PDA

View Full Version : Video on MFT


Graham_of_Rainham
11th February 2015, 10:32 AM
Very simple:

Do you want Video on a mft camera *???

Ricoh
11th February 2015, 10:47 AM
I've voted, but I need to say most definitely, definitely, I do not want video on a stills camera. I hope there's no ambiguity here in what I've said. My English can be imprecise at times ;)

StephenL
11th February 2015, 10:50 AM
I've voted, but I need to say most definitely, definitely, I do not want video on a stills camera. I hope there's no ambiguity here in what I've said. My English can be imprecise at times ;)
I would agree, on the grounds that the coding required to include video induces bloatware. If you understand what I'm saying!

DerekW
11th February 2015, 11:34 AM
The bloatware in the code to support video is significantly lighter than the extra weight and space that a dedicated video camera takes up in the camera bag.

Also the video in the still camera is useful when you come across behavourial activity in the wild

snaarman
11th February 2015, 11:52 AM
I never use the video features on cameras.

If we must have a video button, can we re-purpose it for something useful, like DoF preview please?

Yes you can on Pens, No you can't on the GX7.

Harrumph...


Pete

StephenL
11th February 2015, 12:07 PM
The bloatware in the code to support video is significantly lighter than the extra weight and space that a dedicated video camera takes up in the camera bag.


Not if you haven't the remotest desire to take videos - ever!

Zuiko
11th February 2015, 12:22 PM
I'm firmly in the No Video camp, but I recognize that a lot of photographers do want it. To omit this feature from a camera would be very unwise from a commercial point of view as it would doubtless result in significantly fewer sales. Therefore I am voting Yes.

Ian
11th February 2015, 12:26 PM
I'm firmly in the No Video camp, but I recognize that a lot of photographers do want it. To omit this feature from a camera would be very unwise from a commercial point of view as it would doubtless result in significantly fewer sales. Therefore I am voting Yes.

Mr Sensible! :)

Ian

themosttogain
11th February 2015, 12:41 PM
People seem to overlook the obvious advantage to video on an SLR/mirrorless camera...the option to change lenses. If I had to carry around a seperate camcorder due to having no video option on my camera, I'd be restricted to the capabilities of the built in lens (unless I spend a fortune on a pro system). With my E-M1, if I want to film birds, I can bung my Bigma on it. If I want shallow DOF I stick my 45mm 1.8 on it. I can put my 35mm 1.7 toy lens on it and take advantage of the quirky image effect without having to add them in post processing. Or I can put any number of legacy lenses on and each one will look completely different to the next.

This flexibility combined with having it all built into the camera I generally have by my side every day, plus the excellent IBIS capabilities on Olympus makes the feature very important to me.

I can see the argument for having a dedicated 'photographers camera' with all the manual dials that you can dream of...but for me, the general range should definitely include video nowadays...It's not like it's going to save much in weight or size by not being there...so if you don't want it...don't use it. Don't suggest taking it away though because some of us like it!

I'm kinda sick that the EM-5 II is going to have all the video features that SHOULD be in the 'flagship' E-M1...being restricted to video standards that don't suit the technology in Europe is a pretty big oversight in my book and is the reason I don't do as much with the video function as I'd really like to. As I understand, it's more than capable of supporting the same range of video standards as the E-M5 II so every time a firmware update is announced that doesn't include an upgraded video function, I get increasingly frustrated!

benvendetta
11th February 2015, 12:42 PM
Video is a useful tool at times. With everyone and their dog having video in their cameras, Oly would be stupid not to have it. I voted a most definite yes even though I don't use it that much on my E-M1 and E-PL3.
It is more convenient having it built in than me having to carry my separate pocket Kodak HD camcorder or my GoPro although the latter is a bit more specialist.

linus1884
11th February 2015, 03:22 PM
I'm firmly in the No Video camp, but I recognize that a lot of photographers do want it. To omit this feature from a camera would be very unwise from a commercial point of view as it would doubtless result in significantly fewer sales. Therefore I am voting Yes.


Have to agree, so it is a yes.

Seems alot of film makers with little or no budget are now using DLSR's as a cheaper alternative to making short films,

a nice example here Near sighted

Ian
11th February 2015, 03:44 PM
I don't really see the point of this poll (really sorry Graham! :)).

Virtually all new still cameras include a video mode and the vast majority of customers expect one there even if they don't intend to use it.

Let's say you don't use JPEGs and prefer RAW instead? Should there be special version of the camera that is RAW only? The addition of video adds virtually nothing to the build cost as most of the electronics for video are already there for live view and other functions.

Let's be hypothetical and suggest that a camera company (any company!) produced a version of a camera without video - it would probably have to be more expensive to justify its commercial viability, or maybe the other cameras in the brand line up would have to be more expensive in order to subsidise it.

Let's be realistic guys!

Ian

StephenL
11th February 2015, 03:51 PM
I agree with you re the commercial aspect. But I answered the question from a personal point of view, not a commercial one. And personally I am concerned that including video functions in the firmware/software of a camera has the potential to introduce errors which may affect the stills side of things. Just my personal opinion - I don't expect others to agree.

tomphotofx
11th February 2015, 04:19 PM
Love the video option, even more so on the 4K video cameras available each screen produces an 8 MB image good enough for printing to a high standard too.*yes



Tom*chr

Graham_of_Rainham
11th February 2015, 04:24 PM
I'm firmly in the No Video camp, but I recognize that a lot of photographers do want it. To omit this feature from a camera would be very unwise from a commercial point of view as it would doubtless result in significantly fewer sales. Therefore I am voting Yes.

If having video, therefore selling more and keeping the unit price down, then it's worth having.

I wonder if there will ever come a day when you download a firmware with the features that you want *???

BigTom
11th February 2015, 05:14 PM
I love having video on my m43 bodies. I don't do anything commercial or arty with it, but my other hobby is fishkeeping and having the capacity to film my fish to show other hobbyists is great.

martyjward
11th February 2015, 05:51 PM
I'm a yes - not from a commercial aspect, from a usability aspect. As I already am carrying a high quality camera (e-m1) and it's lenses, my action camera, tablet, chargers, cables, batteries etc, there is an advantage in space & weight of not having to carry an additional, dedicated, video camera to film the kids frolicking on the beach. It's not like i'm after pro quality video just something for home movies.

That said it would be great if Olympus improved the quality of video on the E-M1, but maybe there is a hardware limitation that a firmware update can't overcome.

Ian
11th February 2015, 05:55 PM
If having video, therefore selling more and keeping the unit price down, then it's worth having.

I wonder if there will ever come a day when you download a firmware with the features that you want *???

Sony already do that with some of their cameras via their app-style marketplace for PlayMemories Camera Apps. I'm not personally convinced because they charge for some apps and some of these chargeable apps are for functionality that is standard on rival cameras.

Ian

Ian
11th February 2015, 05:57 PM
I'm a yes - not from a commercial aspect, from a usability aspect. As I already am carrying a high quality camera (e-m1) and it's lenses, my action camera, tablet, chargers, cables, batteries etc, there is an advantage in space & weight of not having to carry an additional, dedicated, video camera to film the kids frolicking on the beach. It's not like i'm after pro quality video just something for home movies.

That said it would be great if Olympus improved the quality of video on the E-M1, but maybe there is a hardware limitation that a firmware update can't overcome.

I think it is realistic to expect 24p and 25p frame rates to be added via a firmware update in time as this doesn't appear to necessarily be technically difficult. Whether Olympus will deliver it is another question but 50p and 60p require a hardware enhancement that only the E-M5 Mark II has.

Ian

Graham_of_Rainham
11th February 2015, 10:40 PM
Sony already do that with some of their cameras via their app-style marketplace for PlayMemories Camera Apps. I'm not personally convinced because they charge for some apps and some of these chargeable apps are for functionality that is standard on rival cameras.

Ian

That's interesting! I'm certain that I would not want to pay more for firmware with less functionality, but would be willing to buy extra functionality that was of use to me. Much like buying Studio 2 all those years ago.

Ricoh
11th February 2015, 10:49 PM
Is the technology required for still and video performance pulling in the same direction, or is video hindering still performance in any way?

Graham_of_Rainham
11th February 2015, 11:22 PM
Is the technology required for still and video performance pulling in the same direction, or is video hindering still performance in any way?

That's a very good question. Knowing so little about the video side of things and having very minor interest, I hadn't considered that point. :confused:

Ralph Harwood
11th February 2015, 11:36 PM
Hi there Everyone!

I have voted for keeping video, for one reason only - my family and friends all expect my camera to have it, and when they say "quick, quick you've got your camera - get a video of me doing this" I don't want to say "actually I can't with this camera, just let me get my phone out - oh, you've fallen off".

So whilst not my normal use for a camera, just occasionally that little red button does come into it's own. I'm hoping that someday given my family and friends antics it will pay for itself via "you've been framed".

Cheers,

Ralph.

latestarter
11th February 2015, 11:53 PM
I started out a couple of years ago being totally uninterested in having a video facility on any of my still cameras but since I've had the E-M1, I have used the facility a lot.

I really like having the movie and time lapse facilities and since starting to use it, I am enjoying it more and more.

I even went out and bought a Rode microphone and this coupled with the E-M1 is capable of producing some very good quality results indeed.

Horses for courses I know but it can be a very useful and creative option to have in camera.

Grumpy Hec
12th February 2015, 08:18 AM
Is the technology required for still and video performance pulling in the same direction, or is video hindering still performance in any way?

I do not know the answer to this but it is something I wonder about as well along with the fact that development time and money is spent on video which I personally would prefer is spent on stills.

Of course I fully acknowledge all the commercial arguments on this and in that respect the question is superfluous as not just the battle but the war, clearly rather overstating things here, are well both and truly lost.

As a customer I am assuming that the commercial realities of including video actually help to produce a better stills camera by virtue of greater sales. I do not have any evidence of that so assertions that this is the case have to be treated as theories only until proven.

OK I'm now moving on from this *yes

Hec

Ian
12th February 2015, 01:39 PM
Is the technology required for still and video performance pulling in the same direction, or is video hindering still performance in any way?

I don't think so. Video is fundamentally a sequence of lower resolution stills shot at a relatively fast frame rate.

Let me use the same analogy I used before, does shooting JPEGs hinder the production of RAW files?

There are so many better things to think about than this in my view. Video is here, it has no impact on stills quality, it's not going away and nobody is forcing you to use it.

I am just trying to imagine what the Olympus engineers who worked on the E-M5 Mark II would think (maybe even are thinking) about this discussion :(

Ian

art frames
12th February 2015, 02:13 PM
I am just trying to imagine what the Olympus engineers who worked on the E-M5 Mark II would think (maybe even are thinking) about this discussion :(

Ian

Ian, Perhaps it would cheer them up to hear that I have pre-ordered my E-M5 Mark II having seen for myself it's video capability. It is breathtaking.

At this moment on my other computer I am editing commercial video for the NHS which integrates footage from my Sony video camera and my E-M5 (the framerate issue is a bugger). I am just using the time as it renders out at 720p from my editor. So I am at work!

Video pays for my camera purchases (and food). So I care that Olympus have treated video seriously.

Why was the E-M5 Mark II breathtaking? We were shooting at 150 on the 40-150 handheld and it was though we had a very high cost rig or lightweight tripod. No wonder film-makers are preordering! Olympus lenses handheld on a video camera at proper frame rates, wow!

Peter

PS render just finished!

OM USer
12th February 2015, 02:31 PM
Why not drop all the ART filters as well, I'm sure there a bunch of people who don't use them. Oh and go back to a black and white sensor for its superior properties.

As Ian as pointed out "video is fundamentally a sequence of lower resolution stills shot at a relatively fast frame rate"... but only because the technology does not yet allow high resolution stills shot at a fast frame rate. Improvements in sensor readout speed for video will surely have a positive impact on stills performance in terms of buffering and focus tracking.

Zuiko
12th February 2015, 03:17 PM
I think if the Administrators could close this thread without causing offence they probably would. It seems any form of discussion on here that does not support the views of Olympus or the individual products is now frowned upon.

The thread was initiated by Graham, a long standing and very well respected member of the forum and has prompted a variety of interesting views and opinions regarding video being desirable or not in the latest cameras.

Whether Olympus engineers who worked on the E-M5 Mark II agree with the views expressed is irrelavent IMHO as this is supposed to be a forum to discuss and exchange views and opinions regarding Olympus E-System products and equipment and as such, is always going to attract a percentage of negative opinion on any particular subject. If we are now going to be encouraged to post only positive opinions regarding any subject which effects Olympus and its products then the forum has a very limited future ahead.

John

What makes you think we would want to close this thread just because some of the opinions posted differ from our own? And what makes you think we would care about any offence caused if we felt there was good reason to close a thread? You obviously feel strongly about being able to express your own opinion, but don't we mods and admins get to express our opinions too? :mad:

byegad
12th February 2015, 03:35 PM
I voted no, until I read post 16. The idea of video capability reducing unit cost through sales has made me change my mind and I'm a Yes now.

Panasonic seem to do video rather better than Olympus at the moment. Do we feel that their cameras are intrinsically worse than ours because of this? Certainly my second had Pany G6 gives great stills, I've never tried any of my cameras on video, but maybe I should give it a go?

Ian
12th February 2015, 04:00 PM
I think if the Administrators could close this thread without causing offence they probably would. It seems any form of discussion on here that does not support the views of Olympus or the individual products is now frowned upon.

The thread was initiated by Graham, a long standing and very well respected member of the forum and has prompted a variety of interesting views and opinions regarding video being desirable or not in the latest cameras.

Whether Olympus engineers who worked on the E-M5 Mark II agree with the views expressed is irrelavent IMHO as this is supposed to be a forum to discuss and exchange views and opinions regarding Olympus E-System products and equipment and as such, is always going to attract a percentage of negative opinion on any particular subject. If we are now going to be encouraged to post only positive opinions regarding any subject which effects Olympus and its products then the forum has a very limited future ahead.

John

This has nothing specifically to do with Olympus. I did use the example of the E-M5 Mark II because a) this is an Olympus-specific site and b) because Olympus has been under fire for years because of the relatively poor spec. of their Pen and OM-D video support. Now Olympus has delivered with a really decent video spec. on the E-M5 Mark II we have a thread that seems to pooh-pooh video full-stop. How can that be sensible?

But the overriding thing that concerns me about the comments made here are opinions that verge on the paranoid regarding video somehow compromising still quality. There is absolutely no evidence of this, none whatsoever. Image quality in digital cameras, regardless of brand, has improved steadily and has not been affected one iota by the introduction of video. Indeed, video is offering new options for stills shooting with 4K video supporting good quality 8MP stills from any frame in a video clip.

Anyone thinking I am having a go at Graham is stretching speculation to its limits. I have known Graham for nearly ten years,maybe more thinking about it, and he is an honourable and thoroughly interesting person and I have so must trust in him that last week I offered him a role as an addition to the moderator team, which he has accepted. I am sure he can cope with a difference of opinion from me as I am sure I could if he had a difference of opinion with me.

I haven't discussed this thread directly with Graham yet but I do wonder if he meant to ask if people here wanted cameras to have a video mode at all. Instead maybe he meant to ask 'Do you use the video mode'? I will ask and let you know.

Finally, people who use this forum should be aware that we take a very hands-off attitude to activities here compared to other forums. I am really sorry if my interest and concern at the direction some threads can sometimes head in leads to contributions from me which get interpreted negatively.

Ian

Zuiko
12th February 2015, 04:12 PM
John, I did not suggest that the thread would be closed because of a difference of opinion to your own. Ian has tried twice to pour cold water on the thread and the topic in question, in his last post stating he wondered what Olympus engineers would think of the subject. Given recent comments relating to posts discussing alternative brands etc., and Olympus funding of the forum, I feel my comment was justified. As you rightly say..... we all have opinions, even me :D

John

Yes, Ian has tried to "pour cold water" on this thread, because he belives it, or at least some of the replies, are irrelevant and unhelpfull - that is his opinion! To wonder what Olympus engineers would make of it (considering all the improvements and new features that they have built into the E-M5II, including improved video capability) is a valid point. But he hasn't even hinted at closing the thread, as you suggest.

My opinion is that video is as useful to me as an ash tray on a motorbike and my camera is set up so that the only way of accessing video is via the mode dial. However, there must be a reason why every single mainstream camera on the market has video and that reason is that customers demand and expect it. Not all customers, but enough for it to be a commercial neccessity. To omit video from a new model may well attract a handful of anti-video zealots, but it would almost certainly deter many thousands of potential customers from buying it.

I seem to remember with the old E-System DSLRs that many people complained that Olympus were slow to incorporate video when many other manufacturers were already doing it, so it appears that they cannot win. Despite my own singular lack of interest in video, I rather think that the discussion we are having should not be about the inclusion of video, but why we haven't already got 4K. On that note maybe we should all get back to the original debate, only don't expect Ian and me not to have our own opinions!

latestarter
12th February 2015, 04:16 PM
I've never tried any of my cameras on video, but maybe I should give it a go?

I only started to use the video facility on the E-M1 last year and it opens such creative possibilities I am now hooked on the feature.

Some of my clips are only 10 or 20 seconds others much longer but it is really enjoyable and quite addictive. I have been experimenting with the time lapse facility and again it opens up huge creative possibilities.

Three years ago, I wasn't interested in video capabilities but now, having tried it, I am a convert and when the time comes to upgrade, I would not consider a high end camera without it.

OM USer
12th February 2015, 04:16 PM
Well done Graham on earning your new responsabilities.

Ian
12th February 2015, 04:20 PM
I only started to use the video facility on the E-M1 last year and it opens such creative possibilities I am now hooked on the feature.

Some of my clips are only 10 or 20 seconds others much longer but it is really enjoyable and quite addictive. I have been experimenting with the time lapse facility and again it opens up huge creative possibilities.

Three years ago, I wasn't interested in video capabilities but now, having tried it, I am a convert

It's generally recommended that most clips should be kept short and 10-20 seconds seems about spot on.

Ian

StephenL
12th February 2015, 04:21 PM
My take on the inclusion of a video function is not that it has reduced quality of stills. It hasn't (to my knowledge) and indeed technically it has probably actually improved quality.

No, my concern harks back to my days in IT. Anyone who has worked in that industry must realise that the bigger and more complex the code, the more chance there is of errors being introduced. Witness Microsoft Windows or Apple OSX. I'm not saying there are any such errors of this nature at the moment, just that the risk is surely increased.

That's why, in an ideal and uncommercial world, I would prefer my cameras to not have that function. But we don't live in such a world, so the question is academic.

PS congratulations, Graham!

Zuiko
12th February 2015, 04:29 PM
My take on the inclusion of a video function is not that it has reduced quality of stills. It hasn't (to my knowledge) and indeed technically it has probably actually improved quality.

No, my concern harks back to my days in IT. Anyone who has worked in that industry must realise that the bigger and more complex the code, the more chance there is of errors being introduced. Witness Microsoft Windows or Apple OSX. I'm not saying there are any such errors of this nature at the moment, just that the risk is surely increased.

That's why, in an ideal and uncommercial world, I would prefer my cameras to not have that function. But we don't live in such a world, so the question is academic.

PS congratulations, Graham!

I am sure you are right about errors creeping in due to complexity (and not just due to video). How often do we see the introduction of a new camera (by all manufacturers, not just Olympus) swiftly followed by a firmware fix?

Ian
12th February 2015, 04:37 PM
My take on the inclusion of a video function is not that it has reduced quality of stills. It hasn't (to my knowledge) and indeed technically it has probably actually improved quality.

No, my concern harks back to my days in IT. Anyone who has worked in that industry must realise that the bigger and more complex the code, the more chance there is of errors being introduced. Witness Microsoft Windows or Apple OSX. I'm not saying there are any such errors of this nature at the moment, just that the risk is surely increased.

That's why, in an ideal and uncommercial world, I would prefer my cameras to not have that function. But we don't live in such a world, so the question is academic.

PS congratulations, Graham!

I can certainly understand that as I was using and building computers from the early 80s. I used to know someone who was a software engineer with experience in hardware design and he had an Olympus E-1. He refused to remove the memory card in his camera because he was frightened of corrupting it in the process. But the camera was designed to work this way and while there is always a risk, albeit remote, when inserting and removing a memory card getting to the point where you don't trust it is a bit extreme.

I like to think I have my ear pretty close to the ground when it comes to camera industry anecdotes and I have never ever heard of any aspect of video functionality in a camera compromising reliability or still image quality, which is why the fears of some in these directions in this thread has perplexed me. I have to be true to myself which is why I have commented here - I certainly don't mean to lambast those who have these fears, but I am a little frustrated that my reassurances don't seem to have had the desired effect.

Modern cameras today, regardless of brand, are immensely complex both from a software and a hardware point of view. It may be a miracle that they work at all but they do and in the most part they work extremely reliably and effectively and when they don't, fixes usually appear eventually.

Ian

Ricoh
12th February 2015, 04:47 PM
Is the technology required for still and video performance pulling in the same direction, or is video hindering still performance in any way?

I was only asking a question, without hint of paranoia. It wasn't brand specific either, just a generalisation.

crimbo
12th February 2015, 04:50 PM
...
Let's be hypothetical and suggest that a camera company (any company!) produced a version of a camera without video - it would probably have to be more expensive to justify its commercial viability, or maybe the other cameras in the brand line up would have to be more expensive in order to subsidise it.

Let's be realistic guys!

Ian

This may have been answered already...Sigma with their Quattro DP1-3 cameras...a niche but a very interesting niche

I use the video on mFT for the music videos I occasionally record
Video is here to stay

StephenL
12th February 2015, 04:50 PM
My job in IT latterly was to be paranoid and identify potential risk areas, however small. That has stayed with me. I am a natural doubter!

Wee man
12th February 2015, 04:51 PM
Never used the video on any of my Olympus cameras maybe because I am a bit of a Luddite! Congrats Graham may you have a long and smooth ride in your new post.

Ricoh
12th February 2015, 04:55 PM
My job in aerospace is to question, to probe, to understand. Statements like 'I believe it's ok' would get a swift kick in the whatnots!

latestarter
12th February 2015, 06:09 PM
Is there any evidence anywhere to support the "fear" that video may degrade stills image quality?

I still use my DSLR occasionally and dip into the forums of other brands but I don't see any issues or concerns being reported there. In fact they celebrate the video facility on their cameras by commenting on which Hollywood films and TV shows use their cameras for production purposes.

IMDB actually list which films and TV programmes use which cameras in their production and hopefully we will see Oly entering the list of high performing video cameras in the credits too.

Video may be a facility that some do not or will not use but then again we only use 4 of the 16 programmes on our washing machine.

Ricoh
12th February 2015, 06:18 PM
Has anyone expressed 'fear'?

latestarter
12th February 2015, 06:24 PM
Has anyone expressed 'fear'?

Is there any basis for such "concern", "paranoia" or "doubt"?

Like you I prefer some genuine basis to raising such doubts other than what one person may "think"may be a negative quality about a product with a "potential" to go wrong.

Zuiko
13th February 2015, 07:58 AM
I wonder if there is a video forum in which they are praising the improvements in the E-M5 but lamenting the fact that it also has a "useless" stills feature? :D

art frames
13th February 2015, 08:48 AM
I wonder if there is a video forum in which they are praising the improvements in the E-M5 but lamenting the fact that it also has a "useless" stills feature? :D

On most video forums they mostly are looking at quite detailed aspects of video performance.

Try this one which is about halfway through the thread (so after it was announced and with some filmmakers sharing what they had shot with loaned cameras)

http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/7938-637-megapixel-raw-with-the-e-m5-ii-and-finally-24p-at-77mbit/?page=4

Interesting that some are looking to trade up from the EM1.

Being able to shoot in flat profile, and without any compression is important and an issue with Olympus. The IS system allowing run and gun operating without a steadying rig is a real plus. So mixed reviews but mostly impressed.

They don't tend to talk about 'stills' as they are filmmakers. Most cameramen I work with tend to be spending huge amounts on gear and are incredibly knowledgeable (to me).

Peter

Rawcoll
13th February 2015, 09:05 AM
The trouble with any survey is that it is likely to get responses from a particular demographic, so ultimately it comes down to what it is intended for. My guess is that folk who log on to this forum will be inclined to not desire video. That's OK, and it will be interesting to know the outcome. But, if Olympus wants to know, it has got to find out what photographers from all walks of life would like, not just this "select" band. Whether we like it or not, there are I think many out there who would take the inclusion of video seriously, and that is a market that other camera brands are targetting. So it comes down to whether Olympus can afford not to compete.

Me? well I never had any interest in video until the grandchildren came along, and then I found it useful during a holiday in Iceland, trying to record the scale of the waterfalls and bubbling mud pools. And then, of course, there's all that extra software you can buy and get to grips with :rolleyes:. So you don't know until you try! It has its place in my world, but not to any serious extent. A more useful feature to have, in my view, than all those gimmicky "art filters", though YVMD!

Zuiko
13th February 2015, 09:10 AM
On most video forums they mostly are looking at quite detailed aspects of video performance.

Try this one which is about halfway through the thread (so after it was announced and with some filmmakers sharing what they had shot with loaned cameras)

http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/7938-637-megapixel-raw-with-the-e-m5-ii-and-finally-24p-at-77mbit/?page=4

Interesting that some are looking to trade up from the EM1.

Being able to shoot in flat profile, and without any compression is important and an issue with Olympus. The IS system allowing run and gun operating without a steadying rig is a real plus. So mixed reviews but mostly impressed.

They don't tend to talk about 'stills' as they are filmmakers. Most cameramen I work with tend to be spending huge amounts on gear and are incredibly knowledgeable (to me).

Peter

Thanks for the link, Peter. It's clear (as I suspected) that there are a lot of potential customers who have video as a main priority and are at least considering Olympus. No signs of a video v stills debate, though. *chr

Zuiko
13th February 2015, 09:12 AM
The trouble with any survey is that it is likely to get responses from a particular demographic, so ultimately it comes down to what it is intended for. My guess is that folk who log on to this forum will be inclined to not desire video. That's OK, and it will be interesting to know the outcome. But, if Olympus wants to know, it has got to find out what photographers from all walks of life would like, not just this "select" band. Whether we like it or not, there are I think many out there who would take the inclusion of video seriously, and that is a market that other camera brands are targetting. So it comes down to whether Olympus can afford not to compete.

Me? well I never had any interest in video until the grandchildren came along, and then I found it useful during a holiday in Iceland, trying to record the scale of the waterfalls and bubbling mud pools. And then, of course, there's all that extra software you can buy and get to grips with :rolleyes:. So you don't know until you try! It has its place in my world, but not to any serious extent. A more useful feature to have, in my view, than all those gimmicky "art filters", though YVMD!

I'd forgotten about art filters - does my E-M5 have them? :D

StephenL
13th February 2015, 09:29 AM
I'd forgotten about art filters - does my E-M5 have them? :D
At the risk of starting WW3, I think most folk find them, try them for a bit, then forget them. And that's on all makes!

Ian
13th February 2015, 09:36 AM
At the risk of starting WW3, I think most folk find them, try them for a bit, then forget them. And that's on all makes!

Personally, I don't use Art Filters that much, but there really are lots of people I know, including professionals, that use them all the time.

Ian

andym
13th February 2015, 09:38 AM
If I want to use an Art filter which isn't very often I'll apply it in Viewer 3 afterwards.

StephenL
13th February 2015, 09:40 AM
Personally, I don't use Art Filters that much, but there really are lots of people I know, including professionals, that use them all the time.

Ian

Out of interest, which are the most popular ones which are regularly used? I would suspect the high-key?

latestarter
13th February 2015, 09:59 AM
Personally, I don't use Art Filters that much, but there really are lots of people I know, including professionals, that use them all the time.

Ian

They are simply another creative "in camera" option in the right hands and you can vary the results to suit the effect you want to experiment with.

If you shoot Raw + jpeg you can see the impact immediately.

They are really useful when paired with the right subject. The same effect, or very similar can be created using other software but there are some very interesting and varied results to be found in "Art Filters".

Ian
13th February 2015, 10:16 AM
Out of interest, which are the most popular ones which are regularly used? I would suspect the high-key?

Dramatic tone (HDR) and grainy black and white are the ones I see used the most, as well as the Instagram-style funky border.

And to be fair the Olympus implementation (which was practically the first) is quite powerful and in later cameras you can to a degree combine filters and use them with interesting effects in video modes.

Ian

birdboy
13th February 2015, 10:18 AM
The answer to questions like do you want video on a mft camera should always be qualified by asking what do you want to use the camera for.

I love the video feature and the more I use it the better I want it to be i.e just like a stills camera.

My use is purely hobby taking memories of holidays, family, motor sport, nature and places we visit. I like to put together a DVD of these events and a short video can really add to aide the memory of such times.

When I first brought into the e system in 2008 with the E3 I definitely did not want video, it swallowed up space on the memory card and was of low resolution. I had a tape camcorder for video where I needed it. Along comes bigger more affordable memory cards better HD video all onboard my camera and I can change lenses heaven:).

Do those who do not want video realise just how much much a shapshot in time can be enhanced by sound. Yes with the video function you now get high quality sound as well:) Adding sound to a video significantly adds to visual impact. Try watching the opening scene to Star Wars without sound.

I would encourage those that do not use video to think about those times when video and stills can complement each other. To take a still picture of live steam is a millisecond snapshot of time which can give the viewer a wonderful sense of that time. That can be complemented by a video of the live steam seeing a crank doing full revolutions and the sound of the steam hissing and whooshing as the mechanical linkage does its business. To me that's gorgeous sights and sounds. A short clip of a waterfull and the sound of the water falling as well as the visual impact.

All I can say is those that are not experimenting with video do not know what they are missing.

The bottom line which I am sure the manufactures realise is when I next upgrade my DSLR if it doesn't have video I would not buy it, and I am sure I not in the minority on this .

Ian
13th February 2015, 10:20 AM
If I want to use an Art filter which isn't very often I'll apply it in Viewer 3 afterwards.

Indeed, although I think for many the ability to compose with Art Filters active is very important. It's handy to know that you can apply (to RAW files) them later of course.

Ian

Ian
13th February 2015, 10:27 AM
I would just like to emphasise that to not want to use video is absolutely fine by me. It's your choice and I respect that. Some people in this camp may very well discover they find video useful some time in the future and others will not - which is completely normal. I certainly have no intention of badgering those who don't to try it. On the other hand my previous points in this thread were that a) if you don't want to use video then you don't have to and b) it will have no impact on your use of the camera for stills and I stand by that.

Ian

DerekW
13th February 2015, 10:37 AM
Video was initially added to DSLR cameras to keep the DSLR camera in the press reporter's hand. So that one person with one bit of kit could supply still pictures for the hardcopy newspaper and movie for the web version of the newspaper.

Otherwise the simplicity in number of items to carry would mean that the iPhone would be the default reporters tool. I have been filmed by a reporter from the local rag, using an smartphone to get my opinion on a local building plan, the filmed reports appear on the rags web site, the voice recording used to collect opinions for transcribing for print use and text on the web..

If you look at the adverts for the RED camera you will see a movie camera moving into the still camera space see:

http://www.red.com/shot-on-red/photography

The size of the basic RED camera is similar to the EM1, however the accessories could require a small truck to move them.

Graham_of_Rainham
13th February 2015, 11:05 AM
<snip>Some people ... may very well discover they find video useful some time in the future<snip>Ian

When we had our own children, video cameras were very expensive, big, heavy things that were as much trouble as the children themselves... ;)

Having become a grand father, I find myself recording short "movies" on the iPhone, as the little chap discovers the latest "trick". Of course these now go on the Cloud for the rest of the family to see and enjoy.

I've recorded a very small number on my compacts but have never used the main cameras.

Being an "experimenter" I have done a few time-lapse sequences and I expect with the new capabilities will do several more. Certainly will be trying out the full capabilities of the new cameras, when I get my hands on one, and have even purchased my first HDMI Cable to view the results... :cool:

latestarter
13th February 2015, 11:20 AM
All I can say is those that are not experimenting with video do not know what they are missing.

The bottom line which I am sure the manufactures realise is when I next upgrade my DSLR if it doesn't have video I would not buy it, and I am sure I not in the minority on this .

Nail - head - firmly struck

Ricoh
13th February 2015, 11:45 AM
I think the ayes have it.
Amen.

Zuiko
13th February 2015, 12:12 PM
I suppose the bottom line is that with cameras like Olympus that are so customisable, unwanted features need not get in the way because dedicated buttons can usually be configured to perform another purpose.

Naughty Nigel
13th February 2015, 01:42 PM
Not everyone uses their cameras purely for leisure!

I primarily use my cameras for work, recording and documenting paintwork issues and corrosion on large yachts.

Having the ability to take high quality video, and make video notes is essential to me, so I voted yes.

For what it's worth, Canon used to provide a handy utility where a 30 second audio recording could be attached to still images, allowing time to provide a description and location if required. This was immensely helpful to me as I often take several hundred images when conducting a survey, many of them close-up, so it can be difficult working out where they were taken later.

Bikie John
13th February 2015, 02:50 PM
It has been very interesting to read all these opinions, specially from those who like having video capability.

My own view is similar to Ricoh's and Hec's. I don't feel any need for it but that is no reason not to include it, specially if the market demands it. However I am worried that it may detract from the performance of the camera as a stills machine for all sorts of reasons. Most have already been discussed - more complexity and therefore higher probability of problems, R&D money going on video when it could have gone on stills etc. etc. But I think there are some subtle effects going on as well.

As an example, the 12-50 zoom which was introduced with the E-M5 is a nice lens, if rather slow. However it has a power zoom, which I think was introduced for video use. I could never get on with it - and for quite a while it was the only weathersealed Micro-4/3 lens available. Since the E-M5 didn't play very nicely with Big-4/3 lenses it was the only choice. So here is a concrete example of the stills photographer's experience being made worse by the camera accommodating the requirements of video.

I am pleased that so many people are finding video useful - and to be honest I am a little surprised at the volume of support that we have seen in this thread. I will probably always have some reservations but will just have to move with the times and get used to it.

John

OM USer
13th February 2015, 02:53 PM
Do I remember correctly a video clip showing an Olympus PR chap stating that video (perhaps even 4K) video is something they are looking to drastically improve?

How about the ability to shoot moving gifs of short duration?

The extra video based connections on the E-M5II grip are nice. I've always thought that the video grip on the panasonic was a bit over the top as it looks to be heavier than the camera and rather cumbersome. I'd rather see a tethering cable to a belt clip box of gizmos to keep the camera light and handheld.

The link to the video forum had a post about shooting with legacy zoom lenses and pointed out that you had to set the focal length for stabilisation. I have often thought that the lens adatpers should have a "lens focal length stabilisation" ring so you can quickly dial in the focal length if you swap legacy lenses or zoom a legacy zoom lens.

Ian
13th February 2015, 03:06 PM
I have often thought that the lens adatpers should have a "lens focal length stabilisation" ring so you can quickly dial in the focal length if you swap legacy lenses or zoom a legacy zoom lens.

That's quite a good idea. :)

Ian

Graham_of_Rainham
13th February 2015, 04:31 PM
I have often thought that the lens adatpers should have a "lens focal length stabilisation" ring so you can quickly dial in the focal length if you swap legacy lenses or zoom a legacy zoom lens.

That's quite a good idea. :)

Ian

A control ring around the lens mount (XZ/OM style) would be ideal for this adjustment.

Such a control ring would be ideal for filter fade or transitions. *idea

As you can guess, having looked at the new camera specs on video, I'm seeing a whole new set of possibilities. :cool:

Mdb2
22nd February 2015, 09:41 AM
Hi all, this is to me at this point in my photographic time is interesting to say the least. Up until this week I have never used video on any of my canon cameras, or Olympus em1. ( just changing to olympus but keeping my canon birding gear for BIF) I was out birding this week and was near enough to capture a pair of grebes mating, although I took several hundred shots on my 7D sigma 500 prime the quality of the stills was excellent. It still could not convey with stills the courtship ritual ( head shaking And weed presenting) being a little frustrated I had a eureka moment of discovery and used the video part of the 7D although I had never ever used video before i was quite pleased, the message did come over in video. To those more practised than myself the short videos I took would they probably be not to impressed. They are a little shaky and was not even sure were the switch was etc etc. I now over time will try to edit the video for a better result and will in future be less stringent with myself and embrace this new found mode. So if you haven't guessed, So my vote is yes. Now I will have to find a used light-weight directional mike. More weight to carry!
Kind regards mike

Graham_of_Rainham
22nd February 2015, 10:57 AM
Hi all, this is to me at this point in my photographic time is interesting to say the least. Up until this week I have never used video on any of my canon cameras, or Olympus em1. ( just changing to olympus but keeping my canon birding gear for BIF) I was out birding this week and was near enough to capture a pair of grebes mating, although I took several hundred shots on my 7D sigma 500 prime the quality of the stills was excellent. It still could not convey with stills the courtship ritual ( head shaking And weed presenting) being a little frustrated I had a eureka moment of discovery and used the video part of the 7D although I had never ever used video before i was quite pleased, the message did come over in video. To those more practised than myself the short videos I took would they probably be not to impressed. They are a little shaky and was not even sure were the switch was etc etc. I now over time will try to edit the video for a better result and will in future be less stringent with myself and embrace this new found mode. So if you haven't guessed, So my vote is yes. Now I will have to find a used light-weight directional mike. More weight to carry!
Kind regards mike

By far the best reason, I have heard, for having video capability on any camera.

From what I have heard of the IS on the new E-M5 MkII this type of capture would be easier and inherently better quality. The skill of operator will always remain the biggest influence, of course, but as the technology improves, more people will see the benefits.

latestarter
22nd February 2015, 02:37 PM
I had a eureka moment of discovery and used the video part of the 7D although I had never ever used video before i was quite pleased, the message did come over in video.
Kind regards mike

I am on the same journey as you with video both with the 7D and E-M1. It can be great fun but another learning curve for me.

With that many still shots of the grebes, it would be worth making a time lapse clip as well. Too many variables to go into here but you can make more use of that many stills and create a great movie clip as well.

If you have enough shots of the head shaking and weed presenting, this motion will clearly come across in the time lapse compilation.

I did a similar thing with the Hoegh Osaka when she was grounded in the Solent being circled by tugs and the police boats chasing off the nosey parkers who deliberately sailed inside the exclusion zone to get a better look.

I would not buy a camera now without the video facility.

On the microphone front - I bought a Rode VideoMic Pro for the Oly E-M1. It weighs 85 grammes and performs superbly. The battery lasts over 70 hours. It also fits perfectly inside a Carte D'or ice cream container for added waterproof protection when travelling.

Mdb2
22nd February 2015, 02:40 PM
Thankyou Graham.
The downside which I touched on about using video is that it could now be even more costlier and weighty than just stills! I took 3 short clips but was surprised at no sound being taken? Will have to look this up in the manual of the 7d and as the grebes were quite close I will try my EM1 with 40-150 pro lens and converter, the upside is it does keep the old grey matter working.
Kind regards Mike

Mdb2
22nd February 2015, 02:44 PM
Hello latestarter, not sure if that would work in my case the shots were not all sequential, ie at 8 FPs. however I do know what your on about, more food for thought.
Kind regards mike

Ricoh
16th March 2015, 09:42 AM
When the thread was active I voted to reflect my view about video on stills cameras, which differed from the majority who voted in favour (not as though we're going to change the world whatever the outcome).
I've just been reading a review on the Nikon DF, it's obvious their marketing people didn't see a need for video on a pro full frame camera. That's interesting, don't remember them canvassing my opinion!
The retro styling is similar to the Olympus OMD's, but I believe Olympus opted for the retro styling long before their competitor.
An interesting development in terms of cameras, and how the marketing departments wish them to be perceived.