Can someone tell me why I can get a decent point and shoot with mediocre video capabilities, a good digital video cam with mediocre photo capabilities, but not–apparently–a half-decent digital slr with at least mid-range video as an add on? I can’t believe that there’s just no room in the case, so what’s the story? Or, am I wrong, and looking in the wrong places?
You’re not wrong. They can’t be had.
An SLR camera requires a mirror to flip up before the shutter is released. It’s because of the mirror that you can’t take video on them. When the mirror is up, you can’t see through the lens, which means you wouldn’t be able to see what you were filming.
Probably not a great explanation, I’ll see if I can find a link that explains it better.
Nah, that works. Thanks.
But… wouldn’t you appreciate a work-around that? Can it be THAT difficult? Well, sure, it could, but if there were a significant market for it, I’m sure some bright-eyed genius would come up with something.
Here’s an answer on a photography blog.
[quote]AG, your suggestion that DSLR manufacturers would be wise to include a movie mode with their cameras is a good one; however, it is not as easy to accomplish as simply locking the mirror in the ‘up’ position. In fact, there are already DSLRs that offer mirror lock-up for the purpose of avoiding camera shake caused by any sudden movement of the mirror while the shutter is open, yet such cameras still do not include a movie mode.
The biggest hurdle to DSLRs having a movie mode is their mechanical shutter. In movie mode, an electronic shutter typically operates at 30 fps. Considering that the average lifespan of a mechanical shutter is 100,000 cycles, the mechanism would wear out after approximately one hour of movie mode usage. AG, you would literally have to change your shutter every time you charged your battery. smile
At this point, you might be thinking to yourself, why not just leave the mechanical shutter open and use an electronic shutter. Again, a good suggestion, and again, one that is not so easily accomplished. Due to the problems of ‘bloom’ and ‘smear’ normally associated with electronic shutters (see “Question 2 — Electronic Shutters In Full Bloom” of the October 15, 2006 Gary’s Parries), most DSLR image sensors do NOT use electronic shuttering, or if they do use it, it is ONLY in combination with a mechanical shutter, which then serves merely as a light blind to reduce the bloom and smear.
In movie mode, however, a DSLR’s mechanical shutter cannot be used as a light blind (due to the ‘wear and tear’ issue mentioned above), so the problems of bloom and smear would remain. The solution would be to design an image sensor that simulates the dark exposure start and dark image transfer of a mechanical shutter, but this would require additional circuitry at each photosite, which would use up more of the photosite’s valuable photosensitive area, thus resulting in smaller photodiodes and correspondingly higher image noise.
And the problem does not end there. Most DSLR image sensors do NOT even have a video output, which would be a necessity for implementing a DSLR movie mode. So you see, AG, not only would you need the mirror lock-up, but also a completely redesigned image sensor. [/quote]
http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/garys_parries_19_11_06
Also take a look at this one.
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-4768.html
Slightly OT, but Tim Burton’s movie “The Corpse Bride” was filmed entirely on with DSLR. I think they needed 10 to make the whole movie.
Cool. That makes all kinds of sense. But I still want my dslr-video combo. hmph.
Now that I’ve got your attention…
if you’ve done much action photography, how highly would you rate a quick burst of shots on the “ought to have” list? Price and positive reviews have wooed me to the Pentax k100d, but the ONE negative that appears time and again is sport shots. For the most part, I’m interested in sport shots so my folks can see a bit of the hockey action back home, and so the kids I’m coaching can see what they’re doing well (or not). And they’re captive, forgiving audiences. These don’t (thank heavens) need to be great shots, but I would like to do better than a Canon Elph400 allows.
You can see a (very) few images here and on my goalies’ blog (which is mostly grainy video).
Many, many thanks.
I think one of the new Olympus DSLRs has a live preview mode which works similar to a point and shoot. The mirror flips up and the sensor sends a continuous feed to the LCD screen on the back. I wonder how trivial it would be to go from that to being able to record that feed as a movie.
For a lark, try going onto any DSLR online forum and asking why can’t any of these cameras have a movie mode. I’m sure you’ll get dozens of helpful replies.
[quote=“Jaboney”]Cool. That makes all kinds of sense. But I still want my dslr-video combo. hmph.
Now that I’ve got your attention…
if you’ve done much action photography, how highly would you rate a quick burst of shots on the “ought to have” list? Price and positive reviews have wooed me to the Pentax k100d, but the ONE negative that appears time and again is sport shots. For the most part, I’m interested in sport shots so my folks can see a bit of the hockey action back home, and so the kids I’m coaching can see what they’re doing well (or not). And they’re captive, forgiving audiences. These don’t (thank heavens) need to be great shots, but I would like to do better than a Canon Elph400 allows.
You can see a (very) few images here and on my goalies’ blog (which is mostly grainy video).
Many, many thanks.[/quote]
Yeah, it tends to get poor reviews for sports/action type stuff. Regardless, it’ll be better than an Elph400. And from the sounds of what you want to shoot, it may be fine. You can shoot in a burst of 4-5 shots, wait a couple of seconds for them to write to the memory card and then shoot bursts again. For shooting kids, I don’t imagine the action would be that fast, so the couple of seconds between bursts shouldn’t matter.
Unless you already have a collection of Pentax lenses, you might want to look at the Canon 400D or the Nikon D80 (maybe D50 - whatever the cheaper one is). I think they are about the same price as the K100D, and might be better suited to you.
There is at least one camera store in Taipei that does rentals. I can’t remember exactly which one, but I think it’s near the Subway on the street between Bo-Ai and Chongqing S Rds. Can’t remember the name of that street either. You could try renting one next time you have a hockey game and testing it out.
Rentals??? That’s brilliant!
Cheers. 
Any comments on the new Nikon D40? Cheaper and smaller/lighter than the D50 I think.
I forgot about that one. The reviews look good. The major downside that I can see is that it only takes Nikon AF-S and AF-I lenses, so if you already have a Nikon film camera, you won’t be able to use the lenses you already have. Well, you will, but in manual focus only, they won’t autofocus. If you don’t have any Nikon lenses then this doesn’t matter.
For your purposes Jaboney, it might be good for burst shooting. The specs say 9 frames in RAW and unlimited in JPG. Normally I firmly advocate shooting RAW all the time, however pro sports shooters usually shoot in JPG as they’ve got to get the pics published as fast as possible. Obviously, you’re not shooting pro, but if it works for the pros, it’ll work for you.
If they do make an SLR with a mirror that clacks up and down thirty times a second, photography buffs will no longer have to bring football rattles to matches, leaving the other hand free for a table leg or stocking filled with billiard balls.
So if the camera is in one hand and the table leg in the other, where’s the beer go?
Checking the reviews at dpreview, I see that:
Pentax 100D: continuous 2.8 fps up to 5 JPEG frames
Canon 400D: continuous 3 fps up to 27 JPEG frames
The slight difference in frames per second wouldn’t be noticeable but that is a bit of a difference in the size of a buffer. Basically, if you’re trying to fire off a bunch of shots in a row (like a big skirmish in front of the net), you’ll fill up your buffer a lot more quickly with the Pentax.
I think a much bigger factor for hockey shots is the quality of high ISO shots. For the typically poorly lit hockey rink, you’ll have to crank up your ISO to ISO1600 to get fast enough shutter speeds for hockey shots. Comparing cameras at comparable price points, Canon’s all have the best high-ISO pics.
Besides that, Canon has a much better selection of decent telephoto lenses, which you’ll need for good shots.
Well, this review compares the Pentax k110 with the Nikon D40 and D50, and gives the nod to the D40. And I’ve read that the Pentax gets grainy at 1600, so that’s something to consider. On the other hand, the built in image stabilization of the Pentax has been talked up, and its compatibility with all the old lenses would make getting a decent, used lens feasible.
I don’t know that I’d need to take more than a half-dozen shots in a burst–certainly wouldn’t have to worry about it If These Things Had VIDEO!
Hmmm… had a number of Canon point and shoots I’ve been happy with.
Bugger.
Perhaps I’ll choose three and good with the best deal I find.
Pentax k100d, Nikon D40, and Canon EOS 400D?
sports photographers like the canon. good long lenses for fast stuff too: big f stop.
personally i much prefer the olympus and canon operating systems over the pentax and (definitely last place) the nikon.
YMMV
sounds like you’re looking for a lamborghini that can carry a dozen cows to market. tricky to get two such different jobs in the one machine.
Lamborghini to take the cows to market? Nah, I’d never take it out of the garage, and when I did, the engineers would weep over all their wasted work. I’m after something far more modest. Say, a scooter that’s quick off the line, small enough to weave through traffic and park, but comfortable for the xiao jie. And it has to have enough room upfront to bring the groceries home from Costco.
Both the latest Pentax and Sony DSLR models have built-in image stabilization, but neither (nor the lens IS in Canon or Nikon lenses) will help you get sharp hockey pics. Image stabilization only helps stabilize stationary objects, not moving objects. The only way to get sharp pics of moving objectsis to have a quick shutter speed, and to get a quick shutter speed in low light you’ll need to up the ISO (which the Canon will help you do) and buy some lenses with bright apertures (which cost $$$).
So if the camera is in one hand and the table leg in the other, where’s the beer go?[/quote]
The new i-Leicabeer comes with its own pint rest, but the special glass you need costs US$5mn and can only be bought from one shop in Lugang.
I have heard the meter on the D40 is not too hot. Otherwise it seems fine. I carried an ordinary old-fashioned SLR (which used film! The horror!) and two lenses round for a day in Shanghai once and nearly put myself in hospital. The D40 seems nice and light. And reasonably priced.
So if the camera is in one hand and the table leg in the other, where’s the beer go?[/quote]
The new i-Leicabeer comes with its own pint rest, but the special glass you need costs US$5mn and can only be bought from one shop in Lugang.
[/quote]
Cool, Lugang is only 15 minutes drive away from me. I know the shop you’re talking about - now to find myself US$5mn. And to start drinking beer.
Seriously (surprisingly?) there IS a store in Lugang that sells Leica’s. They also sell high-end tripods and cheap point-and-shoot film cameras.
I bought a fuji S 9500 as a first digicam … it has video and still and it looks like a dslr, only the lens is fixed and is from 18-300 mm … video quality is decend, 640 pix and 30-60 f/s … I have some videos on youtube under ‘belgianpie’ … take a look at it, although it may not say much about picture quality as it’s youtube degraded … 