video feature of dslr ( use or don't use): I for one never have used the video feature of my Canon 5d 11. I just wonder how many of us use the video and how many don't? If you do use...

philo Loc: philo, ca

I for one never have used the video feature of my Canon 5d 11. I just wonder how many of us use the video and how many don't? If you do use the video feature is this the reason you would upgrade to a new model?

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

philo wrote:

I for one never have used the video feature of my Canon 5d 11. I just wonder how many of us use the video and how many don't? If you do use the video feature is this the reason you would upgrade to a new model?

I have never shot video on a DSLR. My main (and favorite) camera, Nikon Df, doesn't have video.

Old Timer Loc: Greenfield, In.

I have three cameras that will shoot videos and have never shot one. I have not even learned how too, have read some of the directions but never followed up.

CaltechNerd Loc: Whittier, CA, USA

Likewise. It's there, maybe I'll have a reason to use it someday. I have a hard time getting good still shots, I've seen enough amateur video that I have no desire to do that to myself. I've seen pros do a great job with a DLSR, I'll leave it to them.

philo Loc: philo, ca

why do we pay for features that we never use? I guess the answer is that it comes with the camera body.
Could or would a body cost less if it did not have the video feature?

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Canon places little emphasis on video. If you look on B&H, there are around 50 consumer cameras and camcorders that shoot 4K video. Not one is a Canon. When we were getting used to HD flat panel TVs, Canon was last at incorporating 1920x1080 choices in there cameras. If you are a proud Canon owner and want to explore video, you might consider looking at other brands. FWIW, Sony and Panasonic do better. It might be because they sell TVs too.

tusketwedge Loc: Nova Scotia Canada

It's just a ploy for the manufactures to make you pay for something that you never utilize. Like cable t.v. or the dish bundle up cheap programs with one or two that maybe you would take to watch that one but you have to pay for 5 or 6 that you wont. The local cable company came out with pay for just the ones you watch ,but it's just as expensive (if not more) than taking the whole bundle. You just can't win. And no I don't use the video.Am on the 4th camera and never used it yet and probably never will.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

philo wrote:

I for one never have used the video feature of my Canon 5d 11. I just wonder how many of us use the video and how many don't? If you do use the video feature is this the reason you would upgrade to a new model?

I have three Canons that shoot video and never use them for video. Unless I accidentally touch the video button on my G1x.
Marion

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I do not use the video feature.

Some UHH user do but I have never seen any sample of what was produced by them so...

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

did a video of a keyboard once while exploring the idea of using video to capture frames for stacking.
Did not work very well because of no resolution.
never even turned it on on my last two cameras.

BebuLamar

philo wrote:

why do we pay for features that we never use? I guess the answer is that it comes with the camera body.
Could or would a body cost less if it did not have the video feature?

No! The proof is Mac and I we paid more for the Df because it doesn't have video. Compare it to the D750 and you can see it cost more without the video feature. But then again if someone release a new DSLR without the video feature we will hear about all the complaint about that.

bjprovo Loc: Northeast CT

It certainly depends on personal preference. I didn't buy my camera because it had this feature, but I found that we can have some fun with it. We have made a few videos of ourselves to send to our young grandchildren. I have started using the feature to make short (1 to 4 minute) videos to share of my travels with my high school students that don't have many opportunities to travel. Always looking for reasons to inspire them in different ways. I bought a wireless mic and that was all i needed to turn out good quality material. It can be fun if you are willing to step outside of your safe zone and try something different.

philo wrote:

I for one never have used the video feature of my Canon 5d 11. I just wonder how many of us use the video and how many don't? If you do use the video feature is this the reason you would upgrade to a new model?

Photocraig

Me neither and wish thre were a way to SAVE on an updated DSLR without the Video capability that I'll NEVER use. Make a better sensor, better DR and Less expensive OS lenses instead of power zooms like my old Ricoh film P&S, or STM Bhuwwrrawwaahhaa. I don't even video on my PHONE!

STOP IT. Camcorders are there for a reason. DSLR's are for a reason. Stop inflating my prices for stuff I don't want or use.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

tusketwedge wrote:

It's just a ploy for the manufactures to make you ... (show quote)

I doubt video capability has much impact on the final cost of the camera. Even the cheapest toy digital cameras can shoot video. (I have a $15 digital camera that can do video clips! Not great video, but that's to be expected - the still images aren't so great either.) Mostly, it's just involves of a few additional electronic components, a little software programming, and an exterior button to turn on/off the video recording.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

I use the video feature on my DSLR's for work.
While we have a couple of dedicated video cameras, the DSLR's are more capable of throwing the background out of focus due to the larger sensor size and corresponding longer focal length.
Helps separate the subject from a distracting background.
I shoot mainly with Nikon D800 & 810.
That being said, I was amazed at the video quality the Olympus EM-1 gave me. Great in-body vibration reduction too.