A question why not keep still cameras and video seperate
Oct 4, 2014 16:17:39 #
A question why not keep still cameras and video separate on at least some of the better models does not matter which brand. I was just looking at all the new improvements in the new dslr and mirrorless, and see that almost all major improvements are video related, a still camera used to have its mechanics improved, now with dslrs we have video even if like me I never use it, from a business sense consumers all in ones are a good idea but for still shooters and video makers would it not make more sense to separate them and improve on both in the way that is needed. I do not know the answer just wondering
Oct 4, 2014 16:45:31 #
terry44 wrote:
A question why not keep still cameras and video se... (show quote)
It's largely a matter of software / firmware, which makes it almost free to combine video and stills photography. Although I think there is a limit to how long a video clip can be shot (legal rather than technical).
Oct 4, 2014 16:53:32 #
One of the main reasons that I bought the Df is the fact that it does not shoot video. I have two other Nikons that do and I've yet to use it on either one.
Oct 4, 2014 16:53:43 #
I agree and I think that it might be easy for them to put many of the same parts etc. into separate still and video they may also then be able to get through that time limit. and would they not make more sales if the 2 were separate and somewhat cheaper based upon the upgrade that has been done
blackest wrote:
It's largely a matter of software / firmware, which makes it almost free to combine video and stills photography. Although I think there is a limit to how long a video clip can be shot (legal rather than technical).
Oct 4, 2014 16:56:36 #
terry44 wrote:
I agree and I think that it might be easy for them to put many of the same parts etc. into separate still and video they may also then be able to get through that time limit. and would they not make more sales if the 2 were separate and somewhat cheaper based upon the upgrade that has been done
If you wanted, however, to shoot some kind of video, you could do so with a good DSLR, without spending 2K on a video camera. Video capabilities have even improved in the D810. A friend of mine, who does a lot of wildlife photography on Antelope Island, just posted a video of a coyote capture a vole. It does come in handy. I used it in Port Aransas to shoot Pelicans flying down the coastline.
Oct 4, 2014 16:58:18 #
thats good to know did not know df did not have video, how does it preform if I may ask
Erik_H wrote:
One of the main reasons that I bought the Df is the fact that it does not shoot video. I have two other Nikons that do and I've yet to use it on either one.
Oct 4, 2014 16:59:20 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
terry44 wrote:
A question why not keep still cameras and video se... (show quote)
If there was no demand, there would be no video capable DSLRs. There is at least one professional DSLR without video, so we do have a choice. I also have no use for such a combination.
Oct 4, 2014 16:59:50 #
terry44 wrote:
thats good to know did not know df did not have video, how does it preform if I may ask
It can't perform since it's not there!!
Oct 4, 2014 17:03:25 #
I know but that area in the 800-810 class just because I am a nikon shooter, is where I would really think that separating them would be an advantage to work on the things that count for stills and on the midrange video range that could take huge leaps the pricing probably would be easier to buy one or the other but when you buy both I am sure it would cost a bit more
SteveR wrote:
If you wanted, however, to shoot some kind of video, you could do so with a good DSLR, without spending 2K on a video camera. Video capabilities have even improved in the D810.
Oct 4, 2014 17:04:43 #
RWR wrote:
If there was no demand, there would be no video capable DSLRs. There is at least one professional DSLR without video, so we do have a choice. I also have no use for such a combination.
8-) 8-) 8-) :thumbup: :thumbup:
Oct 4, 2014 17:07:44 #
was asking how it preforms as a still camera
SteveR wrote:
It can't perform since it's not there!!
Oct 4, 2014 17:26:12 #
To have it and not need it, is better than to want it and not have it.
Now then, Why does it take so damned many remotes to watch a stupid DVD? :roll:
Does anybody make a smart phone with a rotary dialer on it?
I miss the tangled up pig tail cord on my phones handset.
Where can I get a needle for my phonograph?
And what was so wrong with 4 track tapes?
My Phone is not an I-Phone!
I want a stamp I can lick.
Why did the Pony Express stop? :lol: :hunf: :lol:
Now then, Why does it take so damned many remotes to watch a stupid DVD? :roll:
Does anybody make a smart phone with a rotary dialer on it?
I miss the tangled up pig tail cord on my phones handset.
Where can I get a needle for my phonograph?
And what was so wrong with 4 track tapes?
My Phone is not an I-Phone!
I want a stamp I can lick.
Why did the Pony Express stop? :lol: :hunf: :lol:
Oct 4, 2014 17:26:20 #
terry44 wrote:
was asking how it preforms as a still camera
No better than it would if it had video
Oct 4, 2014 17:52:30 #
terry44 wrote:
thats good to know did not know df did not have video, how does it preform if I may ask
It performs great. It has the same sensor as the D4 and has the best high ISO performance out there.
Oct 4, 2014 17:55:06 #
Erik_H wrote:
It performs great. It has the same sensor as the D4 and has the best high ISO performance out there.
I think the D810 does also....plus you get video!! hahahaha....just jokin' guys.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.