Zim
Veteran
I'd like a new camera but I'm happy with what I have so I'll let everyone else "test" the new cameras!
If Nikon fails...
- Thread starter Uwe Lansing
- Start date
Yea but if the rumored d300s specs are right, it will be the same video implementation as the d90. If that's what happens, I think I'll probably jump ship too.
http://nikonrumors.com/2009/05/28/nikon-d300s-specs.aspx
http://nikonrumors.com/2009/05/28/nikon-d300s-specs.aspx
Zim
Veteran
For me it will depend on which takes the best picture, which will be Nikon. If I can get some good HD video without a lot of hassle that would be great.
I don't know why people expect much from Nikon. You're talking about a company whose main revenue comes from making still imaging equipment. I doubt the d-movie feature added any significant revenue to their bottom line. In order for them to make any in roads into the movie industry, they will have to pour heavy investment into future development which is risky considering Canon and Panasonic are fully well developed in these areas. This market will always belong to Panasonic and Canon. Panasonic investing in the GH1 is just a counter to the D90 and 5D in order to protect their lucrative prosumer market. Canon appears as the only company that stands to benefit significantly (long term) from a Video DLSR market. In the end, I suspect Nikon will give up the D-movie feature all together or leave it as it stands with a few tweaks in resolution and control.
Panasonic may bail out of the DSLR market and focus on their prosumer camcorders as competition from Sony, Olympus, Kodak, Pentax and the smaller still imaging outfits heats up. With that said, Nikon has got serious competition in the SLR business more than ever. However, it's the still photography market that will bail them out, and they probably know it. Therefore, you guys shouldn't expect Nikon to follow up with their d-movie mode as much as Canon is doing cos they've got too much on their plate to worry about. If anything, you guys should be around the Canon camp fire. Thats where the action is going to be in the future. Canon has already proved that by providing quick updates to their 5D video feature; it means they're ready to go after this market aggreesively after loosing out to Panasonic in the past few years in the prosumer market.
Panasonic may bail out of the DSLR market and focus on their prosumer camcorders as competition from Sony, Olympus, Kodak, Pentax and the smaller still imaging outfits heats up. With that said, Nikon has got serious competition in the SLR business more than ever. However, it's the still photography market that will bail them out, and they probably know it. Therefore, you guys shouldn't expect Nikon to follow up with their d-movie mode as much as Canon is doing cos they've got too much on their plate to worry about. If anything, you guys should be around the Canon camp fire. Thats where the action is going to be in the future. Canon has already proved that by providing quick updates to their 5D video feature; it means they're ready to go after this market aggreesively after loosing out to Panasonic in the past few years in the prosumer market.
Yep, I too don't put much credence in the argument that Nikon has "no market to protect" in regards to developping more professional implementations of video in their DSLRs. Sure, they have no market, but they also have no heritage in video, nor much interest. My bet is that they will continue to implement D90 like video specs in all their D300s/D400 updates.
Will that keep me from buying Nikon cameras? No. I really like em for stills, and I have tons of Nikon AF lenses.
Will that keep me from buying Nikon cameras? No. I really like em for stills, and I have tons of Nikon AF lenses.
Zim
Veteran
If they could care less about video then why did they even bother to do it? In this day and age it is important to have both. They are not marketing the D-Movie for nothing. It is not just a half-ass idea someone at Nikon came up with.
Having a camera that can deliver great video along with great still photography would be awesome and I look for Nikon to bring out something. Someday! The GH1 is not going make any in roads into the movie industry either. But both will give indie filmmakers some nice tools.
Having a camera that can deliver great video along with great still photography would be awesome and I look for Nikon to bring out something. Someday! The GH1 is not going make any in roads into the movie industry either. But both will give indie filmmakers some nice tools.
Uwe Lansing
Veteran
Hopefully not, but slowly i suspect that could be right.
you're mistaken if you think still photographers want to shoot only stills these days, and a lot of people i've talked to who previously had both a still and a video camera are looking to get both in one, even those who never owned an slr before. it's not about the "movie industry". so why do we still hope for better controls and less jello, aren't these still photographers happy as long as it looks better than their cell phone video? i doubt it actually, and nikon knows that.
/matt
Robert Altman
Active member
I think that if the first crop of video capable dSLRs has taught us anything, it is that adding video to the existing technology is NOT that hard. As a quick 'afterthought' even the lowly d90 can produce great video images.
So, from the perspective of Nikon, a relatively small investment in improving the video side of their dSLRs can provide a major payoff. The consumer market definitely wants to take a single camera on their next vacation that can do capable stills and video. However, this market segment will not push Nikon (or Canon) to improve the video side to true high end quality. That will come from the pro still shooters who are now being pressed by their newspapers, etc. to produce video. That crowd has the ear of Nikon and Canon, and needs 'broadcast quality' video.
I am sure that Nikon already has the engineers on board that can improve their compression codecs and improve the CMOS readout speeds to reduce jello. The underlying sensor quality and lens quality is already there. It cannot hurt that for Nikon no video division is looking over it's shoulder and worrying about a still camera that will hurt a huge part of their business. Canon HAS to be concerned about this.
So, from the perspective of Nikon, a relatively small investment in improving the video side of their dSLRs can provide a major payoff. The consumer market definitely wants to take a single camera on their next vacation that can do capable stills and video. However, this market segment will not push Nikon (or Canon) to improve the video side to true high end quality. That will come from the pro still shooters who are now being pressed by their newspapers, etc. to produce video. That crowd has the ear of Nikon and Canon, and needs 'broadcast quality' video.
I am sure that Nikon already has the engineers on board that can improve their compression codecs and improve the CMOS readout speeds to reduce jello. The underlying sensor quality and lens quality is already there. It cannot hurt that for Nikon no video division is looking over it's shoulder and worrying about a still camera that will hurt a huge part of their business. Canon HAS to be concerned about this.
maybe not my mother, but the hv20/dvx100/well/d90 amateurs, not a small market these days. a lot of people shoot things like vacation and skateboarding footage just for fun but want good quality and controls. nobody's talking about "true high end" either, are we? manual controls, less jello and higher bitrate would be fine. raw recording, 4k, variable frame rate and so on would be very nice too, but not likely, for the reasons you mention.
/matt
Robert Altman
Active member
My point is that most consumers (not the crowd on these forums) are fairly forgiving of some pretty big picture flaws. I am amazed at the terrible compression artifacts that I see routinely in sporting events on 'HD' cable channels. Terrible blockiness and loss of definition that when I point out to others they don't notice or care. A lot of HD cable makes the d90 not look too bad--and that is why the d90 is a very useable tool for many of today's delivery media.
Of the d90 flaws a few should be easy to fix. Manual controls--no brainer. Better compression--if they just bumped up the VBR quality setting (at the expense of larger files which most of us would accept) the compression issues would lessen. Jello--I bet the biggest problem, as this may require reworking the CMOS sensor electronics. Better subsampling--probably easy to do within the current ASIC/CPU horsepower that already exists in the camera. If Nikon has 24MB dSLR images that are being processed at 5fps, then HD video at 24fps should be manageable I would think (though those high-end cameras likely have better processing chips than the d90)!
Of the d90 flaws a few should be easy to fix. Manual controls--no brainer. Better compression--if they just bumped up the VBR quality setting (at the expense of larger files which most of us would accept) the compression issues would lessen. Jello--I bet the biggest problem, as this may require reworking the CMOS sensor electronics. Better subsampling--probably easy to do within the current ASIC/CPU horsepower that already exists in the camera. If Nikon has 24MB dSLR images that are being processed at 5fps, then HD video at 24fps should be manageable I would think (though those high-end cameras likely have better processing chips than the d90)!
consumers of what? tv sets? i thought we were talking about people who are in the market for an slr?
/matt
yeah but i don't think the difference will be as dramatic as people think, the image is already sub par due to bad subsampling, debayer and noise reduction.
assuming that the sensor can be sampled at full res 24 times per second, but sure, the scaling from 800 to 720 lines could be done much better.
/matt
Maybe I'm unique but the biggest problem with my d90 from my perspective is the five minute recording limitation. The overheating problem is huge. I can't persuade my corporate clients to use a d90 in an interview setting because if their takes run over 5 minutes, they don't want to be cut off. They also want to be able to look over my shoulder and watch the LCD without overheating worries.
those are two different issues. i very rarely have to roll for more than five minutes, and if i do it's very easy to just press rec again, but it would definitely be nice to be able to stay in live view all the time, to preserve the auto settings between takes if they don't fix that, as well as for clients who want to see a monitor, as you mention.
btw i've shot corporate stuff on film for many years and nobody ever complained when we yelled roll out every four minutes and waited for a mag change. just tell them the situation.
/matt
These are corporate execs who want more than anything to be a one take wonder. They are accustomed to standard videotaping. I find the five minute limitation a deal breaker. Also, while I didn't mean to imply they are the same issue, I seem to remember the reason for the five minute cap being sensor overheating.
But yea, they love the concept of available light in their office, a film look and my being able to pack everything I need into a carry on back pack. It's almost a solution to the "good, fast, cheap" conundrum...almost.
Last edited:
i've heard that too, but there's nothing stopping you from just staying in live view until it overheats, which it does just as quickly even if you're not recording. it would make more sense to limit the live view time. since the recording time is longer at a lower res even though i assume it overheats as easily i think it has something to do with file sizes, buffers or something like that. or maybe simply to avoid being taxed as a video camera, which has been suggested and doesn't sound unreasonable.
/matt