Camera Reviews

[loosecanon]

I take still images, I have minimal interest in video. Yet new cameras though very good for still images are given bad reviews because they don't have the best video.
Now I wonder if manufacturers are making cameras to please these reviewers, compromising the still image performance as sensors etc are optimised for video?
Do we need general purpose cameras and a second categery, still image cameras? Has the time come for a camera to be optimised to produce the best still image, and for the manufacturers to say so, to say its not a video camera.
A camera where all features and controls are optimised for stills is what I want.
I wonder how many members actually use the video features?

[zen]

I have been a Canon shooter for as long as I can remember, going from AE1 to A1 to F1 film cams thru a digital bridge, a 50D, then thru the 5d series, right up to my current 5d4. I was shooting so much in fact, that I had two 5d4's- so I wouldn't have to switch lenses back and forth in the field. [I still have the second one, but she's on the shelf for the moment.] And in all that, I have never, not once, shot even a second of video! I couldn't care less about video, and if I ever feel that I need it, I'll get a proper video cam with the correct lens, etc.

So, I vote for a proper still cam with all the features I need.

I'm with you, Mr. loosecannon!

Zen

[Manfred M]

Adding video capabilities to a still camera is nothing more than software and appropriate processing speed / data pipeline capacity of the camera.

Right now 4K is the direction that video is going and the reviewers are penalizing cameras that do not have this capability; i.e. merely shooting in HD. If you have no interest in shooting video, ignore those aspects of the camera. I know a lot of people who shoot both video and stills, so just because it is of no interest to you, does not suggest that you are a typical user. Shooting video and editing video are two of the most called for courses at the photo club I belong to. We are looking to cover off both these courses later on this year as well as a hands-on shooting workshop.

That being said, if it is of no interest to you, look purely at the still imaging capabilities in the reviews.

In terms of the sensor, for video, the camera generally shoots full frame width, but crops the top and bottom to fit the appropriate video formats. The data is downsampled to HD or 4K format and frame rate, depending on what the camera supports. Still cameras generally only shoot compressed file data, as this reduces the amount of data that has to be passed through the processing pipeline and written to the memory card. Some high-end pro video cameras have appropriately sized sensors and process pipeline capacity to record the video equivalent of raw, but I am not aware of any still cameras that have this feature.

I have shot video on my still cameras, although I personally prefer using a dedicated video camera to do so. The controls and features on still cameras are definitely balanced towards shooting still images. Even the overall control location and camera balance definitely suggests that these are primarily still cameras, not video cameras.


Based on my experience, DSLR are definitely optimized for still photography, even when they offer video capabilities. The line is less clear-cut, especially when it comes to mirrorless offerings from Panasonic and Sony. Both of these companies have a very long history in high-end video gear that pre-dates their entry into the still camera market. I can't comment on the Sony cameras, but some of the Panasonic units are available in configurations that get close to being equally strong for still and video use.

[Shadowman]

I do use the video feature but probably not for the purposes the manufacturer designed it for and it is rare when I do use it. A few weeks ago I used my DSLR to video sand following from a funnel, it made it easier to video the flow and then I saved a frame as a jpeg still. When I purchased the camera I didn't really pay that much attention to the video capabilities just that it could produce a decent video if I needed it.

[LePetomane]

I've yet to use the video feature on either of my cameras. If I need to video something I will use my phone.

[Rufus]

Reviews can be very useful, as long as you know which aspects are important to you. The reviews of the Canon 6D Mk2 slated it for its poor video capabilities, but for me it had everything I wanted (e.g. fully articulating screen, GPS and Wifi, full frame...) and at less cost than the 5D. I have used the video once - to try it out - and it seemed perfectly adequate to me!

[DanK]

I have never taken a video with any of my three still cameras. However, I think there is very little chance that manufacturers will start selling still-only models. As Manfred points out, the cost of adding video capabilities is modest, and while I don't know, I would guess that this cost is far less than the cost of maintaining duplicate products with and without video. And, of course, retailers would need far more stock if manufacturers did that. So my solution is simply to ignore video when selecting a camera.

[Shadowman]

In some of the reviews of the Nikon Z mirrorless cameras I've seen modest praise of the still capture capability but raves for the video capability.

[Manfred M]

In some of the reviews of the Nikon Z mirrorless cameras I've seen modest praise of the still capture capability but raves for the video capability.

If you pay attention to the video enthusiast sites, this has been the case for the past decade or so, ever since Nikon introduced high quality video in the D90 camera. At the time a decent video camera with good optics was running in the $US5000 - $US8000 range and a budding videographer could pick up a camera that gave similar results for around $US1000. Sure it lacked some of the features like lenses with no click stops and variable shutters and good sound recording capabilities, etc, but unless the user was into creating content for mass distribution, it wasn't that important.

My (now long in the tooth) Panasonic HD video camera was also capable of shooting still images and even has a shutter release button to do so. On the other hand most people would not find a lot of use from a camera that could only produce 2MP images; maximum image size for standard HD is 1920 x 1080 pixels. On the other hand, having a camera that can produce 20MP - 50MP images AND can produce HD or 4K video is useful.

Videographers love the shallow DoF that they can achieve on full frame sensor cameras; something that is much more challenging to achieve on the small sensor video cameras. Japanese lens maker Cosina targeted their ultra fast lenses (around f/1) to the mFT video market to get the narrow DoF we are used to with fast glass on full-frame cameras.

There are camera accessory makers that make Steadicam rigs, video tripods, follow focus mechanisms, etc. that are traditionally used by videographers for DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. Panasonic was definitely marketing their mFT "still" cameras to the advanced amateur videographers.

Videographers use the types of cameras we use for still photography for a lot of video work. The fact that the members here who are predominantly still photographers don't seem to need the features does not reflect the realities of the camera market.

[Shadowman]

If you pay attention to the video enthusiast sites, this has been the case for the past decade or so, ever since Nikon introduced high quality video in the D90 camera. At the time a decent video camera with good optics was running in the $US5000 - $US8000 range and a budding videographer could pick up a camera that gave similar results for around $US1000. Sure it lacked some of the features like lenses with no click stops and variable shutters and good sound recording capabilities, etc, but unless the user was into creating content for mass distribution, it wasn't that important.

There are camera accessory makers that make Steadicam rigs, video tripods, follow focus mechanisms, etc. that are traditionally used by videographers for DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. Panasonic was definitely marketing their mFT "still" cameras to the advanced amateur videographers.

Videographers use the types of cameras we use for still photography for a lot of video work. The fact that the members here who are predominantly still photographers don't seem to need the features does not reflect the realities of the camera market.

Your comments about the need for the Steadicam Rig rings so true for me in that I would definitely need one, I think the unsteadiness of my holding ability is one of the reasons I don't use my DSLR for video. I shot video with my P & S all the time, my steadiness was good but the video quality was mediocre. When I used my DSLR to do the capture of flowing sand I had the camera stationary and the quality was more than good enough to pull a jpeg still from the video frames. Another thing about DSLR video is its basically a semi-high speed camera (30FPS), I can't capture the speed of a bullet with a DSLR but I could probably capture the impact on a target.

[Manfred M]

The most important tool for any videographer is a good, solid video tripod with at fluid head, John. Even a normal ball-head photo tripod is better than hand-holding.

That being said, there are techniques for hand-holding video cameras, but they are completely different that one would hold a DSLR / Mirrorless camera and the balance in these types of cameras is completely different than in a standard (rather than consumer level) video camera.

There are four different video speeds for North American video standards; 24 fps, 30 fps (which is close to the traditional NTSC over-air television signal; which started at 30 fps in B&W but due to the additional signal processing for colour transmission, the rate ended up being 29.97 fps) and 60 fps. The 24 fps comes from Hollywood and the feature film industry and represents a tradeoff of the cost of a traditional movie shot on 35mm film stock and image quality shown in a movie theatre. The Europeans (and most of the rest of the world, outside of Japan) use 25 fps and 50 fps, again as a result of the over the air PAL / SECAM standards. None of these are going to freeze a speeding bullet...

[Tronhard]

Nikon did, in fact produce the excellent Df (f for fusion), which is a pure stills camera and has controls that harken back to those on film cameras such and the Nikon F or F3. Despite being a confirmed Canon shooter (great glass) I bought a couple of these Nikon Df's because of the interface. The camera is light, has the excellent sensor from the D4 and has phenomenal low light performance.

At the time of release it faced considerable criticism for the lack of a second card slot and because it did not have video. I enclose my own view and response to that:



The Df is an amazing camera and was hammered by people who have no or minimal contact with it. This is a camera that CAN be used as a digital DSLR, or it can be the digital version of the film cameras I used to use back in the days when I first started as a photographer. You can choose which personality you use or apply a combination of those two interfaces.

Its intent is to re-create, as much as possible, the experience that photographers had when using a film camera. But it recognizes that digital photography has other elements that film did not have and it has tried to deal with those without losing the analogue interface. The experience of using film required a discipline of approach that one does not have to have today and what some regard as shortcomings, I see as a recreation of those conditions, and I'm fine with it.

The clues to the fusion philosophy are in the whole design ethic:
1. The ability to use Non-AI lenses
2. The use of analogue dials controlling the essentials
3. The fabulous sensor, which renders exceptional low-light/high ISO performance. It encourages you to use available light and fast prime lenses.
4. The removal of video to concentrate on stills, making the camera more compact and lighter.


Let me address some of the criticisms I have seen hurled at this:
1. It's a STILL photographers' camera - that deserves no apology, there are many DSLRs out there that do video just fine.
2.It doesn't have a built-in flash. Neither did the film cameras, but it has a perfectly serviceable flash hot shoe with all the capabilities of any Nikon camera built-in.
3. The unit does not have enough focusing points. It has a lot more that film cameras did and it works fine.
4. There is only one card slot. Film cameras could only hold one film at a time. In the days of film when I was shooting around NZ, Australia and Asia for landscape, wildlife and travel production I could carry only a limited amount of film and that had a finite life in the very hot conditions. When I took a photo I would not know if it came out for maybe a month before it was developed. The temptation was to take several bracketing shots, but then there was the limited film capacity to consider. It generated a discipline of being sparing and very careful with my settings and composition. I still do that today with digital and shoot a lot less than my contemporaries who only knew the digital environment.
5. The controls have lock on them - yep and so did most of the film cameras, it's about learning to get used to them, once you do it's automatic.

This camera is all about taking time to enjoy the process of taking a photo, as well as the final outcome. In a similar situation my daughter's boyfriend asked about my record turntable and asked why I would still have one of those when an MP3 player was much more efficient. My response was that playing a record became an occasion in its own right and that was a big part of the enjoyment for me - in exactly the same way as taking a photo with the Df does.

I have now retired from my photographic career, I take photos for free and for me. I still have over $45k of Canon gear, which I have used since I went digital and I shall continue to use it. I chose Canon for its glass, but I always respected Nikon - I used them both when I shot film. I chose to switch brands for this body alone because of what it is specifically and I am happy that I have done so.

There are a lot of photographers out there who crave the latest technology on the belief that a better camera will make them a better photographer, or that the gear is somehow holding back their innate abilities. In 38 years of photography I have never felt constrained by the gear ( I have used Nikon, Canon, Olympus and several other medium format brands). I have felt constrained by my skill in using what I have. For those who want the latest tech this is not for you, move on and be happy. For those of us who value the process this is a fine camera and worthy of respect.

[Tri Danimal]

I might be the rare one here but, I use my Sony A7iii for videography about 50% of the time, if not a bit more. I do enjoy the art of photography but for my style of photography I use capture video then stack in post for a final image that can be run through PS.

2019/2020 is going to bring a lot of big changes to the video world, 8K is going to become the new standard. Also, gimbals are becoming more and more simple to use and prices are dropping pretty quickly so budding videoigraphers are able to produc "handheld" vidoes that look really really good.

[Tronhard]

Daniel, I don't know if you are rare at all, and certainly there should be no issue that you DO take video. However, I think the issue is that pretty much every camera is struggling to take better resolution video and still images too. The desire to have a relatively simple camera that just takes stills has a place in the market space. There are lots of users who still just take still images and yet their cameras are cluttered internally and externally with extra tech to take videos. It is the same principle (in reverse) of camera makers making specialist video cameras.

As to the Df... I would still have bought it if it did incorporate video, because it was the control interface I was looking for. I still have around 18 DSLR bodies, a couple of P&S and a good cell phone in my stable I can use if I want to do video!

[rpcrowe]

I am wondering how many of our members:

1. shoot video at all with their DSLR/Mirrorless cameras
2. have the computer power to edit 4K video
and
3. actually do video blogs in which a screen facing the subject is necessary.

I also wonder how many, out of the CiC members who shoot video with their DSLR or mirrorless cameras, use:
1. an accessory microphone
2. Use a gimbal?

Now, I wonder how many of our members shoot video with their smart phones?

[Shadowman]

It is on very rare occasions that I shoot video, never concern myself with the audio; I know a lot of people who try to record live concerts and wonder what the quality must sound like, when I carried a P & S I did try shooting video more often but the output wasn't that good.

[Manfred M]

I am wondering how many of our members:

1. shoot video at all with their DSLR/Mirrorless cameras
2. have the computer power to edit 4K video
and
3. actually do video blogs in which a screen facing the subject is necessary.

I also wonder how many, out of the CiC members who shoot video with their DSLR or mirrorless cameras, use:
1. an accessory microphone
2. Use a gimbal?

Now, I wonder how many of our members shoot video with their smart phones?

1. I shoot video with both devices as well as with a dedicated HD video camera.

2. I have the software (Premiere Pro CC 2019) and hardware (4 core / 8 threads) to do this, but none of my cameras shoot in 4K, nor do any of my display devices handle 4K, so at this not a factor in my video work right now.

3. I don't do video blogs.

On my dedicated camera I use both a super cardioid mike as well as a remote (RF) lavaliere mic. Both are 42V phantom power style mics. I don't use external mics on any of my cameras, but always record sound.

I don't use a gimbal; I prefer a proper viscous damped video tripod with a mid spreader. I tend to not shoot video on the move.

My smart phone is almost 7 years old, so I do not shoot video or stills with it. The quality is pathetic,