Attention Canon, Nikon: Video DSLRs Are Not For Who You Think
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 at 10:38AM There’s a lot of talk about how the video features popping up in our DLSRs mean that photographers all need to become videographers. Alex Lindsay went on about it in TWiP #72, “The Death of Still Photography,” stating that photographers need to learn to shoot video, because their cameras now have that feature.
Bullshit.
Saying that photographers need to learn video because their cameras now feature video is like saying that you need to start a rock band because you bought an iMac that ships with Garage Band.
It is entirely possible that you are a still photographer who has no interest in video. That is OK. You know what’s pretty cool? Photography.
The only reason for a photographer to start doing video is an interest in shooting video.
And that has nothing to do with the convenience of a crippled video mode on the camera you were already going to buy.
Look at the photo below. On the left is a Canon video camera. Here are some of its features: 1920x1080 video at 60i, 30p and 24p, image stabilization, a crazy-long zoom range, mic input, lightning-fast autofocus. On the right is a lens that many Canon shooters are likely to have in their bag: the 85mm f/1.2L.
The lens is bigger, weighs more, and costs three times as much as the video camera, which is two years old.
Why do we expect stills shooters to suddenly take up video, when—if they had the slightest interest—they could have been carting around an HD camera for two years without taking up any more room in their bag than a prime lens?
Especially when you look at the specs of Canon DSLR video: Non-standard frame rates that don’t work for many countries and distribution methods, poor audio sync, overly compressed video that’s impossible to edit, zero manual control. Except focus, which is 100% manual with few tools to help you.
I said above that photographers should not feel any pressure to learn video if they don’t feel like it, but there is one class of shooter who might feel a legitimate pressure to add video to their toolkit: those photojournalists who are journalists first and photographers second. If you see your job not as bringing back photos but as bringing back a story, then by all means, you should probably be embracing video.
But not the crippled, crap video that your SLR just happens to have.
Get a video camera!
You’re a journalist. Capturing the event is all that matters. You don’t want to be fussing with manual focus and fiddly menus. You don’t want that mirror slamming down on you right in the middle of a once-in-a-lifetime-shot. You want perfect autofocus, fingertip manual control, instant-on video and a killer zoom range, in a form factor designed for what you’re doing. You’re also about to learn the hard way that whenever video is important, audio is twice as important, if not more.
You want a video camera. You could start with the one above that costs less than your cheapest lens and fits in the mesh bag you use for a water bottle. After that, if you like it, you might find out a secret: there are some really great professional video cameras out there that do even more.
The video mode on these DSLRs is exactly wrong for photojournalists.
But it’s exactly right for filmmakers.
Filmmakers have time to set up a shot. They control their environments. They can try a few different primes before settling on one. They expect to use manual focus. They plan on dual-system sound recording that involves a whole extra person who thinks only about sound. And they are gaga for shallow depth-of-field.
Filmmakers, at all levels from pros to wannabes, are thrilled about video DSLRs. They get it, they want it, and they know how to work around the limitations—if they even think of them as limitations.
Everyone else is scratching their heads wondering if they suddenly need to learn to pull focus, and if photography is dead. They’re so busy hating on the crippled video in the new 500D that they’ve overlooked that it’s a great stills rig at a great price.
Photographers: Don’t let gear define what you are. Do what you love. Cameras are cheap.
Filmmakers: Your camera will come, someday.
SLR manufacturers: You are making these things for filmmakers whether you think you are or not. Start listening to us. We want so badly to give you our money.
Stu
Reader Comments (44)
There are very few companies I badly want to give money to... I want to give it to Canon. And for whatever reason, Canon doesn't seem to want it. Not because they can't either, because they won't, which is just foolish.
Great post. Really says what a lot are feeling. And even better, what if one of these camera makers designed and produced a special camera ONLY aimed at the filmmaker. Think what we would have there ... or maybe that's kinda what Scarlet is supposed to be. Keep waiting.
Stu,
I am a hobbyist photographer, but a pro editor/filmmaker. What I want is a camera with the lowlight capability of the 5D mkII and the ability to change the lens. But I want it in a run and gun form factor, not a Red camera that needs an hour of setup time. What I would really like is very close to my HV-20 with the Brevis Flip module, just with lower light capabilities. At 24p. Whoever and however I get that will be fine with me.
I'm fairly confident that in the picture, the video camera is on the left, and the lens is on the right. You have it described otherwise.
Other than that nitpick, well said.
I agree with you completely except for photojournalists. Many photojournalists are now going multimedia out of interest and necessity. They are publishing their stories in print and on the web. The ability to capture video and hi-res stills simultaneously is exactly what they need. The form factor for the SLR is what they are used to and it makes a lot of sense for their run and gun approach to combine it all into one device. I think Canon just needs to accept that they will make two different camera form factors - both full-featured. Canon and Nikon *have* to fix these cams so they can be used well. That is the bottom line.
However, I am already seeing some compelling work being done by photojournalists with the 5DM2. While there are technical challenges that probably slow them down a bit, the story still seems to come forward and that is what really matters.
-gl
Well said Stu. I am praying for an April update for my 5D but the 20fps on the new rebel doesn't give me a lot of hope. Maybe just maybe Canon will come through. Fingers crossed!
I think the reason so many filmmakers get frustrated is that we know that pretty much ALL the camera companies (including Red) have the technology to make the camera we want at a price we can afford, but no one is doing it. Red is doing it (sorta) but at a price point most hobbiests can't afford. So far Panasonic is closest with the GH1, though it's still hobbled with a slow lens and 24P being wrapped up in a 60i stream (why Panasonic why?). With each new camera comes the hope that 'they'll get it right' only to end in disappointment and head scratching. One wonders if anyone will ever get it right.
Excellent post. I am a photographer and photography Web site manager. I haven't been entirely sure what to think of digital SLRs with video, although I am becoming more interested in video content for my site. The truth is, I shoot most of my video with a Canon SD950 IS pocket digital camera. It does a pretty good job for my needs. But I'm getting more and more interested in having something better - especially if I can have it in the same camera I'm using for stills. But I don't know much about this video stuff. So it's nice to check out all of the differing opinions. Especially from people who really do know something about video.
I just posted a short article on the new 500D / Rebel T1i. On paper it looks pretty sweet. But even I noticed the 20 FPS at 1080p spec and wondered about it. Is it really a problem? I don't know. Looks like it could be. I also have an EOS 5D Mark II for review right now. I haven't tried the video yet, but I will. I am going to take it skiing on Friday and see what I can do. I've never shot any action video so my expectations are low. But I am curious. Again - I like the idea of a camera that can do it all for me.
Anyway, nice article. I like that you called "bullshit" on the idea that people *should* learn video. That's definitely a load of crap. The only reason I'm interested is for video reviews and tutorials for my site. Otherwise I would completely ignore it. Video is cool. But it's by no means mandatory.
Thanks Dorkman, I fixed my dislexification!
It sounds like it's been too long since Stu has been on TWiP. Looking forward to having you on to take me to task...
a
Amen!
So well said Stu.
'Your camera will come someday'....
Having plunked down dough for the 5D, I still feel like a sucker. I am happy with it for the most part. I just know in my bones that Canon will miss the boat on this. I am guessing I will have to switch to Nikon or Panny glass in the near future.
It's just a drag when companies release products that are almost palpably hostile toward the customer.. 20p? Really Canon?
Well, I think the GH1 is really near to what we need. And being in Germany, PAL-Land means that 25p wrapped in 50i is not that much of a Problem.
And it has a Mic in which is good for Sound. Plus you are able to shot stills while filming I think, so it would (with the Auto Features) even be a Cam for the Photojournalists...
Why should camera owners learn to use video just 'cause it's there? There's a Manual mode on these cameras too, and I'll bet most photographers don't know how to use it...
"...is like saying that you need to start a rock band because you bought an iMac that ships with Garage Band."
You don't? Aw, crap... and after I grew out my hair and got skull tattoos and everything...
On the other hand, there is an artistic and market opportunity for some of these photographers to delve into study-videography. For example, this video of mine can barely be called "a video". There is no story, there is no much movement. The way I see that video is like "still pictures, that happen to be taken in succession".
What I am trying to say is that there might be a niche market for still photographers, who want to also create video-based still photography (if that makes any sense). And when they are in a dessert or whatever, carrying with them an XH-A1 might be a much of a heavy deal, and so they would need their DSLR to be able to do the right thing: capture beautiful video, with some rudimentary manual control (e.g. the minimum needed: shutter speed, exposure compensation, zebra/histogram, frame rates that make sense, custom picture/color settings).
In that light, I would have much more preferred in the new 500D to have 720/30p, 720/25p, 720/24p & shutter speed support, rather than that stupid 1080/20p thing. Canon could have traded 1080p for some real useful features that could have given the 500D a niche, without cannibalizing their camcorder products (because a lot of people would still buy them for the 1080p feature).
This is an excellent example of why I stopped listening to TWIP. That, and the fact that they can't bring a show in at under 1:15 and stopped chaptering them.
GAAAAAAH canon :( i shake my fist at you!!!
the annoying thing is, unless a 60D is just around the corner, i will probably buy this thing, because you're right, as a stills camera.. it does tick all the boxes. for me at least. and i'm due for an upgrade.
light, compact, hi iso, low noise, bigger sharper screen.
more megapixels than most people need, but hey, since when have canon listened to anyone outside of their own marketing department?
i'm running into the limitations of my 400D more frequently now, and i need live view to make the most of my manual lenses so i'm looking at the 500D as my step up, despite the video totally missing the point. it'll still be a world away from the crappy footage i get from my years old miniDV cam. as much as i would have loved to jump in to this game playing with 1080p at the filmic frame rate of 24fps, i still think i'm going to have a ball with 30fps, 720p, low noise, hi ISO and my bag of fast canon lenses.
see y'all at the next upgrade.
Just a quick +1 vote for that video camera. It's a Canon HV20, since superseded by the HV30. Awesome camera. Very cheap. 1080p progressive scan, cine gamma for better dynamic range, easy-to-edit HDV with tapes for archiving. If you have any interest in jumping to HD video, it's a great choice. Get a friend to buy one so you can run a two-camera shoot. :)
Saying 'This will be the death of still photography' now is like saying 'this will be death of cinema' when movies became available on tape.
Sure, there's some overlap, but they're two different artforms. This is what people fail to see sometimes. A non-moving black-and-white image on paper is still a popular format, even though we've been able to create projected moving color images for almost a hundred years!
Hear, hear!!!
Great Article Stu,
You should start a wall of shame of photography like the Razzie awards for cameras released with crippled features. Right now 20fps should be on the top of the list. Then the popularity of the wall will help consumers decide and punish sales on companies that abuse the consumer.
totally agree, but you really think these companies suffer from ignorance? they're after some bigger market than the filmmaker. until we can convince the average consumer to be interested in frame rates and DOF we're not going not get what we want at an affordable price. i can't count the number of "video professionals" I have talked to who don't understand or don't seem to care about DOF or frame rates (until they're shown the difference, of course), let alone the average consumer.
despite this unfortunate choice by canon, i still agree with them on one point: for everyone, consumers included, it's the content (your kids birthday party, a wedding, a great fictional narrative) that will spend money to document and experience.
The camera is aimed at STOP MOTION artists, you didnt get it. That is where the money is.
@Josh:
If they were after "a bigger market than the filmmaker", then they would give the camera 24p and manual controls. If the consumer doesn't care about framerates, and will be happy with 20fps, then they will be perfectly happy with 24fps and the camera will happily sell to BOTH consumers AND filmmakers.. By crippling the camera they NARROW their market, not expand it.
@brian
yeah brian, makes sense to you and me, why not get both markets. though what I'm trying to understand isn't what you and I agree on, it's what the hell they're thinking. Surely there's some kind of technical reason to go with 20fps (less processing power for four less frames?). I can only assume these people do their job and research what sells cameras, and therefore have a list of what specs a camera must have in order to sell. It seems that FPS is at the bottom of that list and that's why we see 20fps.
For them, it's more important to get other features at a certain price point. Maybe it's 1080, sensor longevity, whatever, who knows. I do know there's a technical balancing act involved in getting a camera built at a certain price point, and so we're not always going to see everything we want for under 1k.
Anyway, just trying to describe what i see happening, not meaning to prescribe anything. I think we can all agree on what Canon should be doing, if it were up to us. Personally, I think Canon knows exactly what we want, they just don't care. Why they are able to ignore us, their dedicated and educated base, and still do good business, that's the question.
Well said but poorly thought out.
The difference between your view and Mr. Lindsay's is that your view covers from now through the next 18 months or so, while Mr. Lindsay view goes from that point into the future.
I also think that your view is that of a filmmaker. I can assure you that as time passes the market will demand a photographer that can do motion photography as well as still.
Early on still photographers will put out hot manure, but over time the skill level will improve and there will be pressure on motion shooters. The same way people with photoshop skills have either directly or tangentially pushed everybody that had any graphic output. From Photographers to Architects. The same way using Photoshop is just an additional skill utilized so will motion photography.
@CitizenZ
I disagree, in future the market will not demand a photographer that can do "motion photography" and photography. Stu's post was well thought out, he understand the industry very well. And I agree with him. There are photographers who are also filmmakers, but there is a difference.There are situations where client wants to shoot both still and video, and if a photographer can do both, it's not because he has a dslr that capture video, but because he has the skill set to do so first. There are many situations where the photographer can't do both even if he has the skill set and equipment. For example many magazines are filming their photo shoots and putting it online. This style requires two shooters so the filming does not look boring. These dslr equipped with video are game changing for the filmmakers, to be more precise, the DV Rebels. Being a photographer and filmmaker I know there is no pressure to switch from one to the other, there is only pressure to compete at what you do. It is futile to try to be a professional filmmaker if it's not something you really want to do and can do well. The jobs are less and the talent pool are increasing in both fields.
Great response David, you saved me the typing.
I don't think most photographers realize what exactly video in a DSLR means for us filmmakers. As an example:
I have owned my D90 for about six months. I have shot less than two hundred photos (hardly any), but many, many hours of video.
I own an hv30 and DOF adapter rig (around 2000USD), which as far as i'm concerned was the DV rebel standard rig about 6 months ago, and haven't touched it since getting my D90.
for me, the d90 is my video camera.
Is it not possible hacking the firmware (like the CHDK Wiki and change to 24 fps...???
Great blog...!!!
Best regards...
Could it be someone IS listening at canon? If that rumor has something to it might have to consider switching to canon after all (too bad for my nikon lens collection):
http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/30/canon-working-on-dslr-based-pro-video-camera/
I could not agree more. Great article.
At the professional level while I find most cinematographers can shot stills and do a great job, I also know that at the professional level the move I see is to specialization not generalists.
People are not even known as Stills or Videographers in my circles - they are known as Car photographers or great at filming kids for example... I cant imagine hiring a senior and expecting them to light and operate the film camera(video) yet alone light, operate and take stills.
Alex said in the latest TWIP that this referred to what was coming in 5 to 10 years - maybe - but I think this whole debate is only valid for a journalist. I also disagree with Alex's new TWIP point about lighting stills and film/moving the same way - (except one uses flash) I find lighting for a scene very very different from lighting for a still.
At the corporate level I can see maybe a real estate photographer needing to shoot film and video - but these are not the 'majority of the market". Even when I hire a family photographer - I would hardly expect them to also shoot home movies for me.
I can see the desire to play with using great lenses and filming with a stills camera, but I dont see the convergence of jobs - just my 2C - great article Stu.
Mike
@Mike:
I agree with almost everything you say above, except for this:
"I also disagree with Alex's new TWIP point about lighting stills and film/moving the same way - (except one uses flash) I find lighting for a scene very very different from lighting for a still."
I find it carries over almost directly. The only difference is that you are going to need many more lights and make sure that more areas are covered and have to worry about keep lights/equipment hidden. This is much easier in a still, but at the end of the day, films are just stills - 24 per second. Take almost every film shot by every great cinematographer and randomly pause the film almost anywhere, and 9 times out of 10, that random freeze frame would make an amazing still photo.
After 7 years of shooting professionally (10 now), I thought that lighting for "film" (motion) would be some mind-bendingly difficult and different thing than what I had been doing. Not at all. As far as the IMAGE is concerned, it's exactly the same. I just need more equipment and far more places to hide the lights than I generally have.
@David Omoyele:
Perhaps we can take another look at the topic in 30 months.
We need someone (CHDK) to HACK the firmware of the EOS line and uncripple the video.
Stu,
Thanks for our posts at PROLOST. I am still praying for a cinema camera that fits my needs. I have the Mark II which I love and hate. I keep hoping for the Scarlet to come to fruition (or something like it). It's really tiring actually.
what would have been a better option for the 500d would be 720p 30,720p24,720p 60 , in this way you could do overcrank for slow -mo like you can do with panasonic.
still 1080 at 20 is close enough to 24 that a tweak should be possible to get a burst out of it for say 5 minutes or so .
worth a try anyway...
I just entered the market for a video DSLR. I am a multimedia student, with a background in photography, so for me, it's very true. A video DLSR would be my gateway into motion pictures. I also agree that still photography is well grounded and is another media that I will continue and cherish. Anyone else notice that the article, "The Death of Still Photography” has been removed from TWiP? I think most of us feel that still photgraphy is immortal.
Great article Stu. Very well said. I finally accepted the fact that the DSLRs video has it's limitations. I am now more than ever excited to go out and do some great looking stuff to build my portfolio...then maybe after I get some recognition, the true film makers camera, at an affordable cost, will be here.
"On the right is a lens that many Canon shooters are likely to have in their bag: the 85mm f/1.2L."
Are you insane. This is one of the least owned lenses that Canon makes. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Cool, no need for you to keep reading then Joe, Bye!
This issue is driving me mad. Coming from the video side, I'd love a 2nd position SLR to do both stills and close-up HD videos of a scene. I'm fine with ignoring the camera's audio.
GH1 is good but too expensive for me, and the fact that the manufacturers are generally not supporting 25fps kills it . If they can't/won't support PAL, they're not serious.
So, still waiting in Feb 2010 - this is not a technical issue..
The 7D is great, here’s a video I filmed with it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og-bjVKGjrc