Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-14-2009, 05:57 AM   #1
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mission Hills, CA
Posts: 773
A Photographic Philosophical Change is Coming ?

With the news and rumors of the K-7 (and other makers) it comes apparent that photographic tools are now becoming an "Imaging device". No longer will we see dedicated "Still Cameras" or "Movie Cameras" as we did in the past.

What are your feelings on this .... I for one, growing up using film still cameras, was never much a film movie guy.

I suppose having all in one is in reality a good thing - - IF - - both mediums are usable and up to the standards of the day. I think that I will not use the MOVIE mode to much, but like anything else, folks change. A few years ago I thought the Internet phone was a joke and now it is the most important device I carry with me on a day to day basis, from checking news to seeing what is happening on Pentax blogs :-)

What do you guys and gals think about the merging of still and movie in one photographic device ? With the merging of media forms and the techno advances in sensor and electronic viewing, the shape can also be changed to a more ergonomic configuration .... I think some interesting things are probably coming down the road.


wll

05-14-2009, 06:06 AM   #2
Pentaxian
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,276
Just like All-in-One printers.... they do it all OK but don't do any one thing very well. Frankly, the more crap they put in my still camera to make it do other things, the less I like it. I want a still camera to take still photos. If I want movies I will buy a camcorder or movie camera. If I want a coffee maker or phone I will buy one. This stuff just takes up room in the body that could be used to further improve the still photography experience, like improved or larger sensors, GPS, working live-view, etc.

Mike

p.s. I like the shape of still cameras today. They are ergonomically fine as far as I am concerned.
05-14-2009, 06:22 AM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Umeň, Sweden
Posts: 755
QuoteOriginally posted by MRRiley Quote
JThis stuff just takes up room in the body that could be used to further improve the still photography experience, like [...] working live-view, etc.
Not to be that guy, but isn't working live-view a side-effect of, or requirement for, video capabilities?
05-14-2009, 06:50 AM   #4
wll
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mission Hills, CA
Posts: 773
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by MRRiley Quote
Just like All-in-One printers.... they do it all OK but don't do any one thing very well. Frankly, the more crap they put in my still camera to make it do other things, the less I like it. I want a still camera to take still photos. If I want movies I will buy a camcorder or movie camera. If I want a coffee maker or phone I will buy one. This stuff just takes up room in the body that could be used to further improve the still photography experience, like improved or larger sensors, GPS, working live-view, etc.

Mike

p.s. I like the shape of still cameras today. They are ergonomically fine as far as I am concerned.
I'm pretty much like you Mike - but, if they are able to improve the photo AND the movie side of things .... It's kind of a tough call for me.

What I DON'T want is a "me too" approach, where something is added, and it adds nothing in reality to the quality .... it is just there to say to the public "WE HAVE IT"

wll

05-14-2009, 06:57 AM   #5
Veteran Member
ftpaddict's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Yurp
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,669
I think it was about to happen. I admit I was very reluctant about including video capabilities into a DSLR, but now that I've seen the potential benefits of having a bigger sensor and high-quality optics combined with high resolution filming.

I'll fully embrace it once video SLRs reach 3rd gen. They'll likely have all the bugs ironed out by then.
05-14-2009, 07:04 AM   #6
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
I think we are just seeing the beginning.

In the mid term I guess that the EVIL format will conquer the segment of high quality video/still cameras. Just like A/V receivers do now. The high quality consumer segment. I see another form factor for EVIL as well. The current offerings are still rather traditional.

Below this, phone cameras will be video as well. P&S or camcorder will disappear.

Above this, dedicated still image and movie cameras will continue to exist -- because the two are two separate art forms. Here, I see SLRs with optical viewfinders and sensors larger than those in the EVIL segment. Probably medium format or full frame. Expensive. Just like high end stereo amplifiers.

Today, the two segments aren't clearly separated. And the P&S segment still alive. So we see mixtures of all forms.
05-14-2009, 07:06 AM   #7
wll
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mission Hills, CA
Posts: 773
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ftpaddict Quote
I think it was about to happen. I admit I was very reluctant about including video capabilities into a DSLR, but now that I've seen the potential benefits of having a bigger sensor and high-quality optics combined with high resolution filming.

I'll fully embrace it once video SLRs reach 3rd gen. They'll likely have all the bugs ironed out by then.
ftpaddict,

The 3rd generation statement is interesting -- do you think Pentax (or any company in today's world) can wait 3 generations to get it right. The world is soooo competitive and the public knows the specs and ? before the product hits the market, if you don't get it right the first time your just about doomed.


wll
05-14-2009, 07:19 AM   #8
Veteran Member
awo425's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC, USA
Posts: 481
QuoteOriginally posted by Erik Quote
Not to be that guy, but isn't working live-view a side-effect of, or requirement for, video capabilities?
I think it is the other way around, video is a side effect of Live View ability of still camera.

05-14-2009, 07:23 AM   #9
Junior Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 35
Give me video capabilities and I'll become a film maker. What is not to love about this?


QuoteOriginally posted by MRRiley Quote
If I want movies I will buy a camcorder or movie camera.
Are you talking about those shitty cameras with no interchangeable lenses and a sensor the size of spec of dust? Who would want that when you could record with an SLR?
05-14-2009, 07:27 AM   #10
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,197
At first, I thought that having video on a DSLR was just a gimmick and I had no interest in it. Now, I'm rethinking that position. Just this past weekend, I was debating whether to carry my video camera, my DSLR, or both. I think I'd like having both those capabilities in one package.
05-14-2009, 07:42 AM   #11
Veteran Member
Venturi's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Tulsa, OK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,639
QuoteOriginally posted by Elton Quote
Who would want that when you could record with an SLR?
You mean those clunky little square boxes with the tiny 3:2 lenses and an SD or CF card? Why would I ever want that when I can have triple CCD sensor tech, reliable continuous AF down to 0.4 lux, up to 60fps, 16:9 1080i, DV tape and/or HDD support, quality stereo sound, I/O ports tailored to a wide variety of AV needs and a bevy of effects and editing tools built into my camcorder?
05-14-2009, 07:43 AM   #12
Senior Member
Mister Guy's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 244
It's ALWAYS made me grumpy that going from my point and shoot cameras to my DSLR means I gave up the tiny bit of video recording I had before. I don't even need it to be good. I need to be able to say, screw it, this isn't going to be a masterpiece, I just wanna record that puppy, or playful kid for a few seconds.
05-14-2009, 07:44 AM   #13
Veteran Member
Ivan Glisin's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Belgrade
Posts: 656
QuoteOriginally posted by MRRiley Quote
Frankly, the more crap they put in my still camera to make it do other things, the less I like it. I want a still camera to take still photos. If I want movies I will buy a camcorder or movie camera.
True, however I don't mind additional features as long as they are not in the way of the main functionality, and if the whole system is not compromised by adding them. If a video DSLR would behave the way some cell phones behave on startup that would not work for me at all. (The phone they gave me at work was asking me every single time "do you want to use me as a camera, or as a media player, or... wait, how about I do this for you, or that, or...". No! No! No! You are a PHONE, so behave like one I need to make a call!)

Video in DSLR is technically logical thing: with fast and direct access to pixels in CMOS sensors it's mainly just a matter of software to add some sort of video mode. There is really nothing to add from the system architecture perspective. Mirror goes up, live view activates, and once we press shutter release button an imaging engine and CPU start reading CMOS, processing and storing data. The only difference is that instead of one CMOS readout and packing data to JPEG, the software takes 24 or 30 readouts a second and packs data to MPEG (or any other video format). The only hardware improvement needed is faster hardware to accommodate for more data and that's basically all. (Of course, it is possible to add dedicated video processing hardware.)
05-14-2009, 07:51 AM   #14
Junior Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 35
QuoteOriginally posted by Venturi Quote
You mean those clunky little square boxes with the tiny 3:2 lenses and an SD or CF card? Why would I ever want that when I can have triple CCD sensor tech, reliable continuous AF down to 0.4 lux, up to 60fps, 16:9 1080i, DV tape and/or HDD support, quality stereo sound, I/O ports tailored to a wide variety of AV needs and a bevy of effects and editing tools built into my camcorder?

Probably because we're looking for different things. For me the idea of a affordable interchangeable lens (lenses that I allready got) video camera with (as far as I know) a far bigger sensor than the normal camcorder beats that. SD sounds far better to me than DV tape, infact I hate DV tape. I can just put my SD card straight into my computer and transfer everything, far more easy than any DV tape. And new SD card technologies are popping up all the time, I doubt storage would be an issue.
05-14-2009, 07:51 AM   #15
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Houston
Posts: 103
all in one

the all in one analogy isn't the same ..... it would mean the camera would have to have printers built into the and do both inputs and outputs ie image and create prints ...

i thnk of it more like a leatherman tool .... always with me and able to anything i ask and more ...


from two different perspectives, first, since on this basis my wife has pre approved and almost demanded the new K7 if it comes out with video .... as a father of two very photogenic kids shes tired of me not having the right camera at the right time or leaving one at home and or buying two different items ... both on the expensive side ..... both a video camera and a SLR ... for mothers day I bought her a kodak pocket camera that does both still and video and she loves having both to choose from .... but since i am the official family documentarian she wants something for me to use that is of better photo quality since the photos are where the real memories are .... and the photos video cameras take are so much worse than the video still cameras are doing right now ......

second on the professional side imaging is imaging ..... i use photoshop to work with video and premiere / final cut pro to work with stills ... light is light .... composition is composition .... visual story telling is visual story telling .... a good fram that is still is as magical as a good frame with movement .... to me it is all one thing and i don't see the difference any more every good video / film guy i know is an avid photographer.

really it all has been one big philosophical pool all along, maybe it was too big for some people to see the other side ..... or maybe their view was blocked by a viewfinder ......
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
change, day, device, film, movie, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hope and Change , "Hey mister can you spare some change?" seacapt General Talk 19 04-13-2010 05:56 AM
Photographic Bravery Rondec Photographic Technique 30 09-07-2009 07:53 AM
A philosophical question wildman Photographic Technique 12 02-03-2009 07:21 PM
Photographic portfolio MrA Photographic Technique 7 04-21-2008 12:11 AM
Photographic accidents Chako Post Your Photos! 5 09-02-2007 09:18 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:33 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top