[vincentgargano]

I know some people will be out to lynch me after this post .....I must say that the art of knowing when to fire off that shutter to get the right shot is coming to an end. i noticed this when canon put HD video on one of there DSLR's. Now with the K-7 following suit this is just the beginning of the end for the still photographer. I can see them putting video on an entry level dslr or a point and shoot camera as most young kids like to goof around with tech stuff. Don't get me wrong i love technology i have 5 computers 2 k20d's i bought a dvd player when they first came out for over $600.00. I just dont think people understand that we as humans all jump on the same bandwagon not understanding what it will do to the future. All you guys out there who shoot weddings.... in the not so distant future a kid will be able to shoot the whole wedding in video and pull stills from it capturing everything. He can then pull all the money shots from the video ....the art of the photographer capturing the right moment which takes talent is dead! If i wanted to shoot video i would just buy a video camera. I know everyone is different i just wanted to put this out there.
I have a carbon frame race bicycle i do alot of cycling ( stay with me...i can't ride that bike on a dirt trail...but thats not what its made for. if i wanted to ride on a dirt trail i would buy a mountain bike...
I just think the pentax line could use a little less bells and whistle crap that most photographers dont use . which means less can go wrong and just focus on a high end camera that takes great images because I'm A Photographer not a Videographer ...and if i was a Videographer i would not buy the k7 to do the job.

Ok ...im done let the firing squad fire when ready...no blindfold please....damn and i dont smoke ...this is going to hurt

[petercrane]

I see your point, but i tend to disagree. There are numerous reasons why video on an slr is handy.

1. Depth of field
2. People can't always carry several devices around.
3. People can't always afford several devices (video cameras cost an arm and a leg!)

I don't think you'll find people ripping stills from video as the quality is severely lowered, and it takes a whole lot more disk space to shoot in motion. People don't always get the shot with a single click which is why cameras like the K7 shoot over 5 frames a second. Technically, by your logic, a child could fluke nice wedding shots by constantly shooting off frames at a high frame rate. Are you upset with high frame rates?

Technology has to change and develop in order to convince people to upgrade and buy something new (even if they don't need it). Video was just a logical step considering technological trends suggest manufacturers shove every possible function into one small device.

[FotoPete]

Haha Vincent you are not wrong in that. Its already been done.

Canon and Nikon pro bodies can rip it off frames at like 8, 10fps now. I heard of some story where they rigged up several bodies together and fired them off in sequential order so the frame rates stacked up to total something like 20-30fps.

Things like AI Servo, other forms of continuous tracking AF, USM, coupled with fast burst modes already "killed the radio star". Remember how many people took to the streets when the 1DMkIII came premiered with AI servo issues?

I remember Rob Galbraith had a post of a test involving a runner on a track and he included like 20-30 frames in sequence and there were a few out of focus frames or what not and I remember thinking to myself that sports photography was already dead and the best positions are won by the highest bidder. (a little too cynical lol).

Even going back to the days when the digital camera was only in its infancy (2000), Canon and Nikon had pro body 35mm SLRs capable of 8-10fps with respective power winders attached. Lets not forget what propelled Canon into its mega stardom/top of the camera brand chain, the EF (ElectroFocus) mount and the debut of USM at roughly the same time.

(*stands infront of Vincent, facing firing squad*)

[jogiba]

If i wanted to shoot video i would just buy a video camera.

If I wanted to shoot a photo I would just buy a $59 digital camera.

Canon Digital Learning Center - Sample EOS 5D Mark II Video: Reverie

Canon Digital Learning Center - EOS 5D Mark II: Laforet on Reverie

[causey]

Video in a dslr can't do its job as well as a camcorder.
The sad thing about costs is that video increases the price of dslr's.
I get the idea of concentration and minimization, but I hope I'll never get to see the world where everyone can do everything--including recording video and taking high quality photos--via an implanted chip. And until then I prefer to stick with a camera which is just that: a photocamera.

[vincentgargano]

If I wanted to shoot a photo I would just buy a $59 digital camera.

Canon Digital Learning Center - Sample EOS 5D Mark II Video: Reverie

Canon Digital Learning Center - EOS 5D Mark II: Laforet on Reverie

well i don't think a $59 digital camera can be used for professional photography when you are talking about people paying for a photography service ..i think some people are not understanding the meaning of my original post. if i paid for a photographer to shoot my wedding or portrait and he used a 59.00 camera he is not using professional tools....the same would be if i hired a videographer for a wedding or event and he showed up with a k7 i would also not be happy...i just dont think pentax should have put the video in there flagship camera..they could have put it in a entry level type of dslr that people buy as a novice or to take family photos and such....i use my two k20d's for my photography business and was looking foward to a more pro model coming out from pentax with out all the video stuff i will never use ....just like live view mode... I will never use it
....just like a dvd/vhs combo you never see a high end top of the line one of them around ..because they are usually crap ...if you hired a guy to put in a home theater in your house and he showed up with a vhs/dvd combo unit hooked up to your 3800.00 tv it would be like putting used tires on a 98,000 porshe...it just doesnt work. sorry went off on a weird rant...lol

[pingflood]

Video in a dslr can't do its job as well as a camcorder.
The sad thing about costs is that video increases the price of dslr's.
I get the idea of concentration and minimization, but I hope I'll never get to see the world where everyone can do everything--including recording video and taking high quality photos--via an implanted chip. And until then I prefer to stick with a camera which is just that: a photocamera.

Sure, which camcorders offer the same depth of field control and low light capability as a DSLR?

Also, nobody seems to consider that even if you COULD rip off 30 frames/second, somebody would have to go through the ungodly mess of images looking for a good one. Sure, it's nice for action photography, but it's not like action photography is all of photography. Not to mention how much goes on in post processing, and then it takes a skilled eye to first spot the raw material and then make the appropriate adjustments to produce a great end result.

The only people who should feel threatened by technology advances like these are the ones who rely too much on technology in the first place. No computer can yet replace what goes on in the mind of a great photographer. (Not to mention that no camera is going to get up at 5am and trudge through a messy swamp to capture the one bird they know will be there and in the right light... it takes a mind and experience to get to that point.)

---

Last edited by pingflood; 07-12-2009 at 05:45 PM.

[nostatic]

They used to have guys deliver ice to your house to put in your ice box.

You used to have to use arcane markup language to word process.

You used to have drum brakes on your car.

Everything changes. While some things are "timeless" (like the ability to "see" an aesthetic), the tools almost always change as do the applications. And the reality is that digital changed everything. EVERYTHING.

But just because you put an advanced tool in someone's hand doesn't mean they will be able to use it well. Youtube proves that.

The bar gets raised every generation. Sadly I see friends and colleagues who have been left in the dust because they focused on what they did yesterday instead of what they might do tomorrow. Will still photos die? Not for the immediate future. At 24fps you'll have to have very good automated analysis and metadata to pull what you want. And therein lies the rub - we can create more than we can sort. We are overrun with data and there is no end in site. Using video to take stills is buying into this and helping the innundation.

The other reality is that in the end it is still about manipulating light. Just like music is about manipulating sound. The digital tools have democratized it, but talent is still talent and hard work is still hard work. It is just a different set of tools and variations on a theme.

Video didn't kill the radio star. In fact radio is finding some interesting re-emergence. Just as video won't kill still images. They talk to different parts of the mind. They evoke different feelings. They serve different purposes. The ones who will really do well are those that understand the differences and know when to use what and to what end. Those that control the media will always wield the power.

[pingflood]

Well, you do know photography killed painting.

Oh wait...

[LeDave]

If I wanted to shoot a photo I would just buy a $59 digital camera.

Well your logic kind of fails in a way.... Not even going to describe why as it's pure common sense.

[nostatic]

Well, you do know photography killed painting.

Oh wait...

to be fair, word processing did essentially kill the typewriter. And digital has mortally wounded film and typesetting.

But those are processes where the end result is essentially the same. A still image and a moving image are not the same thing, and in fact require different approaches. I do know some DPs who can do both, but they have worked hard at their craft and understand the differences. Most people are not willing to take the time/effort to get literate.

And that's...OK.

And I didn't kill any painters. That you know of.

[petercrane]

I'm a professional videographer, i shoot all kinds of projects- Government, Corporate, Weddings, Music Videos, you name it. The reality is, technology is getting smaller and changing it's form. In the 90s and prior the general attitude was that bigger cameras, more crew members, and more paperwork meant, in many cases, a better film. That's not true with todays standards at all. The Canon 5Dii shoots better video in many circumstances than a lot of the video cameras available for twice the price. Granted, a K7 is not at that level, but it's not trying to be.

A few weeks back we decided to shoot part of a corporate documentary with a panasonic GH1 and Canon 5Dii. People who were paying us actually approached us and questioned our ability. We decided to switch back to video cameras and finish it off not causing a stir. At a meeting 2 weeks later we screened a draft edit, and they admitted that they liked the look of the slr footage, and that they wished they hadn't said anything.

Anyway. It's marketed as a bonus on the K7. Not a professional feature. Get something like the 5Dii if you want quality and are selling a product. If you dislike video on the K7 either don't use it or go get a job making decisions at Pentax.

[bentax]

and was looking foward to a more pro model coming out from pentax with out all the video stuff i will never use ....just like live view mode... I will never use it

Then dont.

Painters must have been pissed off when photography was invented...

[bdery]

Vincent,

I think you are grossly exagerating.

Photography is about capturing the light. Using DOF, framing correctly (and extravagantly, sometimes), focusing where you want to, shaping an emotion, freezing an instant in time.

Weddings videos are documentaries.

They are useful, really interesting, but they do not have the same purpose, the same tools(no control over the light, for instance).

Do you think filmmakers are really worried that any P&S can take a video now? Do you think you can pull a 10x8 from a HD video? Do you think such an image can be processed to perfection?

Weddings photography is an art, and it's a really difficult job. It's not for anyone, and it's not for just any photographer either.

Movies on DSLRs are a great thing, they can be very useful, and if I ever replace my K20D (no plans for that) I'm pretty sure my future camera will have a movie mode. It's useful, just like Live View. But that's all it is. No doomsday upon the stills photographer.

[LeDave]

Then dont.

Painters must have been pissed off when photography was invented...

Pictures and paintings are two different styles of art... So are pictures and films. And a video capabilities of a camera has nothing to do with being a photographer and taking pictures. Some people like to take videos more than pictures, that's why there are videos on cameras for those who want to record films on their cameras and take pictures for fun, that way they'll be able to do both without switching back and forth from a camera and a camcorder.

Plus a DSLR with video recording capabilities will attract more people into DSLR's even if they don't know anything about taking great pictures or even want to. That way everybody and their mothers will have a DSLR and use automatic mode and record videos. More money for the company.