New Nikon SLR camera shoots high-def movies, too

Everyone is going to follow. I've said for the last year or more that this was coming.

Once you have liveview with contrast detection focusing, you have 95% of the process in place to make movies. Why not add the extra 5% (which is just firmware) to shoot movies. Even if you don't particularly think it's something you'll use, it's still an excellent marketing feature. Nikon has it, the others don't.

I'd expect to see it on the next Digital Rebel and the EOS 60D. It may take longer to trickle into the 1D series, but there's really no reason not to include it eventually.

The next thing will be tilt and swivel, swing out LCDs like Sony already has on a couple of models.

How did we live so long without this....

>>The next thing will be tilt and swivel, swing out LCDs <<

That is something I have been wanting. I miss my old Rolleiflex, waist-level finder :)

Obviously, at some point, the DSLR will become a movie camera, and viceversa. The morphing will be complete.

Taking digital movies with some great, changeable lenses must be cool!

"The next thing will be tilt and swivel, swing out LCDs"

That is one feature from my Canon Pro 1 digicam that I miss on my Canon DSLR...

Have patience (or buy a Sony). It will come. There's no reason not to do it. The technology is already there. When they run out of other things to add, they'll add a tilt and swivel LCD.

With movies, the next we'll need is a jack for an external stereo microphone.

Cheaper and easier Geotagging is also on the list. The D90 can do it with an external GPS unit, but no word yet on what the cost of that will be. It's certainly possible to do it for under $100 today.

Canon have said that they expect to see cameras with built in GPS in the next two years, though they didn't say if they expected to see it on DLSRs and they didn't say if they expected to see it in a Canon camera. However they have said they are thinking about it and they do have geotagging available via the wireless transmitter option (clumsy and expensive for now). It's going to get easier, whether you want it or not.

We're also going to see automatic tagging of images, so portraits will be tagged as "portrait" and landscapes as "landscape", via auto image recognition technology. We have face recognition technology now.

I guess something is wrong with me, but I don't give rat's tail about shooting video clips with a SLR. I've owned several digicams and haven't used said feature even once. Somehow I prefer capturing a moment as opposed to a minute. If I seriously wanted to shoot video, I'd buy a video camera with all the bells 'n whistles.

Don't care about a tilting LCD either. No time to chimp and would probably break such a weak contraption off by accident anyway. What I'd really like is shiftable DEP mode and ECF...

I'd use the tilt screen for framing, like for angles where it's no possible to shoot otherwise.

Here's the link the movie page. They look good but, of course there is no AF in movie mode.

Well. . . I occassionaly shoot live music from the audience. Tilt and swivel would be simply AWESOME. Although honestly. . .live view gets the job done (sort of). When they make live view work well (or rather, when I figure out how to make it work well). . .then we will have something. . .

Nikon is REALLY upping the bar. YAHOOOO! Consider the yawner that was the 30D. 18 monthes after the 20D, and they don't even bother with a new sensor. People were declaring the pixel war over. Now. . .the 40D is one upped at 6 monthes by a dRebel and at 12 monthes by the 50D.

Competition is good for the consumer.

Maybe a silly question because I'm not at home with the physics involved but how about "tilt and shift" sensors so you can do without T&S lenses as the next improvement?

Regards, Matthijs.

I suspect that tilt screens will become popular with organic LED (OLED) technology. What struck me the most from a marketing standpoint is the $400 lower price on the Nikon D90 vs the Canon 50D. Does the 50D offer more robust construction or a better viewfinder than the D90? I know that the Canon has more pixels and a faster frame rate, but when people entering the dSLR market look at features such as movie mode on the Nikon, the lower price might seal the deal.

there is a video of chase jarvis trying out the D90 as well as samples of video shot with the camera here:

http://www.chasejarvisandfriends.com/

I`ve used the video mode on my lil A640 and it does a reasonable job convert to .wmv or .mpeg and email. Its a novel twist to dslr, I could offer my niteclub and restaurant customers. And the swivel and adjustable screen is great too. I think we`ll lose a few passport sales over the self portrait ease :) Ah well gotta move with the demands

I'm waiting for super HD movie mode. Being able to capture 24fps in full megapixel mode (12mpx or whatever it is). That will be the true merge between video and still...being able to pic a frame our of a movie stream and use it as a still photo.

This is great for PJ and sports as well.

Did anybody try to use all in one printer-fax scanner for fine art printing?! It's probably not a bad thing for home office needs but has no connection to photography, right?

Video without AF (even a slow contrast detect AF will do) is not at all appealing to me.

Happy shooting, Yakim.

This is a gimmick aimed at low-end consumer products. Jack of all trades, master of none. I want a still camera that takes photographs. I really hope Canon does not follow suit.

I think you will see video at both the Rebel and 1D level - and probably almost everywhere in between. The original 1D was after all a 4MP camera, precisely because that provided "acceptable" resolution for newsprint (even after some cropping), and because that was the highest resolution that could be handled at 8fps at the time. Photojournalism is moving towards having video as an important component. 10fps is not enough even for Chaplinesque video.

I do think that focus raises some interesting issues. Modern SLR lenses typically have very short focus throw, making on-the-run focus pulling extremely tricky - yet contrast AF systems are slow and poor with a moving subject. Working with a heavy fast lens on the front of the camera is not going to be easy if you are trying to use the rear LCD for focus and composition. Perhaps we will see a hotshoe mounted AF aid (i.e. lens and AF sensor) and use of Sony's hybrid LCD in the viewfinder system for video. Using a stopped down wide angle isn't really a good solution.

A feature that is useful to some shouldn't be left out because it isn't useful to others. I don't think i'd use video... maybe I would... But I know some would, so why not?

People said live view was a stupid idea.... I use it all the time for overhead shots and macro's.

Who cares if it's aimed at consumers.... it's just another great feature to have. Are you going to take crummier pictures because you are distracted by the fact your camera also takes movies?

It's not a gimmick. EVery new feature has to start out at a basic level. I can't tell you how many people said "it's a gimmick" talking about AF when it was first introduced!

At the price point of the D90 you can't expect much more, at this point. Like always, this feature will evolve and the prices will come down, relatively speaking.

This can be a really useful tool (perhaps not at this early implementation) for documenting all sorts of stuff, from sports to war reportage, news events, etc... Nothing to be dismissed as gimmick per se. The idea was there and it is a matter of time before it becomes a full blown V-DSLR.

Ergonomically speaking, video is better taken with a monitor and or a different holding position but, that too will change eventually. At some point we may have a V-DSLR that will be more like a medium format body style, like the Pentax 645 or the Canon XH video camera.

I think it's about time that video was included in DSLR. Not because all of a sudden you are goin to make "movie" at this stage but, because it's a good tool to have available, 'on the spot', for several reasons.

Difficulty with autofocus is an issue. To me, the storage of the video in a compressed format on SD cards is also a concern. I'd just rather have the uncompressed video on a mini-DV tape. However, I'm also the person who went on a once-in-a-lifetime trip ... and left the charger for the camcorder battery at home. So, I can also see that the compressed video would be better than nothing.

As long as what's needed to take stills isn't compromised in any way to make the video functions available, I don't have a problem with it. I might not plan to use the video capability ... but you never know.

What I would like in next camera is a microphone -- a 10 sec. sound clip for each image you shoot. Somtimes verbal annotation would be so handy. Also, only adds 60KB to a raw too. Please!

Anyway, 720p is not HD in my book -- Real HD is 1920 x 1080.

Great feature. I really look forward to this migrating over to the Canon lineup.

If implemented reasonably, this should mean the kind of video quality unobtainable up until now except on >$10K pro and almost broadcast level equipment. No, I don't mean the HD part of it (though 4K would quite the coup, eh?) The difference is the relatively large DSLR sensor would enable shallow DOF.

Digressing a bit, but I'really look forward to when the optical mirror box can be made to go away too. A well implemented EVF would just be so much nicer.

Permit me to invite anyone whose interest is piqued by video in DSLR to read an insightful and prescient article published 4 months ago at Luminous Landscape.

I may not have an immediate need for it, but if my next DSLR has built-in high quality video then I'll gingerly learn a new form of motion art, probably learn Final Cut, and find within an inchoate creativity that I'd never tapped before. Remember that this is just a 1.0 video convergence: in time there will be auto focus, and storage costs have become vanishingly thin.

Gimmick.

Bob wrote:

<< ...The next thing will be tilt and swivel, swing out LCDs like Sony already has on a couple of models. ... >>

Now the pivot/swivel lcd is on the Olympus E-3 and the Panasonic L10 as well.

I was hoping for it on the D90, but unsurprisingly, no such luck. On a comparatively light weight dslr, I'd regard it as a very appealing feature. It's quite useful in the kind of street snapping I like to do, and great for low-angle and off-angle shooting.

There was a big article in the New York Times yesterday about it, and it's currently the most-forwarded article in that newspaper. They tout it as a collossal breakthrough. I quote: "the new Nikon D90 is a mind-blowing, game-changing camera."

The thing that surprised me is that it can fit 80 minutes of video on one card - hardly a "clip" function.

I understand the movie "Nightmare Before Christmas" was shot, one frame at a time (stop-motion animation), with a 35mm DSLR, so the possibilties are pretty interesting.

While I do shoot a lot more film these days, I still do shoot digital for all of it's strengths.

But to make my own films using stills, time lapse and motion footage behind the same lenses......?

Well lets just say I am going to push the limits on this "Gimmick" as far as my imagination can fathom.

This is going to be spectacular!

Just like you can't get good still images from video, you can't get good video from a still camera. The D90 is a nice novelty item but why would a true photographer want to shoot video as well. That's what pro video cameras are for. There is no comparison.

With no doubt, the new movie feature will drain quicker the power, then people will start to complain, ohh.... battery life is so short! Then you need a bigger battery, like what in 1D/1Ds.

I always feel that, the more features packed in a gadget, the more easier it get problems. Just like mobile phone, my 5 years old little phone wihout colour, without polyphonic ringtone, camera, mp3... still working very well, while my friend's sophisticated camera mp3 mobile phone, only have 2 years lifespan.

I think this fancy feature will be a nice feature in entry level DSLR, but in mid and high end DSLR, it is not something attractive.

"I'm waiting for super HD movie mode. Being able to capture 24fps in full megapixel mode (12mpx or whatever it is)." - you wish 12 mpx movies or something like 4000 x 3000 pixels movies ?

...so you will also need to wait also for the display technology to catch up with it, and the storage capacity to expand far beyong current technologies, as well as enormeous computer systems power to process or just display.

Manual and Wooi, I am not sure you quite get it.

The output from this device is not supposed to match that of a $20,000 HD rig for filming episodes of "Survivor". It is however going to be incredibly lucrative for especially creative and driven individuals who will squeeze every last drop out of this new technology and use it to maximize creative potential and diversity of service to clients.

In less than one year from now, the work that young, talented visionaries will put out from this camera will blow your mind.

I find it to be both amazing and very encouraging to hear just how many people have simply NO idea just how successful and powerful this is actually going to be.

I guess that is why I actually make a great living in photography...I am not blind.

"This is a gimmick aimed at low-end consumer products. Jack of all trades, master of none. I want a still camera that takes photographs."

If you had read the information about the camera's ability to "take photographs", you would know that it certainly is more than adaquate to do so. This is just low-end negativity.

If LiveView and movie mode mean the sensor actually shutters itself, would it mean the mechanical shutter is going to disappear soon? And, doesn't this allow in-camera HDR? All the camera has to do is to expose the scene with a few different exposure times, the total would be for example 1/500+1/125+1/30 sec = 1/23 sec, very acceptable on tripod or with IS. I think revolution is not far away...

That stupid wheel invention. I have no trouble dragging myself and everything I could possibly need across the ground.

"why would a true photographer want to shoot video as well."

Why not? What do "true photographers" have against video? If there seems like something fun or interesting to have in video format what would make them any less of a photographer if they shot it? Really, why would that cause them to not be " true photographer"? Please, explain why...

Daniel, don't you think that "especially creative and driven individuals" would most likely acquire a video rig that would do justice to their vision, instead of the toy-like D90?

The D90 strikes me as a machine that is an introduction to still photography and an introduction to video, a way to test both waters without getting in too deep. A creative person who has a clear idea of what he or she wants to accomplish, whether still photography or video, might be better served by a D3, D700, or D300, and the videographer wouldn't want to be strapped by the limitations of the D90. If someone is trying to figure-out what they want to do creatively, maybe the D90 would be a good way to get their feet wet, but for committed photographers or videographers, there are much better choices.

As a dedicated photographer, I'm even more satisfied with my D80 as a backup/ JPEG camera since seeing what the D90 offers. I don't want a camera with video-lite. If I wanted to get into video I'd get a dedicated video rig, not a D90.

This is the NY Times article Beau referred to, which is the most e-mailed Tech story in the paper (though not necessarily the most e-mailed article in the entire paper):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/technology/personaltech/28pogue.html?em

David Pogue, actually a technology columnist, also did a short video review of the camera, concentrating on its video capability:

http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=74fb53b38202407685818a51932e2baa36bff397

Jefferey, "Incredibly creative and driven individuals" could be anyone at any level and any age with any number of desires to brew this new world together. This is a new tool, a new way to use existing tools to portray a new product. People are going to buy this and produce work you are really having a hard time imagining.

The limits of resolution, mono, 1.5 crop, manual focus mean nothing to me, I will work around those limits and use this to it's maximum potential. This is a tool for pioneers who simply don't hear the voices around them clamoring "Why" when the future is written on the wall in big block letters. And this will get better, much better actually.

And since when is any camera of any type an "Introduction" into anything? That is like saying that if motion and still shooter Eugene Richards picks up a D90, he is whooshed away to beginner level? To a camera marketing geek, it might look that way, but to a craftsman, this is very much a tool, all limits considered.

And are you completely missing the biggest outlet of this medium, web content? Think.........stop.........and think for a moment at just how many various forms of advertising now use the web. The cumulative effect of this tool in new or refreshed faces of talent is going to add up to millions in no time at all.

I am a professional photographer who does more than just stills for a variety of well paid reasons. I see with *crystal* clarity that this is going to be a fantastic addition to my tool kit and my desire to go meld digital stills with motion.

That is the big difference between you and me, I can clearly see that I could start applying this to my customers needs right now if I had this camera in hand, I already know who is going to want this from me and for what uses.

So no Jeffery, I don't think everyone who is brilliant is going to fit into the one size fits all mold of narrow thinking and scoff at this new tool, I think quite the opposite actually...

I think video guys with no interest in stills or still equipment are going to start feeling pretty uncomfortable in a couple years.....

I also think that the situation of no tripods or photography in specific public places is going to get even more embroiled as this new medium takes off, Oof!

The hang time for a clip can be much longer than a still shooter would encounter.

This will all look very different a couple years from now...

Fair enough Daniel, the only difference I see between you and me is that I would want to have the best tools for the job rather than a combo unit offering very good photo ability and half-baked video. I'm certainly not anti-video, and I see the wonders of video today, everywhere I turn, so it's not like this new sales device, the D90, is going to launch what has already been launched.

Daniel has brought up a very good point... the ability to take telephoto video at high quality in something small and portable might be good for the user, but the long term effects are yet to be seen.

Adding video doesn't detriment the equipment, it's just another feature... kinda like in-camera metering... or autofocus. Chase Jarvis sure had a lot of good to say about it (whether he was paid to say it or not), and i value his opinion, considering how well he does. Regardles, if anything, the D90 has a real foot up on the D80 in noise control, among other things.... add to that the fact you can take short videos.. I don't see anything wrong with it.

To all the nay-sayers... What are you afraid of? As a Canon shooter... I'm actually kinda hoping the 5D replacement has video... would be fun to use. Yes... it's crazy I know.. I make money doing photography AND I like having fun doing it. Maybe an odd concept that is lost on a few of you 'pros'.

David wrote:

" AND I like having fun doing it. Maybe an odd concept that is lost on a few of you 'pros'."

Not this one my friend..:-)

Jeffery wrote:

"Fair enough Daniel, the only difference I see between you and me is that I would want to have the best tools for the job rather than a combo unit offering very good photo ability and half-baked video."

That is exactly what is going on here, we have two very different ideas of what this camera's "job" is. You are locked into the labels, "Phototgraphy" and "Video", so you are using those rules of what is supposed to do what on a camera and for what purpose.

Well for me, there are no rules, I don't like them. When you start getting away from labels and rules, you start taking a lot of chances. When start taking chances, you start getting different results. And man, when you start getting different results than your peers, well people take notice quick, and then you stand out among the crowd.

The D90 is not launching something that has already been launched, it is giving visionaries an entirely different way to express what they see.

I have a cell phone because I want to talk, not download music or games or porn. I text message once in a while. I want a still camera because I love photography. If I wanted a video camera I would buy one.

The most unfortunate thing that I see happening is that some day in the future I'll want a new still camer but won't be able to buy one without built-in video camera, tilt and flip this or that, an mp3 player and a roll of toilet paper.

My question, do the other Nikon products D40 D60 D80 and so on start to drop in price every time another new one comes out ?

George Watters wrote:

"The most unfortunate thing that I see happening is that some day in the future I'll want a new still camer but won't be able to buy one without built-in video camera, tilt and flip this or that, an mp3 player and a roll of toilet paper."

That is one of the reasons I have made massive investments in film rigs, film, chemistry, etc, for black and white use for the long term. I knew this was all changing, I saw it about 10 years ago. I could easily see shooting 80%-90% of my still images on film and the rest on the digital still platform in the near future.

But honestly, this not going to kill photography, it is up to the photographer to continue to make a bold statement given his or her medium of choice.

With many weddings I find the couple want a digital album, just imagine that `kiss the bride` shot, quick flick to custom setting and a lasting moment, many things can be achieved here, no more it looked ok ro my eye but did not capture the moment, such as your child blowin out their birthday candles..:) Nikon is offering video, canon is offering a `PRINT` button. which would You rather have :) I know puppy but you`ll have to wait for ECF

BTW, I have lost wedding jobs and sure I`m not the only one to videographers claiming they can give top quality 10x8`s from their cams, now shortly the shoe will be on the other foot :)

Daniel, I agree I'm new to photography but am investing in film cameras and one DSLR I hope to be a Nikon D80 and a film scanner.

I couldn't be more blunt than I'm about to be...if I want to shoot movies, I'll buy a video camera. I want to shoot stills, therefore I own two still cameras. I see no purpose to including this so-called mind blowing feature on a DSLR...as others have said, it is plainly just a gimmick.

But Kieran, you can easily that some of us are going to use this so-called mind blowing feature and just make a killing off of it in the advertising, commercial, news in the web content world, right?

Surely you are not going to tell me or my clients that this is just a gimmick and ask why are we using it, right?

I talked to three of my regular ad agencies today and my editorial agent in NY who I fly out to see tomorrow, we are all very excited about this, it IS going to be mind blowing dude...if you have the talent to make it happen.

Seriously though guys, Canon is going to have this too and in a few years it will be stellar in high end models. I am going to bail on this topic now, I have film to develop and need to get packed for NY....bringing Kodachrome this time...:-)

Well, I wouldn't be surprise if Nikon gets bad opinions about the new D90 over here. This is on a Canon forum for goodness sake. (no hard feelings) Honestly, as long as the D-movie does not affect the quality of the photo or the shutter or simply anything that has to do with still images (the main purpose for DSLR), I'm ok with it. Getting something is better than nothing.

Just my opinion.

For those of you scoffing at the gimmick that is video in an SLR try lugging a SLR, lenses AND a video camera to a newspaper assignment. With very few exceptions the inclusion of video and photos on newspapers websites are becoming the norm and photojournalists are being expected to produce both on many assignments. I'm not saying that this model is one I'd ever attempt to use professionally (I tend to drop cameras, slam them in car doors or leave them on the roof) It's a start to what I'm sure will become the industry wide inclusion of video into SLR's.

Please don't add any flipout LCD's they won't last a week.

Autofocus?

Kinda funny. YOu guys are killing this for having an "amateur" "gimmick" video feature. Yet you want autofocus, which only comes on amateur video cameras. The best film cameras in the world work on manual/rack focus. Nothing like shooting a scene only to have the camera shift focus all of a sudden, eh?

it's a fine idea, and a fine feature, as long as it doesn't hurt the still image capabilities.

Digicam purists. Whouda thunk it!

"I have a cell phone because I want to talk, not download music or games or porn. I text message once in a while. I want a still camera because I love photography... ...some day in the future I'll want a new still camer but won't be able to buy one"

No one is making anyone download music, games or porn to their cell phone. No one is taking away anybody's love of photography just because a camera has some feature no one is required to use. I have no use for small pop up flashes that come with many cameras but have no reason to suggest it will ruin a whole camera or the entire camera industry. Added features havn't ruined anyone's great love of talking on phones either. The video componant is just an extra optional feature. Its not the end of the world.

"... if I want to shoot movies, I'll buy a video camera."

Here's the rub, in some important respects this camera is likely to have video capability comparable to existing video cameras in the $20k+ range.

Go look through B&H's catalog. How much does a video camera with a comparable sized sensor, comparable noise level, and comparable sensitivity cost? How about one with interchangeable optics?

The D90 is a game changer. Assuming it works as well as it's spec'd, it may have just shuttered a barrier to entry for a new generation of video production talents. I'm quite curious to see what projects gets done with this kind of equipment by film students a year or two from now.

The bottom line is, it will sell more DSLRs. If I was in the market for another DSLR, that feature would be a selling point.

I often bring my P&S Canon S3 along with me just for it's video capability. It's more convenient to take AND watch videos via the S3, than with a clunky old Sony 8MM camcorder. If one has a great DSLR that does video to, then it's one less thing to bring! One less strap around thy neck!

I wonder if the galleries of PN will soon be filling with short creative video clips:o) are they allowed now?

I'm not to trilled or wowed yet it could be cool but I wouldnt blow money on it. technology is moving so fast now, Id give this a year or 2 to take shape and then buy something comparable. Im a first timer to slres in february and now theres a 50D! omg Ill just wait awhile

Now Nikon has two fronts (video and photography) in which they can launch incremental improvements to keep gearheads unhappy with what they got, and to keep selling. Nikon knows that human nature never changes, and there's a sucker born every minute, and they'll continue exploiting these well-know concepts to the hilt. It's all so transparent, if you haven't drank the Kool-Aid that is.

Does anybody think this may have an effect on sensor life?

Now if you could make top quality digital still images from the video clip that would be something. Imagine, for example: you could place the camera in front of a portrait subject, turn it on for a while and then find the perfect nuance of expression form the clip and print that!

to all the purists out there...you haven't seen anything yet!

in the near future maybe not in our lifetimes, but near enough, we'll need only one device and input/output device small and snazzy, yet capable enough to receive and provide all the human sensations. it will be wirelessly connected to a laaarge computer (the future's version of the internet...this time, combined with infinite possibilities of satellites and the like)

by then we won't need cameras, just coordinates. you input the coordinates of what you want to see and a hi res hi def 3d image is produced by satellites and tiny accessory devices strategically positioned (kinda like a very very intimate version of google earth)

just as the early painters need not have been intimidated by the pin hole camera, and film photogs, the digital era, professionals need not be afraid of the new technology either cos no matter how far we advance...technology will still not be able to replace creativity (at least not in the near future as i described above)

also did i mention that the future gizmo will be able to make calls, play music, download porn, and flush the toilet?

I have to agree with Bayer here.

I came up as a musician, and I remember when the Akai MPC came out-- it was another drum machine, but it also had the ability to make and sequence short samples of any sound.

Of course, the dweeby "musicians" scoffed that it was a gimmick, that you could make longer and higher-fidelity samples with a dedicated keyboard, and drum machines were already fine as-is.

But the MPC presented a novel arrangement of functions to a new kind of user, and a generation of kids turned it into a revolutionary force in music. Entire hit records were made with *nothing but* the MPC and vocals. It addressed a need that didn't quite exist yet, in that sense it was a visionary product.

This might be that kind of gizmo, one that inspires the truly curious and creative to explore and do brand-new things with.

I find these complaints about video pretty strange. If you’re not into video, don’t use it. (Just about any camera you lay your hands on these days will have gazillions of features you’ll never use. Video is just another one.)

And don’t forget the main point: even before we try it out, I think we can be pretty confident that the D90 is going to be a superior stills camera to the D80, at a v. affordable price. That juicy D300 sensor for under $1000 list price? Sounds *great* to me.

I'm usually unimpressed by DSLR marketing hype, but I think Nikon added a desirable feature to the D90 with HD video. Besides stills, I do some independent film production. When shooting Super 8 film, we often have a stills photographer to shoot the set and lighting setups for continuity and the actors for promo material. To be able to shoot short video clips with a Still camera and check the lighting would be highly useful since Super 8 or 16mm film obviously does not allow review.

It would even be helpful in shooting video to have another shot to cut in. Very cool. Hope Nikon extends the video clip length in a firmware update.

I think the new video feature will turn out to be a milestone in opening up possibilities previously not available in affordable video cameras. The availability of a full range of lenses, including macro lenses, fast teles, ultrawide angle lenses (12-24), the potential for perspective correction in wide angles with the 24mm PC-E (how many movie cameras have this option?!), and the low noise given by the large sensor offer very interesting potential which I am sure will affect how small-budget movies are made. I've never been impressed by camcorders as they offer very limited manual controls and the movies have lots of noise when recorded in low light. The dynamic range limitations of many consumer camcorders show in bright sunlight. Nikon is positioning themselves as a technology leader in DSLRs, while they traditionally have rarely been the first to introduce new technology. It seems that the feature as implemented in the D90, and in subsequent more advanced versions, will change the marketplace and potentially also reform the camcorder market, which are stagnant with tiny sensors and fixed superzoom lenses.

I wish Canon, or someone, would make a digital back for the AE-1 Program. Or make a digital version of it. Just a thought.

Jason

would using this camera make you a better photographer?

would using this camera make you a better photographer?

A strange question. Why would these things be related?

Starvy Goodfellows wrote:

would using this camera make you a better photographer?

There's a nugget of wisdom I haven't read...in the last 30 minutes.

Ignoring the trite "it's the photographer, not the camera" platitudes, you can't deny that the right tools make it easier and more enjoyable to get the job done. They may not be required to get the job done, but you'll find very few pros in any profession who aren't particular about some aspect of their tools.

larsbc

I see this camera as filling a large niche in the amateur/home hobbyist photographer/videographer. I can see a soccer mom wanting to snap the kids, and then make a vid clip and only need one piece of gear to do it with. Same for some business aps. I work in heavy industrial construction, and I can see a need for stills and video clips of the work in progress. Just last month I took stills and time-lapse video of a large and expensive piece of chemical processing equipment get loaded onto a special heavy-haul trailer for transport across the jobsite from fab shop to installation location. I had to set up one camera on a tripod with an intervalometer release, and hand-carry the other around. It was a lot of gear to deal with, and I'd have liked to have knocked out the gig with only one camera. The trouble has been the trouble to get hi-def videos from a DSLR. Possible, but not very convenient, especially in terms of PP time spent. The D90 would appear to simplify the task a great deal.

In the wrong hands, though, it'll be more 'spray and pray' to get good shots, and most results will be medeocre, but it'll make folks happier than the smallish video windows we get to see playback through without a dedicated video camera. I don't have the need (at the moment), but I think these will sell well.

I don't think either still photography or video will be replaced outright. There's still something magically emotional about freezing a single moment in time, where 'less is more' in terms of visual assault on the senses. And I don't think a compromise unit will replace a good video camera, but this is a positive step for those that want to present the same event in multimedia without lugging around a lot of gear.

For the more serious hobbyists/amateurs and pros, this is a 'maybe' adjunct piece of equipment, and not necessary, but Nikon'll sell a boatload of 'em.

I just had a good laugh by imagining reading all the above posts and substituting any of the following for "video," (1) in-camera metering, (2) automatic exposure, (3) autofocus, (4) zoom lenses, or (5) any modern feature of your choice It is clear that this preposterous, unnecessary, amateurish gimmick is going to be a killer.

I predict that Sony and/0r Canon will come up wth it's own dslr with video capability too, with in 2 years. But with higher res. of 1080p, like most HDTV these days.

Honestly , I was surprised that Nikon came up with video capability first , instead of Sony.

I remember not too long ago when Popular Photography started to published articles about digital cameras there were many “true photographers” threaten to cancel the subscription, because digitals simply did not belong to photography. I’m not sure if these photographers are still using film cameras only, and without scanner.

I never use P Mode, but it’s OK for 5D to have it.

I recently got a DLux-3 because of its 16:9 video feature (of cause also the red dot factor) which 5D doesn’t have.

I can see this being useful to photojournalists who will want a bit of video along with stills of an event, but I doubt they need high def. Newspapers downrez video before makign it available online because bandwidth costs.

I am less convinced that this will allow wedding photogs to do the video at the same time and do a good job of both. Extracting a good still requires using the shutter to freeze motion and maybe flash to provide light at the critical moment. I am not sure this is compatible with a continuos 720 pixel video mode. You will be able to get a series of high megapixel photos or a HD video with a very low megapixel, motion blurred still extracted from it but not both.

As for young creative self-proclaimed geniuses making whole a whole new genre of media for customers, I guess I am skeptical. This technology has been in P&S digicams for a long time and not been revolutionary. Nearly all the video clips produced for the net, whether advertising or not, are downrezzed from what current videocams can do anyway. There is plenty of stop montion stuff already done which gets downrezzed for most uses.

It seems one advantage DSLRs have over a P&S with video is the ability to throw backgrounds out of focus, but to shoot any serious movide you will be wanting to do so with a hyperzoom. It is zooming that counts in video, so ditch you primes and pick up a 18-200 VR.

Ultimately I think that resolution is just not the issue when it comes to moving pictures because of the way our eyes and brains work. 35 mm movies have more than enough quality for cinema sized projection and they use a smaller frame than 35 mm still photography, and 35 mm film has heaps more resolution that this.

"Kinda funny. YOu guys are killing this for having an "amateur" "gimmick" video feature. Yet you want autofocus, which only comes on amateur video cameras. The best film cameras in the world work on manual/rack focus. Nothing like shooting a scene only to have the camera shift focus all of a sudden, eh?"

I've been wondering this too. Shoot a scene and the camera decides to do a little adjustment (seriously painful to watch) or shifts focus to person moving in front/back of the subject. Awesome.

Ok, I guess AF would be nice for some pj work and for soccer moms shooting... soccer but for video hobbyists and amateur film makers it's not really needed - and these are the guys who can make some really eye-catching low budget stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon announced quite visible D90 Video Competition.

"Ultimately I think that resolution is just not the issue when it comes to moving pictures because of the way our eyes and brains work."

True, but dynamic range and noise are important. D90 seems capable of very smooth and "real" quality that is lacking in p&s cameras and cheap video cameras. Downrezzing doesn't help here.

This will of course be a standard feature of the majority of DSLR's in the near future. Recent rumor has it that the 5D-II will have it.

Think camera's on telephones. The first ones got a lot of heat and currently more phones do have cameras than not.

(Hmmm... when will I be able to surf the internet on the preview-screen of my Canon?)

>> Kinda funny. YOu guys are killing this for having an "amateur" "gimmick" video feature. Yet you want autofocus, which only comes on amateur video cameras. The best film cameras in the world work on manual/rack focus. Nothing like shooting a scene only to have the camera shift focus all of a sudden, eh?

1. The D90 is an amateur DSLR and its target market are amateur photographers. Don't you think they will want AF?

2. Every AF lens has a small switch which enable you to choose between AF and MF. Don't know what about you but I like having choices.

Happy shooting, Yakim.

I think the sensors on camcoders are much more sensitive to light than the sensors on DSLRs .

Don’t forget the human factor, movies what you said real movies need editing and time to do it and to watch it so. The regular camcorders fail for that reason and make short movies is fun too, someone here never saw something in youtube? The other features that Bob writes above, is something nice to have, looks like we are moving to a camera “all inclusive” lets see when we arrive there…..

Just think.. when shooting models they won't know if you're video "taping" them too! :-0

1. The D90 is an amateur DSLR and its target market are amateur photographers. Don't you think they will want AF?

It's not a question of "want". When a DSLR is recording images, all the light projected by the lens goes to the sensor. In live view mode you can test how fast the camera can autofocus based on the sensor data. Not fast enough to be useful for video, hence the feature is disabled. As the in-camera processors get faster, autofocus will probably be possible.

I am an amateur and use manual focus maybe 30% of the time. AF is convenient but not required.

2. Every AF lens has a small switch which enable you to choose between AF and MF. Don't know what about you but I like having choices.

Yes, but first you need to wait for the technology to be developed.

I think the sensors on camcoders are much more sensitive to light than the sensors on DSLRs

This is incorrect. The DSLR sensors are much, much larger than camcorder sensors and hence the former deliver better SNR and sensitivity in low light. This is one of the key reasons for the existence of the D-movie function.

check out my tests...had this camera for a day...

http://www.vimeo.com/2053280