Nikon D90 - Convergence of SLR and Camcorders

[proteus]

"Clips can be shot in both high definition and standard definition. High-def clips take more room than standard, so you'll need a high-capacity storage card for the camera, preferably 8 gigabytes or bigger.

Point-and-shoot cameras have fixed lenses that extend only so far. With an SLR, you can hone your shots using ultrawide-angle or telephoto zoom lenses — accessories that can cost in the thousands because of their fine optics. Camera enthusiasts who step up to SLRs do so to take advantage of the higher-quality images they offer.

"This is a game-changing product," says Chris Chute, an analyst at researcher IDC. "The one thing that's really been missing from the SLR market has been the ability to record high-quality video."

Only a matter of time before it doesn't make sense to have a camera and a camcorder. Just think where this will be in 3-5 years. Red is also producing an SLR which could be a "game changer" as well.

 

[rutgers1]

I just picked one up yesterday. The guy in the store thought that you could only record like 5 minutes of video on it, meaning it is very limited if it is true. However, since it just arrived yesterday and they didn't really have time to play with it, he might have been wrong.

So far, I like it.

 

[YEKCIM]

The guy in the store thought that you could only record like 5 minutes of video on it...

From the previews I have read, this is correct. Apparently, sensor heating is the reason why the clips are limited to five minutes.

~Y

 

[Groucho]

My understanding is that it's five minutes (to avoid sensor overheating), manual focus, and no exposure adjustment. In other words, less useful for actually taking movies than nearly any point-n-shoot out there.

It looks like a great camera but a terrible camcorder. That analyst is a bit of a dope IMHO. The big thing that many SLR users say is that they don't want features like this.

 

[H.E. Pennypacker]

It is true that it's limited to 5 minutes. And as Groucho pointed out, you're limited to manual focus only while capturing video, and you cannot adjust aperture while capturing. You're also limited to (according to other accounts) pretty poor quality mono sound. Personally, I'm not much of a fan of this kind of convergent technology. I guess I'm one of those like Groucho mentioned who thinks this type of functionality doesn't belong on a DSLR. It just seems really gimmicky to me, especially given the limitations of Nikon's current implementation. Maybe when they figure out a way to incorporate auto focus and allow for aperture adjustments while capturing video it'll be more viable. I can sort of see the potential of shooting HD video through a nice big SLR lens. But then if I needed that kind of video quality, I wouldn't be filming with an SLR, I'd be using something like a Canon XLH1S or similar pro HD camcorder. The D90 has some other really nice improvements on the photo side, so I'd buy it for those, not just because it can capture video. I personally would never use that feature. I have never used a camcorder to capture stills and don't see myself ever using an SLR to capture video.

 

[fitzperry]

It is true that it's limited to 5 minutes. And as Groucho pointed out, you're limited to manual focus only while capturing video, and you cannot adjust aperture while capturing. You're also limited to (according to other accounts) pretty poor quality mono sound. Personally, I'm not much of a fan of this kind of convergent technology. I guess I'm one of those like Groucho mentioned who thinks this type of functionality doesn't belong on a DSLR. It just seems really gimmicky to me, especially given the limitations of Nikon's current implementation. Maybe when they figure out a way to incorporate auto focus and allow for aperture adjustments while capturing video it'll be more viable. I can sort of see the potential of shooting HD video through a nice big SLR lens. But then if I needed that kind of video quality, I wouldn't be filming with an SLR, I'd be using something like a Canon XLH1S or similar pro HD camcorder. The D90 has some other really nice improvements on the photo side, so I'd buy it for those, not just because it can capture video. I personally would never use that feature. I have never used a camcorder to capture stills and don't see myself ever using an SLR to capture video.

I disagree with this. I love photography and will go to some lengths to try to get the best pictures I can, but my videos are more analogous to quick snapshots. Our video camera gets little use except on major holidays, piano recitals and about once per athletic season for each kid. But I like to be able to shoot a quick video to send to friends/family while on vacation and such. As it is, I sometimes do that with my phone, but with that I'm limited to much less than 5 minutes, and I suspect the video quality from the D90 will be better than that. Otherwise I have to rely on the videos my 9yo takes with her p&s camera, and those are somewhat questionable. I don't think it's a bad feature at all on a consumer level dslr, and I'm confident the quality will improve on later models.

 

[handicap18]

It is limited to 5 minutes in the highest resolution. 20 minutes for the lower resolutions. From what I've read though, its not because of the sensor heating (apparently Nikon has said that sensor heating isn't an issue). That is the limit Nikon put on it. May have more to do with file size. I've seen a few 20 second images that were 25MB in size. I can only imagine what a 5 minute clip would be (upwards or 375MB).

This is just the first dSLR with the video feature. I think we'll be seeing more of it in the future with improved sound, auto focus capabilities and other. You can still change the focus manually. You'll see a lot of independant film makers snatching these things up and producing some great movies. You can currently combine it with a seperate sound capture machine and dub the sound in during PPing. While you can I wouldn't do this, film makers would.

I've seen a number of video's shot with the D90 and they video quality is VERY good.

 

[rutgers1]

If I could have paid less and gotten the camera without this feature, I would have jumped at it. To me, it is a gimmick that is a few years away from being a real, useful technology. I guess they had to start somewhere.

 

[boBQuincy]

According to a Canon hacking website the 40D can do videos with some software changes, it appears that Canon is not far off from offering this feature if the public goes for it with the D90.
Me, I would rather see other features added to my SLR than video.

 

[proteus]

If I could have paid less and gotten the camera without this feature, I would have jumped at it. To me, it is a gimmick that is a few years away from being a real, useful technology. I guess they had to start somewhere.

Well, it is a first release. We should see huge improvements over the next few years. Incidentally it can shoot with the background out of focus just like professional feature films. I understand from a professional point of view that convergence isn't the way to go (like the receiver vs the pre-amp/power amp in stereos) but my comment was more towards the consumer/prosumer market.

The enormous sensor size should yield better quality video especially in low light. Don't understand the storage issue as SD cards are now 32gb in capacity, for my current high definition camcorder this translates into over 5 hours of video at the best quality setting.

 

[seashoreCM]

Even some point-and-shoots offer video recording.

Be careful that you select the desired resolution.

Standard definition requires 640x480x60 frames per second. 640x480x30 fps comes close. 720x480 is better. Hi-def requires 1280x720x60 fps (1024x768x60 comes close) or a specially interlaced 1920x540x60 fps called 1080i. or 1920x1080x30 fps. You may find 1440x1080 adequate. Standard definition retrieved from the camera using a single yellow plug cable will be compromised to be somewhat poorer than a regular DVD and about equal to a standard TV broadcast show.

Digital camera hints: http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/digicam.htm

 

[Groucho]

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a PnS that doesn't do pretty good-quality videos nowadays. Several even do high-def, and some even do extremely high-speed.

Meanwhile, the D90 is limited to 24fps - which sounds nice from a old-school movie-film perspective, but is really pretty useless in the modern world of 29.97fps NTSC broadcasts and 25fps PAL broadcasts. Only a few high-end HDTVs and projectors can even display 24fps natively.

A huge sensor is not that big of a deal because with the D90, you're only talking 1280x720. That's not even two megapixels!

The only advantages to the D90 as a video machine are the ability to do DoF (though you can use a DoF adapter on a little camcorder if you really want) and the ability to use difference lenses (again, a DoF adapter will allow you to do that with a basic camcorder.) Meanwhile, it's got many disadvantages.

IMHO, the whole thing is about 98% hype and 2% substance at this point. In the future, maybe it'll be worthwhile - when we can record proper 1920x1080 (or even full-resolution 12mp+!) videos at 60 fps, plug in an external stereo mike, have full autofocus and exposure adjustment (we're a ways from there, DSLR live-view AF using just the sensor is painfully slow at this point, the only way to get speed is to use a second sensor like Olympus has and Sony does in their newest, but this is useless when actually recording)........ Frankly, I'm surprised that Nikon is hyping this so strongly on the D90, it seems like a feature more at home on the D60; something very "consumer-friendly" that looks good on a spec sheet at Best Buy.

And I'm someone who would be happy to see such a feature available! The only reason I carry a PnS with us at Disney is for occasional little videos, and it very rarely gets used just because it's put away. If I could do decent little videos with the camera I'm using the rest of the time, I'd be all for it - but we're still a ways away from that.