Who doesn't use video features?

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
6,029
Location
Southwest Virginia
Real Name
Steve
No rant here, just curiosity. I never use the video features of either my E-P2 or G2. Video capability has absolutely no effect on my camera purchases, and I would cheerfully do without them. Am I the only one who feels like this?

It wouldn't be the first time :redface:
 

DekHog

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
603
Location
Scotland
No, I'd quite happily live without video on any camera...... and also any phone for that matter.... someone started the ball rolling and the rest just had to follow suit.
 

dixeyk

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
3,475
Depends...on my G2 which I use the most I don't much care whether or not it has video. I have only used it once or twice. On my GF2 however which is a more fun/casual use camera for me I am finding that I very much like having video.
 

digitalandfilm

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Messages
1,269
No rant here, just curiosity. I never use the video features of either my E-P2 or G2. Video capability has absolutely no effect on my camera purchases, and I would cheerfully do without them. Am I the only one who feels like this?

It wouldn't be the first time :redface:
I never, ever use video.. would much rather get a spare battery or a real prime lens.
 

walt_tbay

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
322
Location
Ontario, Canada
I've dabbled with video. It was actually one of the selling features that originally got me into :43: because at the time I was looking at getting a camcorder :eek:)
 

BruPri

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
50
Location
Seattle
Unfortunately if a manufacturer leaves out a popular feature such as video, they lose a comparative advantage in the marketplace. I myself have never used the video, or art settings on any of my cameras. I agree with the comment about the trade-offs...if only one could get better quality components to focus on the device's core strenghts that are best suited to each individual using the device. Sadly it'll never happen at the pro-sumer price points.
 

Art

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
1,385
Location
San Francisco, CA
I doubt it costs anything for a manufacturer to put video in these days. It's not a useless feature and can be fun sometimes - try to experiment with MF and shallow DoF when you're bored. Or macro or telephoto (100-300) video. I had G3 for a while and I was only able to get smooth video with wide angle 14mm lens at smaller aperture in sufficient light. Otherwise I can clearly see those annoying AF transitions on HDTV. I bet PDAF is better for video especially in low light like the one on Sony A55. It's sad to see some parents buying Canikon DSLRs (have such friends) for HD video only to get dissapointed. Nobody explained to them that fast AF is for stills only, lol.
 

jeanba3000

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
16
Location
Paris, France
It's like I totally ignore my E-PL2 has got video capabilities… But it's nothing to be proud of it, I should look the manual about it someday…
 

WT21

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
6,486
Location
Boston
Two years ago I was really into it, but what a pain to edit properly, and a disk hog. I've gone to stills, and creating slide shows. It's nice to have it just in case.
 

GaryAyala

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
6,564
Location
SoCal
Hmm.. Aren't those CCD worse for high ISO nosie?
Yep, in theory CCD should be better, but for elevated ISO CMOS is less noisy (ask Nikon who first started with CCD sensors and later switched to CMOS).

G
 

RT_Panther

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
5,933
Location
Texas
Hmm.. Aren't those CCD worse for high ISO nosie?
I'm glad you said this.
In the past, when I brought up the high ISO performance of the NEX, a common answer was that MFT has better overall image IQ.

Well guess what? The Leica M9 uses a Kodak CCD sensor which arguably has a better overall image IQ than CMOS sensors....:smile:
 

flash

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
2,004
Location
1 hour from Sydney Australia.
Real Name
Gordon
Sorry, you're all deluding yourselves. :) You all use the video functions on your m4/3 cameras. You just don't record it.

It's called live view. The better the video capabilities, the better the live view capabilities. And the cameras with better video capabilities have the better stills abilities as well. Notice that the GH2, G3 and EP3 have the best AF, buffers etc. That's because they have the best video capabilities. The cameras with the best AF and write speeds also have full HD video. Those with lower video capabilities also have inferior AF and stills abilities as well.

The technology that gives you live view is exactly the same stuff that allows video. Remove ALL the video capabilities and you also remove live view. The only physical differences are in the size of the buffer, speed of the on chip processors and the size and speed of your memory cards. But since those things also improve the AF speed, still shot buffer and image write times, your getting advantages there too. Implementing video is just a few lines of code on top of live view. The most difficult part is the code to allow live view. The recording bit is easy.

Improvements in M4/3 stills and video are linked at the hip. You can't have one without the other. There's always a few (not in this thread) that say, I'd rather have a ....... than video". It isn't cheaper to produce the camera, they'd sell less so the cost per unit would be higher and you'd have a technically inferior product. I don't use the video functions except for live view either, but I'm very glad it's there.

Gordon
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom