Equipment Nikon D90

(No Offense) But get your elitist attitude out. Your needs aren't every other photographer's needs. It may not look the greatest, but the statement of getting the shot (or video) is better than not at all is still true.

IN this specific purpose, I am neither photographer nor videographer. I am a person capturing memories. What tools I have at my disposal, are those tools be they camera phone or DSLR with video. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon released a DSLR with video functions in the near future (although I will hold my breath if it ever gets really good because it would cannibalize their video equipment). Nikon doesn't have that issue, so maybe their 3rd gen DSLR video capabilities would actually mean something then. But right now, Nikon is still pushing at camera manufacturers. As evident with the 50D, Canon is pushing back.

I'd say its a good time in photography right now even if you may be a purist in DSLR functionality.

 

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/d90/en/d-movie/

Nikon D-Movie samples.

And I must say, they look beautiful. I think Nikon hit the camcorder quality level. Manual focus is just dreamy and that DOF is drool worthy

I'm not parting with my D300, but I wouldn't mind having a D90 around as a secondary.

 

It doesn't look like the entire video was. But there are some portions of it that Nikon is using in the promotional material to promote D-Movie. I couldn't tell what was D90 and what was camcorder until I saw the promotional website.

 

Those look sweet! If I was into video I'd get the D90 right away Shooting video with quality glass in front and in HD (1280x720) sounds pretty sweet to me.
Nice!

 

*edit* no idea what the max res supported is, just that the video is shot thru live view, and the mirror does not flip up and down to shoot video.

Personally the only things I really like are the HDMI output, the increase in fps, increase in Iso range, higher res screen.

On the other hand, my D80 still does what I need, and I'll probably end up buying a fast tele or a 10-20mm wide lens.

 

not sure if it's been mentioned already, but heres the D90 microsite;
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/d90/en/

 

The video is not 12MP, it's significantly less.

Max Resolution for still images 4,288 x 2,848 or 12,212,224 pixels (12mpixels)

Max Resolution for movie mode is 1280 x 720 or 921,600 pixels (less than 1mpixel)

 

I'm not an Elitist, I am a photographer...'I am a person capturing memories'. Those memories are being captured on a DSLR as photographs. Video in a DSLR, as I said, is great and all BUT if anyone wants to capture quality video they best use a DVC. It has nothing to do with being a purist, and everything to do with making photography better. If you had read my entire response you may have understood my points. Perhaps you should.

 

I would agree with you, except for the fact that this is a great thing for DSLRs. I know a couple years ago, before the EOS 1Ds line was announced (and even after), many people extolled the virtues of the crop sensor, and proclaimed that full-frame was dead and useful only to a select few people. Now we have the 1Ds Mark III for medium-format-quality photos, the 5D for prosumers, the D3 for photojournalists, and the D700 for prosumers. That same argument was used against full-frame, "small percentage of real photographers." However, full-frame opened up the possibility of higher sensitivities, wider angles, etc.

Movie mode is the same sort of thing. Just because it's mono sound and only 1280x720, doesn't mean that it's useless. I know that there are plenty of times I would rather get lower quality video from a handy DSLR than drag out my HDV camcorder. I'm betting that Nikon did the smart thing, and diverted a couple engineers from their compact camera department to assist with the video. Their compact cameras use the same EXPEED processor (just as Canon cameras share DIGIC), so just because the sensor is larger, doesn't mean that they can't do the same thing. It's merely a question of power to quality ratio. 720p recording on P+S cameras is now a common feature, on cameras with 13.6 and 14.6 megapixels, so why can't the same be done on a 12.3MP DSLR? More importantly, this does several things to the market (assuming it isn't just a one-off feature). Number one, it shows the multi-hundred-thousand dollar camera corporations (RED excluded) that they will not be able to get away with stagnant formats and technology. RED said to expensive camera makers, "Look at the quality RED can get from an inexpensive modular camera! Your move!" Nikon is saying, "What he said!" Number two, given the current megapixel race, don't you think that 1080/24p will be standard on all consumer/prosumer DSLRs in a year? This would push camcorder makers to drop their legacy SD stuff and move on to developing fantastic quality Full HD (full usage of full-bitrate AVCHD, or better quality SxS- or P2-based cameras), or even past it to 2K or 3K. Don't you think this is a great impetus for digital cinema camera makers to say "Hell, if they can push 2K on DSLR technology, we should be able to push 8K digital on our fancy dancy expensive cameras?" I'm going to buy a new HDV camera now, but I expect that I will be buying a new DSLR next year, and I hope that DSLR has 1080/24p.

EDIT: Also, you seem unnecessarily down on consumer video that doesn't come from a DVC. You (and I) are part of a very small group of people called "purists." (See Luminous-Landscape.) We would rather not get the shot at all than get it with inferior equipment. However, the reason cell phone video and P+S video are now required features in both devices is because they are so much better than photographs for the average consumer. My brother went to a wedding and took both pictures and video. While the pictures showed much more detail and captured the visual scene more accurately, they didn't demonstrate the deafening music and conversation that a video did, and several photographs in a row weren't as effective as panning the camera with video. Low-quality video has its place, and I'm sure a soccer mom will not notice the difference between mono and stereo, between 720x480, 1280x720, or 1920x1080 for the most part. You want to create art, and so you buy cameras to make art. Most people buy cameras to capture memories as they happen, and create a record of their lives. Just because you don't find a use for mediocre video doesn't mean that everybody won't.

 

I re-read the comments on Chase's blog and this popped up...

Cody Hurd said...

BTW, at least half of the "Chase Jarvis RAW: Advanced Testing The Nikon D90" was actually shot in D-Movie mode with the D90!


So the video quality really is just amazing. Even if it is "gimmicky" according to you purists. I say, its a welcomed added feature to an already very capable camera.

Now Nikon should just release a firmware update for the D300/D700 and I'll be good.

 

You're both right of course; I forgot the context within which the prices must be placed.

And yes, that gear looks more badass than Samuel Jackson all Shaft-style in black leather and shades after a breakfast of badass and coffee. Black.

 

akpoly...I just want to set one thing straight: I am not a purist, in fact I am considered (among my peers) to be anything but. A purist is against features such as AF and IS ect ect...and of course they are against video in a DSLR. I am all about advancement. The thing you seem to be missing is that I do not mind video in a DSLR, I do however think that Canon/Nikon etc etc should be focusing more on the photography aspect when it comes to developing new features. Yes, video is nice to play around with, but it sure aint going to help me when it comes to shooting still images during an event. Funds are allocated to design and development which otherwise takes time and resources away from development of more important photographic advances. From the 'professional' POV of things this is no good. I rely on my equipment to earn a living--the time and cost it takes to implement video does not help the professional cause, rather distracts from what otherwise could be used to design and implement more useful features.

On a side note, DSLR video is restricted to MF only--while shallow DOF is enticing it will be nearly impossible to shoot without a tripod. OTOH from what I have seen so far (assuming its legit) the quality doesn't look as bad as I imagined...but until I actually see it first hand I will remain skeptical.

 

And for what it's worth: I own a D80 but definitely would not see myself upgrading to a D90 just for the video. I think it is an unnecessary feature that is not worth the money --I'd rather that it was spent on a photographic feature. Even a GPS locator to store location data with the image would have been more useful.

 

RobGalbraith's D90 preview

 

Vers, I agree about advancing the photographic features as well.

I am just saying, when they have the technology to make extremely high ISO look like ISO 100, or increased dynamic range, it will come. Even in film, dynamic range was never anywhere close to our perceived vision. When they have the tech to be able to do that, then yes I would most definitely want that. But if they have current tech that can be implemented for pennies, then I would want to see it. It doesn't take a lot of R&D away from its main purpose. Its added functionality that doesn't hurt its main function but augments it for certain people.

And yes, I wouldn't downgrade to the D90 just for video. Although, if I was still on my D50 system, I would have upgraded to the D90 because it really is an inexpensive D300 in a smaller, lighter body. Same sensor (I would assume the same noise qualities) and the fact that it is CLS ready, makes it for me. I don't need the 8FPS on my D300 or its 51pt focus system.

 

Don't blame akpoly, I was the one who accused you of being a purist. There are several types of purist (see kenrockwell.com), and you are definitely one of them. A purist is defined as "strict observance of or insistence on purity in language, style, etc." You are saying that Canon/Nikon should stick to what they know best and keep DSLRs as photographic tools. However, Canon video cameras run on DIGIC II's (and soon DIGIC III'S) and their DIGIC-based P+S cameras can do video just fine, so it isn't a huge stretch of the imagination to put that feature into DSLRs. It's not like they're creating whole new departments or "redefining DSLRs" as video tools, they're merely porting over a feature that has been common for years in similar devices. (A) I don't think complaining about it is going to help, (B) If you're for technological advancement, then think about this: if they can pull 1280x720 from a full sensor at 24fps, and Casio can pull 6MP at 60FPS, what do you think is going to happen to the next generation of cameras in terms of burst rates? How about cameras that can take 2 images at half the ISO and merge them seamlessly? There are so many potential benefits from this that could help you, the professional. What if they allowed you to take video, and at any time pull a full-resolution still (kind of like what camcorders do)? That would be fantastic for archival purposes. The industry is built on innovation and one-up-manship, and Nikon's move means that Canon now needs to equal and then double that move. Don't diss something that a company does merely because it seems stupid; if it sells products, it means they have more capital to make a full-frame 150 megapixel ISO 10000000 sensor (or whatever silliness).

The video isn't intended to be a killer feature, but rather one of those features that are handy to have when included. A GPS locator would have required a redesign of the entire body to fit in an antenna and GPS unit, not to mention the constant power drain and price bump. The D80 MSRP was $999.95, the D90 MSRP is now $999.95. Given the shrinking value of the American dollar, one might even say that the video feature dropped the price! Seriously though, there is no "worth the money" involved, it's effectively a free feature. In terms of development, I'm going to repeat my assumption that they just pulled engineers from the P+S department, rather than try anything revolutionary (a real video codec, for one). By the way, Nikon announced their GP-1, a GPS locator for their cameras, which will probably cost $100-$150 at launch. Would you like the D90 to cost that much more for a feature that many people don't want? It's cost vs. demand.

 

I apologize to akpoly for that one. As for being a purist, you are still misguided as to what it actually represents (If you believe everything Ken Rockwell tells you I feel sorry for you). Would one be considered a purist if Nikon implemented a cell phone feature into a DSLR? What about wifi in a DSLR? Purists believe in the base essentials that make something what it is. Anything looked at as a luxury or features which make things easier and or are not essential to make a photograph (think IS, AF etc) are all frowned upon. Video in a still camera, while innovative, does not help a photographer in taking still photographs. I am all about keeping things separate in terms of what they are used for. All in one is nice for some people, but as time has tested separate components make for better results. Once again, and I'll say it for the last time, I am not against video in a DSLR...but I'd rather see something else that would directly effect the way my camera works as a still-camera--that is, after all, what a DSLR is intended for.

 

First of all, Ken Rockwell may be a pompous bloated ass, but his satire rings true. My definition of purist came from dictionary.com, and he's quite correct about the "levels of photographers." (By the way, what does everybody have against him?) The point is that there are MANY types of purists, each with differing levels of what they consider "pure" photography. Honestly, it's called self-expression and it's completely subjective.

More importantly, you have not used the D90 for hours and hours, correct? So how can you pass judgment on whether a feature is useful or not? Like I said, full-frame was disregarded pre- and post-release, as was Wi-Fi in cameras, but both are now crucial to many photographers. Don't knock something until you've tried it (or it's been shown to have a definitive negative impact on something you do, IE a financial report from Nikon with big bold red letters that says "We spent all of our money on video in the D90, so we won't make DSLRs anymore ever." )

 

So because I don't feel video, which has absolutely nothing to do with still images, implemented in a DSLR is not necessary I am a purist? What!? I am not passing judgment on in DSLR video, what I continuously stated was that it is not an important feature for those who use DSLR's for still images. For many photographers it can be useful, for those who are strictly photographers I highly doubt a video feature is a selling point let alone will be used. Also, keep in mind this feature, while it sounds great to a lot of you, is restricted to MF only...there is no VF use either...that means when the average person uses it they will likely have difficulty using it at wide apertures, with long lenses and on moving objects without the use of a mono/tripod and or steady cam (which defeats a lot of the advantages it would have--namely portability, creative control and convenience). Toss AF-ability in and I'd be inclined to use the feature, until then its fluff.

If you're interested enough in the topic, feel free to join the conversation and or read comments left on an FM thread I started.

 

For what it's worth, I think you are both a little silly for arguing over the definition of a purist. Also, I'm not sure I buy the argument that X camera is for pros, Y camera is for photojournalists, Z camera is for _____. Any good photographer is going to invest in the camera body that will offer the greatest benefit to complement his system.

Having said that, I still think this is a feature that is marketed for the soccer moms of the world. I can only imagine how upset they'll be when they suddenly realize that the camera can't use autofocus in video mode. That alone is the killer for me. Maybe the 'purists' of the world don't mind because they all shun autofocus (for whatever reason?). But then, why are they shooting video with a DSLR?

Some may argue that it will be great for holidays: you can shoot stills and video without a bunch of bulky equipment. Maybe. I walked around Moscow with a DSLR around my neck and an HV20 in my coat pocket. Not only did the HV20 give me high quality HD video, it also gave me autofocus.

My point? I don't think it's that great of a feature. It might be a nifty feature some day. I suppose somebody had to do it first, just the get the ball rolling (or should that be shutter bursting?). Maybe when my daughter goes off to college, I'll buy her an DSLR iPhone that shoots uncompressed 4k video with 22.2 surround sound and connects to the global wi-fi network at googol-bit speeds. For now, when she does something cute, I grab the camera most fitting to capture the moment.

-monkey