I just read the preview of the Canon 5D II over at Luminous Landscape. Michael Reichmann has been a predictor and fan of stills/video integration for a while now. And he seems excited about this one, too.
I don't get it, really I don't. (In fact, I really like Kjell's observations.)
The LL preview says this is a really great thing, then goes on to point out a whole series of technical and handling flaws that make the camera useless as a proper video camera: poor handling, clumsy mode setting, no AF, rubbish sound. Not to mention the huge data rates and the fact that it eats batteries. So I get a device that generates more data than I can cope with, requires me to have a bag full of power and still only returns basic video clips.
Just because we can merge the technologies, doesn't mean we should. Video and stills are 2 different skill sets, with different audiences and uses.
I can't be the only photographer with zero interest in shooting movies, or am I in such a minority that I'll get left out? Perhaps I'm as much a camera dinosaur as I am with telephones.
Posts
Me too. Thanks but no thanks for video! Perhaps for journalism or weddings, but for hobbyist photographers we are, well, photographers.
ReplyDeleteThe outdated 5D is still capable of producing awesome images, better than most current gen offerings.
Count me in as another "dinosaur" and anti-video.
ReplyDeleteI think of still pictures and video as two completely different art forms. You cannot be good in both of them.
Yep, I agree. For me personally the possibility to record video clips is the least asset I would value in a camera.
ReplyDeleteBut it seems that the majority of the potential buyers wants this. I just don't understand why it gets integrated even in the high range models...