new nikon D90 ?? HD movie mode

txsbluesguy · 08-28-2008, 08:47 AM

ok working in the video field but grew up in a photography home i have to say freaking wow. The new nikon D90 has a highdef 720 24fps movie mode.

D90 | D-MOVIE

Freaking WOW ....

I don't want to start the brand war here but man imagine a Pentax with that feature and 40 years worth of lenses .... it would be heaven .... high ISO, dynamic range, DOF. it would be like shooting film instead of video again ... sort of .. but not quite ... but real image choices for under $1200 ....

I just had to share my hopes for the future with the Pentax crowd from a v'idiots perspective ....

ftpaddict · 08-28-2008, 08:51 AM

Want a proper video camera, buy a video camera. I seriously disagree with merging so many things into one. :\

MikePerham · 08-28-2008, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by txsbluesguy

ok working in the video field but grew up in a photography home i have to say freaking wow. The new nikon D90 has a highdef 720 24fps movie mode....

But, take a look at the specks ..you can't focus while shooting video etc.. I mentioned in another thread that I hope this doesn't become a trend, though I suspect it will ...sort of when technology can do something, it will be added as a feature whether it's needed, a good idea or not. Personally I am not in favour of the do everything kind of tool - to use another cliche, "Jack of all trades and master of none" - there is so much more that can be done with features that enhance still photography, but seems that gimmiks sell more camera's.

Mike.

AndrewG NY · 08-28-2008, 09:32 AM

I'm also wondering how this really plays out. How is exposure moderated during capture, does aperture change? I'm guessing any lens zooming is unlikely to be very smooth. I guess it's nice to be able to do what any $200 digicam can do, and perhaps it can probably do it better than many, but just like digicams, if you want a real video camera, you should probably buy a dedicated video camera. I don't think I want too many video controls intruding on the core SLR camera functionality.

Gooshin · 08-28-2008, 09:41 AM

my best friend (who is also a canon owner) is a film student

i have helped him film some of his assignment work (even in the cold -25 degree weather we got here one time)

and i can attest that shooting a proper movie is like 5 times more difficult than taking a photograph (his favorite joke is that film isjust like photography, they just take pcitures really fast)

having a video function slapped into your camera is useless, because even less people know how to make a quality movie than to make a quality photograph!

you want to record your daughters birthday party? buy some cheap cam corder and go nuts

want to record a cop arguing with a drunken transvestite? pop out your phone and hit rec.

no one is going to be making blockbuster movies with a D90.. but i'm quite certain someone might take award winning photography... so why combine the two?

meh..

i think Nikon is going off to La La land

reeftool · 08-28-2008, 09:50 AM

I have a Canon digital camcorder that also takes stills. The stills aren't too great so I don't use it that way. A lot of small point and shoot cameras have had a video feature for years. My little Fuji 2650 will take 3 minutes of video with no sound. Its not very good video, only slightly better than a cheap webcam. These are sales gimmick features for consumer cameras and I'm surprised to see it on an SLR.

KjetilH · 08-28-2008, 10:24 AM

HOOOOT!

The sensor, at least. I suspect some funny heat-ups, though they could be quite successful, I wouldn't count on the shutter rating, rather the "max. exposures/hours of film before dead sensor" estimate.

Anyway, in good light, I find that my Canon P&S is actually quite good. Nothing for making a movie, but short films from a trip are quite good. Better than my dads old VHS-C, at least. :P

alohadave · 08-28-2008, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by MikePerham

But, take a look at the specks ..you can't focus while shooting video etc.. I mentioned in another thread that I hope this doesn't become a trend, though I suspect it will ...sort of when technology can do something, it will be added as a feature whether it's needed, a good idea or not. Personally I am not in favour of the do everything kind of tool - to use another cliche, "Jack of all trades and master of none" - there is so much more that can be done with features that enhance still photography, but seems that gimmiks sell more camera's.

Mike.

You can't autofocus in video mode, but you can still manual focus.

*jsherman999* · 08-28-2008, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Gooshin

want to record a cop arguing with a drunken transvestite? pop out your phone and hit rec.

This sounds like another perfect "niche" - you know, Lake Superior photographer, Paris-street/cafe photographer, desert photographer, wide-angle stadium photographer, etc...

*nupentaxian* · 08-28-2008, 11:13 AM

hehehe i have a camcorder for sale if any of you want that feature Sony DCR-SR100... own a piece of Carl Zeiss glass :P

Spongefingers · 08-28-2008, 12:07 PM

Generally, a video camera is best for video, a stills camera best for stills. It's what they were primarily designed for that is important. In most cases I'd be much happier with a Canon XL1s over my shoulder than a Nikon D90 wobbling about in front of my face, I can tell you.
It would only be worthwhile bothering to shooting video with a DSLR if you are doing a special shot with particular technical requirements, using a nice big prime lens with a really smooth focus and preferably a rifle-grip to mount the camera on so it doesn't wobble so much.
I can also see very detailed macro videos being worthwhile.

txsbluesguy · 08-28-2008, 01:26 PM

i think every one knows that a real video camera is better than a still slr in many ways ... but there are limitations to the video cameras on the market now. lens choices. sensor size and DOF isssues. ISO. there is an entire market out there for attaching 35mm lenses to video cameras. Adapters that cost as much if not more than a new high end SLR and lens does now. all in order to get a less than video look. for a wedding guy doing things hand held this is not that exciting. for some one doing commercial and marketing videos this means a bit more choices in terms of new looks that before were much more expensive and more hassle to achieve with a video camera.

this camera is just the start of finally re merging the photo and video fields that split after the electronic cameras took over video

All I am saying is one day it would be nice to be fully Pentax at home and at work instead of Pentax at home for stills and Sony/Panasonic at work for video. maybe some day.

*k100d* · 08-28-2008, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by AndrewG NY

I'm also wondering how this really plays out. How is exposure moderated during capture, does aperture change? I'm guessing any lens zooming is unlikely to be very smooth. I guess it's nice to be able to do what any $200 digicam can do, and perhaps it can probably do it better than many, but just like digicams, if you want a real video camera, you should probably buy a dedicated video camera. I don't think I want too many video controls intruding on the core SLR camera functionality.

lens zooming is as smooth as you can zoom in.
i believe the aperture is fixed before you start filming. not sure what happens to variable aperture zooms tho.