Why do people use still cameras to make videos? (Page 4): In know what you mean. I always use a camcorder to shoot video. I have shot some video with my Z6 II, and it is excellent.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

In know what you mean. I always use a camcorder to shoot video. I have shot some video with my Z6 II, and it is excellent. Still, old fashioned me is stuck in my ways.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

burkphoto wrote:

If your question is about video, the answer is fou... (show quote)

I think he was dinging my comment about using the right tool for the job....

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

rehess wrote:

I’m not sure video implies hi-resesolution. A video frame is on the screen for just 1/60 second - hardly enough time to examine the detail.

On the other hand, video does imply parfocal, which we’ve already said is costly. I’m not sure it costs to leave out the little-ball that causes apertures to stay set at some value.

Video frame rates vary according to the target market for the video. Filmmaking purists will use 24.000 fps. Those making videos for broadcast will use variations on 25 and 50 fps (in countries where power line frequency is 50Hz) or 30 and 60 fps (nominal; actual rates are slightly lower) in countries where power line frequency is 60Hz.

Panasonic has a reasonably priced line of f/1.8 full frame L-Mount primes that display minimal focus breathing and work quite well for both stills and video. They have also produced zooms for their full frame and Micro 4/3 cameras that minimize focus breathing and maintain parfocal performance reasonably well. That said, their cameras also allow use of many ciné lenses and anamorphic lenses.

User ID

rehess wrote:

I’m not sure video implies hi-resesolution. A video frame is on the screen for just 1/60 second - hardly enough time to examine the detail.

On the other hand, video does imply parfocal, which we’ve already said is costly. I’m not sure it costs to leave out the little-ball that causes apertures to stay set at some value.

Not news to me. Not at all. Youre simply tippy toeing into the reasons such stuff is best not discussed anywhere that the clown car might overhear it ;-)

----------------------------------------

FWIW, I accidentally discovered that one of my verrrrry inexpensive still camera lenses is parfocal, and its accomplished with an encoder and a motor rather than precision machined cams. I really wonder why they bothered in a market segment where nobody cares.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

larryepage wrote:

I think he was dinging my comment about using the right tool for the job....

Yeah... But there's a real market need for horizontal and vertical video, and it has been addressed.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

User ID wrote:

Not news to me. Not at all. Youre simply tippy toeing into the reasons such stuff is best not discussed anywhere that the clown car might overhear it ;-)

----------------------------------------

FWIW, I accidentally discovered that one of my verrrrry inexpensive still camera lenses is parfocal, and its accomplished with an encoder and a motor rather than precision machined cams. I really wonder why they bothered in a market segment where nobody cares.

The Panasonic VHS camcorder we bought about 30 years ago had a parfocal lens, incredible low-light sensitivity for the time, accurate autofocus, and some other cool capabilities. It was about $1500 in today's money. It also provided both composite and S-Video outputs. I used it for meeting video (with a S-Video ==> VGA converter/scaler) for a long time after we didn't need a camcorder anymore. My wife took it to the Salvation Army one day when I wasn't looking. I have to confess to being less than happy about that.

Ollieboy

Urnst wrote:

B&H has what appear to be full featured video cameras for prices way less than typical still cameras? Why don't video makers use these instead of still cameras?

IMO Dslrs and mirrorless cameras are "good enough" for most people.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

larryepage wrote:

This question interests me, also. As an Industrial... (show quote)

I too think that using the right tool for the job is important. Serious cinema requires appropriate equipment. One Piece of equipment is a tripod. Using this reduces the shakes.

Many folks are not, however, shooting, serious cinema. A still camera is quite adequate for a YouTube interview or demonstration. Improper using of panning and zooming is bad no matter what type of equipment is used.

If you are using a cell phone for stills or video you are not being serious. That's OK because one doesn't have to always be serious. Cell phones are also adequate for acquiring a variety of utilitarian photos. I have used them to photograph parts and the back of electronic devices with poor access.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

burkphoto wrote:

Yeah... But there's a real market need for horizontal and vertical video, and it has been addressed.

Perhaps you are right but vertical video really sucks.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Urnst wrote:

B&H has what appear to be full featured video cameras for prices way less than typical still cameras? Why don't video makers use these instead of still cameras?

Because those cameras are not as versatile as a modern mirrorless camera for video. Why buy a separate video camera when I can do great, up to 8K video with a camera that allows me to use a variety of lenses?

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

fetzler wrote:

I too think that using the right tool for the job ... (show quote)

I understand that, and I have shot some video with both my D500 (even though folks say it can't or shouldn't be done) and my D850 (which actually did a fairly decent job). But probably only 5 or 6 other people have seen those videos. They would have been a lot better with a parfocal lens. A couple of them were when I was trying to diagnose a misbehaving machine and several of them were of interesting railroad subjects. If it isn't video that I have to watch, I say more power to whoever is doing whatever. ut if it is something commercial, or something that I've hired done, I expect that it should be done the right way supported by the proper equipment. In other words, if I can tell that you didn't do it right, then it matters to me.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

fetzler wrote:

Perhaps you are right but vertical video really sucks.

I agree... There is a market demand for vertical video, but it is a misguided concept.

It started as a way to accommodate the vertical news reader apps used on smartphones. But to have two standards for HD video is ridiculous. TVs don't display 9:16 video large enough to see what's there. And if you record video vertically, it shows up sideways on your TV UNLESS you edit it to rotate it. über dumb... It means content creators have to accommodate the same content twice...

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

fetzler wrote:

I too think that using the right tool for the job ... (show quote)

Check out reviews of the Lumix S5 Mark II and IIX. They have serious image stabilization that can, in many situations, negate the need for a tripod or a gimbal. They also accept ciné lenses including anamorphic lenses.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Urnst wrote:

B&H has what appear to be full featured video cameras for prices way less than typical still cameras? Why don't video makers use these instead of still cameras?

If you're truly serious about videography, you'll use a high end video camera; however, for most people the video off a stills camera is more than adequate.

I love the 8K video off my Sony A7R V. I shoot video when I'm going after lightning and fast moving targets then extract the best frame(s) for stills postprocessing. An 8k video frame gives me a 33MP image to work with.

bwa

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

larryepage wrote:

... If this communicates too much thought to you, let me just sum it up by saying that most video today is really pretty bad. The quality bar is set pretty low for pictures that move.

Think the same can be said for still photos too, rare to see anything beyond mediocrity anymore.