PDA

View Full Version : new oly dslr with hd video....


alexs
6th January 2010, 09:35 PM
you think the next oly dslr will have it? They obviously have the technology with the pen..So will it be in the next model..?
Unlike some I think it is the way forward...So I'm hoping they do, although It will probably cost a fortune:D
alex

Zuiko
6th January 2010, 09:48 PM
you think the next oly dslr will have it? They obviously have the technology with the pen..So will it be in the next model..?
Unlike some I think it is the way forward...So I'm hoping they do, although It will probably cost a fortune:D
alex

I think you're right, Alex, it is the way forward - the market demands it. Can't say I'm happy about it, though - I hate the thought of paying a huge premium for something I don't want and am never likely to use! :(

jonesy
6th January 2010, 09:52 PM
I'm afraid I'm of the belief that if you want a video camera, you buy a video camera, and dont take photos with it, and if you want a stills camera, you buy a stills camera. I personally am glad the Oly doesnt have video capture :)

sapper
6th January 2010, 10:20 PM
I'm afraid I'm of the belief that if you want a video camera, you buy a video camera, and dont take photos with it, and if you want a stills camera, you buy a stills camera. I personally am glad the Oly doesnt have video capture :)

I did think the same till I saw a presentation by Andy Rouse, wildlife photographer. His pics are spectacular and included video shot on a DSLR, not Oly, one of the other names.
But, the video did enhance the presentation.

Agree that it seems a shame to pay for something that is not needed, probably some models will not have the video capacity.

photo_owl
6th January 2010, 11:54 PM
I too think it inevitable.

On balance I'm more worried about any potential negative impact through compromise than price.

Whilst I have never shot video on any of my (video enabled) phones and have precisely 3 minutes from 5 video enabled cameras, I can see how being able to use glass like the 35-100 on an HD capable body, with AF, might well attract me to try it more seriously.

I really expect to see both 6xx and ex bodies in 2010 with video. Whilst I strongly believe that Olympus won't make anything other than the top body to it's current weatherproof standard there would seem to be such a huge market opportunity for a 6xx that they might just...... (there is no suggestion that m43 glass will be made weatherproof so they have, in effect, created their own growing need)

Paulpp
7th January 2010, 08:15 AM
I recently went to a conference on using video with DSLR's. No doubt it is the way forward for many professionals - e.g. newpapers want video for web-sites and stills for print. For that reason if Oly want to keep the "Pro" tag they may well have no option.
If you want to see examples try "Battle for Hearts and Minds" on Vimeo or search for Dan Chung's short "film" on a parade in China. I saw both on a full size cinema screen and the quality was outstanding. Both were, I think, shot on Canon 5D MkII.
The China piece includes both still and video.

Ian
7th January 2010, 11:52 AM
I think you're right, Alex, it is the way forward - the market demands it. Can't say I'm happy about it, though - I hate the thought of paying a huge premium for something I don't want and am never likely to use! :(

You won't pay a premium for it, certainly not a huge one. There is little difference in price between DSLRs that have video and those that don't. It doesn't require much in the way of specialised video components, so little extra in the way build cost.

Ian

Ian
7th January 2010, 11:56 AM
I'm afraid I'm of the belief that if you want a video camera, you buy a video camera, and dont take photos with it, and if you want a stills camera, you buy a stills camera. I personally am glad the Oly doesnt have video capture :)

There is some solid sense to that, but video-enabled large format sensor cameras (DSLRs and hybrid cameras like Micro Four Thirds) can do certain video things that affordable and even expensive pro camcorders can't; shoot very limited DOF using wide aperture lenses, for example, and have access to a wide range of interchangeable lenses. And there is operability in low light too. I personally think the idea of having HD video capability built into my stills camera is a great advantage.

Ian

StephenL
7th January 2010, 11:58 AM
I must say that I think it's the way Olympus will go, if only to keep up with the feature sets of competitors' cameras.

Despite having had video on my compact cameras for many years now, I have never used this feature, and cannot see this changing.

However, I admit that for many it's a "must have" feature, and it would be uneconomical for a camera maker to do two versions of otherwise identical cameras, so I suppose it's inevitable and progress.

Paulpp
7th January 2010, 12:04 PM
Interesting responses. I don't use video and would not want a seperate video camera, but would love to be able to use high quality video "on demand" in the same unit on the rare occasions it would be useful.
The point about how a video enabled DSLR can get different effects with dof etc is also interesting.
At the end of the day Oly will be left behind without it (if it isn't already behind)

maccabeej
7th January 2010, 01:18 PM
My wife occassionally uses video on her P&S but keeps forgetting she can't turn the camera on side to shoot portrait videos, including cat lying on wall defying gravity. Change mode, change thinking - not always easy!
Jim

EH1
7th January 2010, 01:19 PM
If the E-3 replacement has video built-in, then I`m not sure I will buy it, which would be a great dissapointment, as I have been looking forward to it for so long!

Nick Temple-Fry
7th January 2010, 01:38 PM
Well, if Olympus want to sell mass market cameras then they will have to do it. Purely because the mass consumer will expect it, will want it and having bought it, well, they'll largely not use it.

And of course Ian is right in saying that the dedicated hardware/manufacturing cost will be a small proportion of the individual product cost.

But once included every design decision will have to consider its implications on HD video, every improvement in 'stills' focussing will have to be evaluated against the requirements of HD video. As will ergonomics, sensor optimisation, processor error management etc. There will inevitably be design compromises driven either by differring requirements, by limitations in R&D resources, by limitations in processing capability.

The same consideration will impact lens development, new lenses (and updates to the existing range) will need to balance optimisation to 'still' photography with the requirements of HD video.

So the cost to the photographer will be the dilution of the product function. The need to stretch product development and testing resources across a greater functional set.

So yes it is inevitable - but not really welcome.

Nick

Paulpp
7th January 2010, 01:52 PM
You are absolutely correct about future design decisions etc being potentialy compromised and that could be a problem. But unless Olympus want to become a niche market player it will have to be the way they go. I haven't heard anyone suggesting that the Canon 5D etc etc are producing unacceptable still images because of compromising for video performance.
So for me if Olympus produce a new E3 with 100s of art filters, scene modes and video, providing still image quality is not compromised and the cost not inflated I will use them or not as the mood takes me.

yorky
7th January 2010, 01:52 PM
I don't know if it will be welcome or not.I am impressed with the EP1 video capabilities and I am sure it will be used at times. If its built in and doesn't compromise the exising capability so be it. Its not compulsery to use it, but it may be fun!

snaarman
7th January 2010, 02:21 PM
From my dealings with CMOS and CCD imager chips, I believe once you have Live View sorted out (mirror up, sensor data streaming ditect to a display) then you are a long way towards having a HD video recording facility. You need to include a video coder in the signal processing but that is probably not a big deal with current in camera processing.

Therefore perhaps HD video almost comes for free with the new generation of imager chips and camera designs.

As to how fast it fills your CF card, well thats another matter :-)

Pete

Ian
7th January 2010, 04:08 PM
I must say that I think it's the way Olympus will go, if only to keep up with the feature sets of competitors' cameras.

Despite having had video on my compact cameras for many years now, I have never used this feature, and cannot see this changing.

However, I admit that for many it's a "must have" feature, and it would be uneconomical for a camera maker to do two versions of otherwise identical cameras, so I suppose it's inevitable and progress.

Video on compacts has been of variable picture and audio quality, but with the advent of HD video in still cameras, the quality can now be very high indeed.

Ian

Ian
7th January 2010, 04:10 PM
If the E-3 replacement has video built-in, then I`m not sure I will buy it, which would be a great dissapointment, as I have been looking forward to it for so long!

Err, I read your post and honestly could not make any sense of it. Surely, if you don't want or need the video feature, simply ignore it? In what way could a video feature be detremental to the other functionality of the camera?

Ian

dbutch
7th January 2010, 04:27 PM
If a camera has video then be it

I believe that Oly was hoping to get away without it, because m4/3 is a better format for it, you don't have to worry about the mirror etc. But I think the acceptance of the likes of the 5D mkII will see it appear in the next Ex and that shouldn't make it any less of a camera! and they already have the knowledge and experience from the Pens.

Dave

alexs
7th January 2010, 05:34 PM
The reason I look forward to it is because I dabbled with filming but put it on hold because whenever I took the slr I wished I had the camcorder and vice versa... If you are going to lug camcorder, tripod etc, you don't really need a camera bag as well. IMHO of course. I think having it all in one would be great. well for my wildlife stuff anyway. Also imagine filming through an equivalent of 600mm lens. not many camcorders could do that , at least not budget ones.. And if you don't want it, don't use it. I had video on my old bridge camera but it wasn't up to much, so didn't use it much....:)
al

EH1
7th January 2010, 06:16 PM
Err, I read your post and honestly could not make any sense of it. Surely, if you don't want or need the video feature, simply ignore it? In what way could a video feature be detremental to the other functionality of the camera?

Ian

What I mean`t was I would`nt want to pay a premium for it, as it`s not a feature I would use! but if it did`nt really effect the price then OK!

Ian
7th January 2010, 06:49 PM
What I mean`t was I would`nt want to pay a premium for it, as it`s not a feature I would use! but if it did`nt really effect the price then OK!

OK! :)

As I said earlier, HD video has not mainly been a premium extra cost feature. There is only one example I can think of and that's Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1, which is very much marketed as a DSLR-quality stills camera with a high-spec. HD video feature. The premium cost was mostly explained by the standard 10x kit lens that was optimised for video use (employing a near silent linear focus motor, for example). But even then, I felt that the cost of a DSLR body and a good quality 10x zoom lens would be much the same, so in the end there was no real video-related price hike to be honest.

Ian

Nova Invicta
7th January 2010, 06:54 PM
We are using the Canon 5D MKII and the Canon 7D professionally to shoot inserts in TV commercials but frankly the downfall is MPEG4 and PCM the video & sound codecs they both create problems for professional use but are fine for amateur use.
Olympus will certainly need to bring out HD but dont make the mistakes Canon made with the 5D MKII which was 1080P but only 30fps, the 7D is better covering both 24/25fps. Note dont do 720P like Nikon with most TVs 1080P why would you want to down res.

Olympus will likely be tied to what Panasonic provide but Panasonic make some great professional HD cameras using AVC-Intra 50 codec which is what they should be using to jump Canon, Sony & Nikon with a way to convert this to MPEG4 for home use.

To the point about adding HD video many HD video camcorders have had a still setting so this is simply reverse engineering but with larger sensors and better DOF therefor better images and creative control.

Ian
7th January 2010, 06:59 PM
We are using the Canon 5D MKII and the Canon 7D professionally to shoot inserts in TV commercials but frankly the downfall is MPEG4 and PCM the video & sound codecs they both create problems for professional use but are fine for amateur use.
Olympus will certainly need to bring out HD but dont make the mistakes Canon made with the 5D MKII which was 1080P but only 30fps, the 7D is better covering both 24/25fps. Note dont do 720P like Nikon with most TVs 1080P why would you want to down res.

Olympus will likely be tied to what Panasonic provide but Panasonic make some great professional HD cameras using AVC-Intra 50 codec which is what they should be using to jump Canon, Sony & Nikon with a way to convert this to MPEG4 for home use.

To the point about adding HD video many HD video camcorders have had a still setting so this is simply reverse engineering but with larger sensors and better DOF therefor better images and creative control.

Real pros would use a separate sound system to the camera's anyway. Olympus didn't use any Panasonic video technology in the E-P1/2. Their HD video is quite simplistic - only 720 res and 30p frame rate with MJPEG compression and AVI encapsulation. Panasonic's AVCHD format is a lot more sophisticated and allows longer clips and the compression is much more efficient.

30fps is not necessarily an issue with videographers, especially in the US. In fact 24p is favoured by some as it's the same as cine film.

Ian

Zuiko
7th January 2010, 07:17 PM
I've nothing against video per se if it doesn't inflate the cost or compromise the stills performance in any way. I might find it useful on occassions or I might not. One potential use for HD video with sound I can think of is to record evidence if harrased by a security guard or stoped by an over-enthusiastic police officer! :D

It's true that you don't have to use features you dont want. I think my E-510 may have had some Scene Modes on it somewhere, but they never saw the light of day!

Nova Invicta
7th January 2010, 07:21 PM
Ian

30fps is not an issue in the US but its certainly an issue in Europe and Canon are going to be doing a fimware fix for the 5D MKII because of the numerous compliants. Its true in certain situations we use seperate sound for the Canon DSLRs but for run & gun or where you dont want to draw attention to the camera internal recording is preferred. 720P will quickly disappear its fine for micro 4/3rds but not for 4/3rds in a DSLR especially if Olympus wants to compete with Canon in this area.
Effiecent compression means you have less artifacts & noise when you play out your finished video MPEG4 is certainly a lot better than MPEG2, which itself improved over its commercial lifetime but AVC Intra is in another league, the alternative is RAW video like the Red One (this makes the camera cheaper to produce) with the processing being done during post ingest but so far the Japanease manufacturers have not embraced it for video only stills.

tlove
7th January 2010, 07:39 PM
When I first saw this thread I thought 'oh god, no - please Olympus, don't go down that route!'

Yes, I'll admit I'm a bit of a purist when it comes to cameras - why on earth does the market 'demand' these features? Surely, if you want to take a photograph, use a camera. If you want to film something, use a video camera. I know the Canikon brigade have gone down that route, but does it make it right for Olympus to do it? That's one of the things that keeps me with Olympus - they've never been afraid to be a little different (in my humble opinion, that is :D).

When I thought about it a bit more, my opinion changed to one of Olympus having to bow to the inevitable if they want to maintain a foothold in the market. It still doesn't sit right with me, but oh well...

Then - along came John 'Zuiko' Perriment's comment:
It's true that you don't have to use features you dont want.

That got me thinking then - who am I to complain really? I have an E-3 - which has Live View that I still haven't really got my head round (I'm ashamed to say :o), so rarely use. I also have the E-30. Again, the Live View issue - but it also has things like the mode dial having 'scene modes' etc. (which I use from time to time on things like the 'sport' setting), and of course the Art Filters, which I haven't used at all.

So - bring it on then Olympus. Put HD video in your next models, and if I ever get one you never know - I just might be persuaded to use it!!

Thea

photo_owl
7th January 2010, 07:40 PM
glad you are contributing here Nova I - you are highlighting the reasons for one of my concerns; that any new camera with video would be judged on the video rather than the still, and be found wanting.

alexs
7th January 2010, 07:51 PM
I have "live view" on my 520 and barely use it....but it was handy on a couple of occasions...
I have used the "scene modes" though and they aren't bad;)
:D
alex

shenstone
8th January 2010, 02:39 AM
Well it seems like I'm alone here ... I'd really love it

I've had a number of occasions recenlty where some video of something would really be useful for presentations I've been asked to make e.g where I was looking at thermal steam vents in Italy.

Stills are wonderful and evocative as images (I did post a one) but the sound and sight of high pressure steam coming out of the ground is something else

As I'm giving a talk to our locally geology group I did some video on my wife's lumix and it's useable, but it meant borrowing her camer therefore stopping her doing what she was taking pictures of and it wasn't HD (however I did just get her an upgraded camera as a christmas present)

So bring it on and Ian when you get one as a sample I'll have a play ;)

regards
Andy

sclifton
9th January 2010, 01:28 PM
Well it seems like I'm alone here ... I'd really love it

I've had a number of occasions recenlty where some video of something would really be useful for presentations I've been asked to make e.g where I was looking at thermal steam vents in Italy.

Stills are wonderful and evocative as images (I did post a one) but the sound and sight of high pressure steam coming out of the ground is something else

As I'm giving a talk to our locally geology group I did some video on my wife's lumix and it's useable, but it meant borrowing her camer therefore stopping her doing what she was taking pictures of and it wasn't HD (however I did just get her an upgraded camera as a christmas present)

So bring it on and Ian when you get one as a sample I'll have a play ;)

regards
Andy

You're not alone in wanting video capability. Personally I can't see what all the fuss is about here. As has already been said, if you don't want to use it, then don't use that function. There seems to be considerable animosity here to video stills cameras, which I personally don't understand.

Personally, I think that adding video might possibly cost nothing extra for its benefits because, as a friend pointed out to me recently, video cameras are taxed differently anyway when imported, than stills cameras. I can't personally vouch for this, but the possibility actually remains that video might actually make our stills cameras cheaper in the future/or even now?

At the moment I am running two systems (Oly E-510 with kit lenses & The 50-200SWD/EC-14, and a Canon 40D with 100-400L IS zoom) and neither has video. I bought into the Canon system just before Christmas because I shoot more birds & wildlife than anything else, and Oly just doesn't compete in this area unless you are rich!

I keep telling myself that the next body I buy will have HD video, precisely because it is such a great extra feature for this subject. However, the question remains which system would I buy a video enabled stills body for. the Oly or the Canon? The answer to that question might depend on whether Oly ever intend to bring out a long lens that competes with Canon's 400mm F5.6 prime, or the zoom I have now, and that I can afford to buy!.

Personally I can't see Oly doing this anytime soon, which is one of the reasons I bought the Canon, but I am prepared to be surprised.

I could be wrong here, but Oly users could be categorized more as 'general shooters' rather than having an obvious specialized focus (I'm thinking wildlife again), and presumably therefore many users would value the video function for family shooting, holidays etc?

Just my thoughts, and I could be wrong. Perhaps the people I'm referring to just don't have time to contribute to imternet forums, especially those focussed solely on one make or format.

BTW I'm new here, though have been looking in for the past 2 years or so. There are some superb wildlife shots posted on this forum, but I wondered also how Oly users who stick with this brand get on specifically with birds, mammals etc. due to the limited long lenses available? Or do they like me, have to look elsewhere for extra 'reach'

Cheers,

Steve

EH1
9th January 2010, 01:41 PM
I could be wrong here, but Oly users could be categorized more as 'general shooters' rather than having an obvious specialized focus (I'm thinking wildlife again)[/QUOTE]


I think you need to take a look at the Olympus Safari Group!

sclifton
9th January 2010, 01:58 PM
I could be wrong here, but Oly users could be categorized more as 'general shooters' rather than having an obvious specialized focus (I'm thinking wildlife again)


I think you need to take a look at the Olympus Safari Group![/QUOTE]

Can you provide a link please?

EH1
9th January 2010, 02:02 PM
www.ukphotosafari.org ;)

sclifton
9th January 2010, 02:07 PM
www.ukphotosafari.org ;)

Thanks Edward, I will have a look at it,

Cheers,

Steve

alexs
9th January 2010, 03:00 PM
[

BTW I'm new here, though have been looking in for the past 2 years or so. There are some superb wildlife shots posted on this forum, but I wondered also how Oly users who stick with this brand get on specifically with birds, mammals etc. due to the limited long lenses available? Or do they like me, have to look elsewhere for extra 'reach'

Cheers,

Steve[/QUOTE]

Steve,
I'm kinda in the opposite camp . I only really shoot wildlife and couldn't afford "reach" with nikon or canon or others and I saw olympus as the only affordable way to get a decent 600mm equiv.. I got a new 520 + kit lens + 70-300 (600 equivelant) for just over 500. My 2nd hand niokon 18-200 vr got nearly that much. the next nikon lens up was the 70-300 which just isn't that much more and its more money and after that it's mega buck.
what lens in nikon or canon gets anything like 600 mm equiv. So I sort of see the oly as a specialist setup that suits the wildlife photographer more than the others. Also some of the guys on here who shoot wildlife are quite a testament.
The only drawback in moving system for me is that although the 18-200 wasn't long enough for birds really. (although it took some crackers) I don't like changing lenses and so miss the superzoom..but no-one is going to make an oly 18-300 so thats life. If I see a bird in a landscape I might want take a picture of both and not have time to swap lenses but I find the 600 lens fantastic and something I could never buy in canon/nikon..
al

sclifton
9th January 2010, 05:46 PM
Hi Alex, and thanks for you reply.

I used to own the 70-300 Oly lens you have, and found it quite good, but not up to the competition in terms of IQ. For slow moving subjects it is fine, but for birds in flight it was left wanting in my opinion unless the light is good (not too often in the UK) though for the money it was excellent.

Never under estimate your future needs in Photography. When you start you might only be able to afford 700 (only 700!!) for a body and lens, but many people quickly find that their needs change and grow (BTW you did well for 500). Personally I just don't find the 70-300 to be capable enough as an all-rounder for most birds. Birds are very demanding subjects, and to do them well you need fast focussing, fast lenses (as fast as you can afford) so you can get fast shutter speeds. High frame rates are also very useful.

In comparable terms, your Oly lens is qbout equal in reach to my 50-200/EC-14 combo, but is a bit longer (not enough to make much difference). In turn the 50-200 + EC-14 is roughly equivalent to my Canon 100-400 zoom @350mm, but with that lens I do have the option of adding another 40% with a converter, and thus reaching 560mm. In 35mm this is just short of 900mm. Yes it is a bit heavier, and quite a lot more expensive, but it was within my grasp, so I went for it.

Don't get me wrong, the 70-300 is very good value, and versatile. I've seen some excellent results from it, but it does have its limits. If and when you ever out-grow it there seems to be nowhere else to go with Olympus for longer reach, without spending over 5000. Sigma do a 50-500mm which is quite good, but I remain to be convinced about the image quality and build, which seems to vary from unit to unit. It's very heavy too!

Apologies to other forum users for going a bit off-topic.

Regards,

Steve

Kiwi Paul
9th January 2010, 07:45 PM
Yes if Zuiko produced a 200-400mm SWD f4 lens that would be great, who knows maybe it in the master plan.

Paul