / accuracy etc...

=Matt=

angevin1 · January 29, 2010

colourbox wrote:

Canon already does this. There have been discussions about how a certain Canon camera has the same chips and sensor across 2 or 3 DSLRs, the only difference is that certain features have obviously been disabled in the lower priced models. The "ideal world" way we would want your suggestion to work is that the photographer could have some sway over which features get left out, but the way Canon, Apple, Microsoft, and others currently and widely implement your suggestion is that they determine which features are left out of the lower models in order to serve their price ladder.

So then all they'd need to do is follow thru with allowing customers to

"Build-it" Online much like cars, guitars and so forth already do?

Froch · March 28, 2010

jonh68 wrote:

I was shooting the Senior Bowl practice on Monday and I saw three video crews using Canon DSLR's. Video on a DSLR is not a gimmick, and when you run a news website, having a DSLR that can use pro lenses that produce the DOF as they would with stills, it becomes a very attractive package over dedicated HD camera costing thousands more.

Video does not take away from research in developing better cameras for still work.

Like any tool, we are limited by our imaginations on how to use it.

You're right. Definitely not a gimmick but truly flavor of the month. I work for a large broadcast equipment rental house and we now own a half dozen 5D's. The idea behind it is the larger imager (on the 5D which is full frame and 21mp), therefore allowing for a shallower DOF and the ability to project or display at large sizes because of the rez. Current broadcast video cameras have a 2/3" imager, so DOF is deep. For cinematic purposes, the DOF is as critical as in still to tell the story or set the mood. With that said though, the true reasoning of someone using this camera, for cinematic purposes, is because their budge is too small to afford full feature HD cameras (ie Sony, Panavision, Arri, Red).
With regard to the SeniorBowl noted above......it's also cost. They get a two-fer. Stills and Video. However.....pick one up, and try to handhold video without a shoulder brace.

NeilL · March 29, 2010

Matthew Saville wrote:

I have to agree with the sentiment that it is sad we are seeing so much effort continue to go into "gimmicks" when there are such huge leaps forward to be made in still photography. The live, long-exposure histogram readout would be INSANE!!! I can just imagine it now, no more blind guessing at 30-60 minute exposures! Just get a rough idea, open the shutter, and watch the histogram "grow"...

I understand that video is a huge revolution in the industry. The whole ability to capture video on such a large sensor in such low light at such shallow depth is surely an amazing thing for those who will really use it. Good luck with that. But please don't spend entire generations of R&D on JUST HD video development! The 1D mkIV is almost a joke, in my very humble opinion. Unless you really need the video, the mkIV is nothing but an opportunity to buy a cheap 1D mk3... In my humble opinion, the Nikon D3s gets bonus points for completely re-designing their sensor and NOT increasing the megapixel count, actually.

Thankfully, the 7D shows promise from the Canon camp. I'm very excited to see if the 5D mk3 holds the same improvements, even though it surely won't offer a pop-up flash commander. Who knows, maybe we'll get a full frame version of the 7D, AND an even better, "digital EOS 3" with 45 point AF and a bit more speed / accuracy etc...

=Matt=

Yeah, Matt, those are pretty much my sentiments too. And I have said before much the same as Ziggy does here - greater DR, lower noise, better AF.

I think the roots of this discussion go back to the old well-worn angst over film vs digital. With film people used hardware and paper and chemicals, from shot to print the whole process was under direct manipulation. With digital, a lot of the process is out of direct control, and has become choosing available pre-configured electronically controlled options, and sometimes there isn't even a choice. Photoshop and the like are an extension of a process that begins in the camera. If in the end the products resulting from these two systems - film and digital - are different it is hardly surprising. Certainly the experience for the photographer is different. But for the consumer, there is now available new kinds of products, some of which are extremely attractive and desirable. So, there is now a different process of photography, and consequently a different market offering different products. That fact doesn't invalidate the other system. There is still a niche in the market for it. But it's a matter of co-existing. And because the market is finite, sharing the market means a correspondingly reduced share for all producers.

I think that the "vision" of the photographer is what the consumer reacts to most strongly, is the strongest selling point, and that is something more in the realm of art than technology, though I have always argued for their interdependence. So a big part of photography for the market is having a special vision which we can offer, and additionally giving our products a finish, by whatever method, which will enhance their attractiveness and competitiveness.

Photography is increasingly a synthesis of proliferating elements, including the growing sophistication of the photographer in artistic and technological terms. It has become both easier and harder, more commonplace and more specialised. But as always, just like in almost every endeavour I can think of, it is the quality of mind of the photographer that gives the edge.

Neil

Photometric · March 29, 2010

Candid Arts wrote:

I get the don't want it, don't use it thing. But why pay for something you know you're not going to use? It's like buying a new truck with a 10,000 lb towing package and all you do is drive your new born to daycare and back home. I mean if you got the money, whatever, but for most people, they buy what they need. I need a good quality FF camera that works great in low light. Answer 5DMKII. But it's too expensive for me right now because it has features that will never be used. Ideal, would be like ordering a car from the factory at a dealership. Go into your local camera store, tell them what you want to do, and Canon ships you a camera in 3-4 weeks, custom to what you want. You don't pay for what you don't want, more attention can go into what you do want. Yes I'm sure you'll be paying some design fee, for the "custom" aspect, but I would imagine it would be a cheaper solution than they have now.

I don't think it would be that much cheaper. The people who are designing these things are PHD's and looking at many things like current, interference...if you start swapping components, that will mess up the finely tuned calculations for each camera. If they could do a "Dell" model where you're offered choices that can be put together ala a PC, that would work. To order exactly what you would like is equal to having an interior designer that deals with NYC millionaires to come and do your house. The reason they do these types of models is because they need to sell their devices to as many people as possible to spread the costs and profit across as many devices sold as possible.

Photometric · March 29, 2010

Scott_Quier wrote:

Today that may be true and I fear that those that fall into this trap will be less than happy in years to come. I don't think anything really replaces a well-done, timeless image.

Agreed. Watching my wedding video 2 times in 10 years vs. stopping and seeing a still shot of my stepson during the wedding ceremony and it almost taking my breath away every time.

Malte · March 29, 2010

waygard33 wrote:

I absolutely love the video and the stills my 7D produces..

Rip it out of your camera if you want but leave mine alone.

Soccer Mom Wayne in Oregon

Another soccermom here really looking forward to my future SLR's HD video function. A bit surprised by the snobbery going on here.

Soccermom Malte

Canon are you reading this?

Comments