Thom has weighed in on the Nikon-RED merger in more detail now. Worth the read. The comment that struck me was, "RED brings Nikon instant credibility in the serious video and cinema market, something that would have cost many many millions and years to try to do from the mirrorless hybrid platform." He makes a lot of other points, many of them cruising by at an altitude high above my pointy little head.
Personally I find my interest in this event to be minimal. I'm not a videographer and have no interest in becoming one. The invasion and takeover of still cameras by video, making our once single-purpose devices into hybrid camcorder + camera devices, is just one more of many negative trends in recent years to my way of thinking. That's a personal and self-centered response, but then, my interest isn't actually in the business of image technology.
Let me venture an analogy. Imagine that washing machine manufacturers suddenly got very interested in making the tops of clothes washing machines into, say, cooktop grillers for meats. For some reason maybe it was easy to do (perhaps the ventilation for the dryer becomes the ventilation for the cooking smoke—stay focused, Mike, don't get carried away!), and most people like meat, and grilling is very popular, and the fashion takes off and people get very interested in the grilling features of washing machines. An internet "community" pops up, and it's enticingly huge. So the manufacturers start taking clothes washing for granted and divert R&D resources into improving the meat-griller cooktop functions at the expense of clothes washing, which is considered mature and adequate. Eventually new products are mainly centered on grilling functions, and sales of plain old-fashioned non-cooktop washing machines start to wither. Meanwhile, there's me and a few people like me. I don't eat meat more often than maybe once a week and never cook it at home, but I can't buy a washing machine any more without a cat-danged cooktop. I won't go on.
I was okay by me when cameramakers started adding video capability to stills cameras as an extra bonus feature. They did it because it was easy to do and created added value for their products. Didn't bother me. But gradually, video improvements have started to overshadow stills improvements, a little, and the interest of the market in video devices has begun to influence product trends and directions and impose costs on many cameras that used to be solely intended to make photographs. This is just the way it is and there's no use crying about it. But on the other hand I don't have to like it.
The reason for all this (and your mileage definitely might vary) is probably because I start with the result I visualize and work backward from it. I've always been that way. It's what guides my interests. Sometimes, that leads me to embrace new technology; for example, I do 98% of my reading on my tablet. Other times it leads me to reject trends in technology; for example, I've been an audiophile since I was a young teenager, but I don't have any parallel interest in the quality of movie reproduction at home. I've never for five seconds wanted a home theater or coveted a huge flatscreen. That's because my interest is music. Specifically recorded music. Not in home entertainment technology of any kind for its own sake.
In the same way, I like photographs. And that's what guides my interest.
Consider Brunswick. Brunswick started out making pool tables. Then bought up its major competitors and became No. 1. Then flexed its might and power and branched out into other areas. As pool drifted down in popularity, tried to consolidate with bowling alleys and bowling equipment. Eventually diversified into, well, recreational boats. Kept its pool table business going as its legacy. Eventually stopped even building tables, started selling cheap Chinese crap (no offense) at grotesquely inflated markups instead. Bought more and more boat manufacturers. Finally said the hell with legacy businesses and the origin of the corporate name and jettisoned its greatly withered and vestigial (and cynical, and tiny) little backwater pool-table importing business. Now it's a big name in boats. It's very successful.
The problem there, for me, is that I'm not interested in Brunswick. I'm interested in pool tables.
Yes, I admire Nikon, and yes, I want Nikon to prosper, and yes, I feel a lot of respect for Nikon's user-base and fans. And of course I have zero criticism for anyone who's interested in video in any way. On the contrary, I'm happy for them that high-quality video tools are more accessible than ever before. That's great. I just don't much like the way video is impinging and imposing on tools once only used to make photographs, is all. And I don't have to like it. So my reaction to the news of this acquisition is just a little mistrustful. Maybe a tad skeptical. Maybe Nikon needs to be more video-centered, as a company, because it has to do what businesses do to survive, which is adapt. But I don't need it to be more video centered. And yes, that's just selfish, looked at narrowly through the peephole of my own idiosyncratic concerns. But my interest goes photographs > photographers > photographic tools > photographic tool companies > Nikon. My interest isn't in Nikon per se. No matter how big, fat and prosperous it might someday get to be in boats.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
Richard Alan Fox: "What if Nikon started making pool tables?"
Mike replies: I would vigorously endorse its new direction and praise its astute leaders! Naturally.
David Dyer-Bennet: "I understand you're not much interested in video, and that's fine. However, your example is entirely unfair; a clothes dryer and a grill don't have much in common, not time, or place, or purpose (you found the one functional similarity in their needing to exhaust air they'd used). On the other hand, lots of uses of still cameras and uses of moving picture tech (old film tech, or newer video tech) are closely related, used by the same people or at least people on the same project. Photojournalism and news reels, using sequenced stills or movies to study movement (from horses to atom bombs), home movies and snapshots, wedding albums and wedding videos, film strips in class and also movies or TV, and so forth. These two things are very like each other! Even if they're not much connected in your own artistic thinking."
Jeff: "Fortunately there are still some companies like Leica (with the M) and Hasselblad (with the X2D) that produce photo-centric cameras sans video, each reflecting customer demand."
Terry Burnes: "I love my OM-D E-M5 III. But I don't need the video parts and menus and would love to have the screen just flip up and down, not sideways.
"But I'm also reminded a bit of snow sports. The arrival of snow boards caused a lot of consternation, and resistance, among skiers. But in the end snow boards had a great influence on the design of skis, resulting in a renaissance in ski design. Skis are much better today as a result. And the two technologies have found a way to coexist peacefully. Many younger enthusiasts use both.
"Still, I don't see why I can't pay, say, $100 extra to have an E-M5 that is devoid of video features."
nextSibling: "Couple of observations from mulling the arguments around this subject over the last few years...
—> Yes, of course, video technology has arguably enhanced still photography technology. No, all that technology doesn't have to be crammed into the same product. Even when it is, have you noticed how much additional accessorization these hybrid cameras attract when employed in serious video use? Why not design cameras with all that stuff already built in?
—> The cost saving argument is unsatisfying. It may be cheaper to manufacture hybridized all-in-one-package cameras for a wider market share, but cost isn't just about dollars for technology and features. There's an opportunity cost to the cognitive viscosity and redundant complexity of an over-engineered tool.
—> Video and still photography are fundamentally different media, requiring very different skills and techniques to do well, regardless of the technology.
—> Those skills and techniques should drive product design, not simply the availability of technology that appeals to online camera reviewers, marketers and forum critics more interested in gear than the outcomes of its use.
—> People who are highly capable and accomplished at both still and video are extremely rare. Perhaps they'd be less rare if appropriate technology was available to them."
Thom Hogan brought up video encroaching on still photographer's sandbox recently in this post: https://bythom.com/newsviews/dont-poo-poo-video.html
Short summary, still photographers are benefiting from video-centric tech in the cameras, even when not using video features.
Patrick
Posted by: Patrick Perez | Wednesday, 13 March 2024 at 02:24 PM
I remember reading a quote from the General Motors CEO in the late 70s in the Des Moines Register Opinion Page that always stuck with me: 'We're not in the business of making cars, were in the business of making money'. You can't sell money to people in your product. If you aren't concentrated on your product, you'll eventually lose marketshare. And GM is a great example of this.
Posted by: Dan | Wednesday, 13 March 2024 at 02:44 PM
And then there is the irony of you picking the absolute most video centric FF interchangeable lens camera on the entire market as your own still camera!!! The Sigma fp.
Darn that video. It gave us faster processors, better thermal management, better power management, better continuous AF, and faster throughput. Curse them!
Of course you could just...ignore that red video button altogether...
[Originally there was a whole paragraph about the fp in this post, but I decided it was a tributary away from the main argument and axed it. (I have trouble keeping to the middle of the stream on the best of days.) But you're right, it's rather ironic that I use that! --Mike]
Posted by: Kirk | Wednesday, 13 March 2024 at 02:46 PM
There is one part of the analogy you missed:
At some point, some famous chef used the grill leveraging something that the washing machine was good at. Making everyone go ooh! and aahh! and fall over themselves to do it.
I am referring to some of the cinematographers that were using DSLR's because the fast lenses at full frame sensor sizes could get them narrow DOF's.
Occasionally on the Canon board, we get folks complaining because DSLR's and comparable mirrorless don't have the features to make good webcams.
Posted by: KeithB | Wednesday, 13 March 2024 at 02:54 PM
Your words ring true to me. I've often wondered if on the video side camera manufacturers can add "curves" and "LUTS" and related "color grading" capabilities on the video side, why don't they do that on the stills camera jpg side, too? Why can't they implement these in a standardized way that I could take, for instance, a fully implemented spec user defined .dcp file, download it into the camera, and have the jpg ASIC use it to set the output? Keeping, of course, the RAW+JPG functionality. Right? Why not???
Posted by: Christopher Perez | Wednesday, 13 March 2024 at 02:54 PM
I think you are underestimating how much of our tools for still photography are downstream from innovations in video.
Posted by: James | Wednesday, 13 March 2024 at 03:33 PM
To some extent, I share the concern that Nikon may overreact to the mistake it made of ignoring the market pivot for too long. But I have a hard time imagining that it would completely abandon still photography. Firstly because it's a Japan-based company, steeped in a culture that reveres ancestry and legacy and where personal photography has a special place. Secondly, I think Nikon is especially proud of its legacy--rightfully, and even to a fault. And finally because it makes no sense, business or otherwise, to trash a still-relevant legacy just because you've acquired another impressive legacy.
On the other hand, I think it's fair to worry that Nikon will reduce its stills-centric offerings to a few pricey flagship models and homages.
I just remembered that the color red is already part of Nikon iconography, so there may be some fun to be had there.
(Disclaimer--I work in documentary video from time to time. But I have zero hope that this merger will result in the "holy grail" of working news and documentary shooters: an affordable, small, light, high-IQ all-in-one camcorder (the video equivalent of the DMD). Once common, they were another casualty of the hybrid video revolution.)
Posted by: robert e | Wednesday, 13 March 2024 at 03:36 PM
“But I don't need it to be more video centered.”
Says the guy who uses a video camera. And speaking of the fp, whatever happened to the Mennonite Boys print sale? I recall your post back in August saying how lovely the proofs were. I’ll bet if you got this sale up and running right away, proceeds would pay for your car repair:)
Posted by: Ned Bunnell | Wednesday, 13 March 2024 at 03:45 PM
Well, you could always use an old film camera to avoid the video stuff. (Or a new one from Pentax soon.)
Posted by: Dave | Wednesday, 13 March 2024 at 04:35 PM
Hi Mike,
I’ll echo Patrick’s point above. Suggest you have a read of the linked article.
TL:DR - video is pushing the technology envelope in terms of ability to process increasingly larger volumes of data from the sensor, and faster, via moving up the scale from 4K to 6K to 8K etc.
And photographers benefit from these improved capabilities in the sensor and processors.
In particular, Thom points out in his first article about the merger that Red has a couple of global shutter image sensors. These are needed for ILCs to truly move into mirrorless.
Doesn’t mean you have to like video, or should want to use it. It helps to understand how we could benefit, in time, if Nikon uses global shutter sensors in future ILC bodies.
Posted by: Not THAT Ross Cameron | Wednesday, 13 March 2024 at 05:07 PM
I tried to find a non-copyrighted old man yelling at clouds image to post here, but couldn't find one.
Seriously, exactly what improvements to cameras are being slowed down by video? What improvements could you really want? You can almost shoot in the dark with resolutions far beyond what film ever offered, to the point where you have to look at large prints with a magnifying glass to find even a hint of softness...and on enthusiast cameras the stills function can be customized to anything from fully auto to fully manual...and the current crop of mirrorless cameras are smaller and handier than the old enthusiast SLRs and DSLRs, to the point where people have commented that some are "too small for my hands." So, specify some improvements that you can't have because of video. Then we can discuss. On the other hand, if your need for the absence of video is like your need for the absence of color so that you can function in a pure state of B&W...then maybe we can't discuss. It just is what it is.
[Well, I'm not saying it's all bad. But since you asked, you're talking to a guy whose video-oriented camera doesn't even have a SHUTTER in it, so there's that. Or an eyepiece viewfinder, although I like the arrangement it does provide. Forget using flash with it. Plus there's all sorts of stuff we have to pay for that we don't need, like lenses that don't have focus breathing, AF and aperture motors that don't make noise, IBIS that works like a gyroscope instead of being designed to be most effective for single shots; plus all the menu bloat, control confusion, and processor power made expressly for video, extra connectors, onboard microphones, etc. Then there's the idea that cameras are designed for video and therefore should be used for video, encouraging young people and new people to relegate still photography to afterthought status. But I can't prove that. Maybe it's not true. I appreciate that there are still a few cameras available that are photograph-centric and don't have video. I wish there were more. And finally there's what it makes of our cameras...instead of purpose-focused tools we get multi-purpose tools. Like the little Boston Whaler tender my family used to have that was designed to row, AND sail, AND use with an outboard. The more things a thing does, the less well it does any of them, generally. Just my 2¢. --Mike]
Posted by: John Camp | Wednesday, 13 March 2024 at 05:55 PM
I *love* that all this amazing video tech has come to still cameras. Because I need to shoot video. So I can share bodies and lenses-I don’t have to spend a ton on a totally separate kit.
I think cameras are pretty great these days, and while a little complicated once you learn your tools you can just ignore what you don’t need.
Posted by: Ben | Wednesday, 13 March 2024 at 07:21 PM
My thinking parallels with yours. Still cameras produce still pictures and video cameras produce motion pictures. I find the mix difficult to process mentally and takes up a lot of storage space.
All said, I hardly shoot video even on my mobile device and so cannot speak for people who try to market themselves and score it big on the Internet. Most times, it's like trying to strike a lottery. I wonder if the yield justifies the efforts.
Posted by: Dan Khong | Wednesday, 13 March 2024 at 07:25 PM
There is the possibility of cross-pollination the other direction. The Nikon Z8 has a high-efficiency RAW compression mode that is directly derived from their video codec. So video has benefited Z8/Z9 stills users who want to store more images on their CF cards, or shoot at higher frame rates.
That said, I feel more or less the same way that you do Mike about video on my stills cameras. Just one more button to press at an inopportune time. Also, artistically speaking, I find making a well composed still image pretty challenging. Having the subject move around the frame and still "getting the shot?" It is all a bit much to ask of my poor brain.
Posted by: Benjamin Marks | Wednesday, 13 March 2024 at 07:29 PM
That’s quite the tortured analogy, Mike.
Posted by: DB | Wednesday, 13 March 2024 at 07:36 PM
My understanding is that Brunswick started in the horse carriage business.
I have a pair of Brunswick-Balke-Collender Company hand cranked phonographs that I am told were the best in the world when they were made.
Nikon has always been an optical company that happens to make, among other products, cameras. Often in fact, the lenses for other companies cameras. The very first Canon cameras, and early Bronica cameras used Nikon lenses. They also make the machines that make the sensor chips that the other companies use to make their cameras.
I’m pretty sure that the marginal cost of added video capabilities approaches zero, so think of the video market subsidizing the still photography market much the same way that the snapshot and industrial market subsidized the films that art photographers loved in the 70s ( I dream of finding a case of Verichrome Pan )
It’s sort of like Photoshop. Absolutely zero people need all of Photoshops features but lots of people need some goofy feature that is only in Photoshop and is willing to pay for the junk that they don’t need.
By the way, note to Adobe: It sure would be swell to have a configuration feature that just hid things on the menus so that instead of 1000 things to go through only the weird features that I use were exposed.
Posted by: hugh crawford | Wednesday, 13 March 2024 at 08:46 PM
@ Christopher Perez asks why users can’t install gamma curve and look up tables and all of the other filmmaker stuff in still cameras for still files, and I believe Fujifilm does exactly that in their cameras.
Posted by: hugh crawford | Wednesday, 13 March 2024 at 08:55 PM
I love that people are challenging your posts logic.
Unaware that you're just chuffed that you got to talk about pool tables. Ha! Genius.
Ps. Thom was (is?) a futurist. The best I've ever seen. I'm surprised he didn't see that deal coming.
Posted by: Kye Wood | Wednesday, 13 March 2024 at 09:19 PM
Mike, Your post seems to imply that Nikon was always an old school still photography company. A still camera and lens making outfit with a rich history of making traditional photo cameras. That this foray into moving pictures with the acquisition of Red is somehow a novelty for them in an area in which they are wanting for any expertise. Hmmmm.
My first "video" camera was actually a film movie camera. A professional Super8 camera that took those three minute loads of actual film and ran them through the film plane directly behind a nice zoom lens. Using a rotary shutter.
The camera was a Nikon R10 with a lovely zoom lens which was entirely par focal, didn't breath when stopped down and came fully loaded with features just now being embraced by today's "cutting edge?" video cameras and hybrid cameras. The lens could be manually zoomed or zoomed with a variable speed motor for a nice, smooth zoom effect.
The camera had frame rates up to 54 fps and had the ability to do 100 frame lap dissolves. It was an absolutely professional tool. In fact, I used one as an effect camera on a very well received video for a company called TechWorks which played for three years in a row at Apple's big expo. The black and white film I shot was transferred to one inch video tape so we could edit it together with some color BetaCam footage. That video project was produced back in 1985.
The camera is hardly a relic and is still sought after today by indy film makers. It was introduced in 1973 and stayed on the market until 1980.
And it was not the only Nikon movie camera to have a successful run on the market.
You young kids might have missed that one but old timers like me actually had a blast using them. And Nikon did a darn good job making a highly competitive motion picture camera back then.
And yes, you can still get film AND get it developed.
Nikon's video interests are not limited to the day before yesterday.
[Yeah but Kirk. The R10 *just* shot Super 8. The F2 and Nikkormats and whatever else of 1973 *just* shot stills. Two different purposes. Each dedicated to its purpose. --Mike]
Posted by: Kirk | Wednesday, 13 March 2024 at 10:35 PM
Early Nikon Motion Picture camera: https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2012/06/does-anyone-remember-super-8-movie-film.html
Loaded with cutting edge filmmaking features. Introduced in 1973
Wow! That was 50 years ago!!!
Posted by: Kirk | Wednesday, 13 March 2024 at 10:52 PM
What about value for money? It used to be $1500 for a stills camera and another $1200 for a video camera. But now we get a top notch stills camera with a top notch (4K!) video camera "built in" for free. Seems like good value to me. And much easier to carry and use.
Like you, I'm mainly interested in still images, but when travelling I very much like to capture the bustle of markets and the buzz of people and crowds. The thing I've learnt is that you need to have some kind of script in mind. Random clips are not all that useful.
Posted by: Peter Jeffrey Croft | Thursday, 14 March 2024 at 12:39 AM
Perhaps you would endorse Nikon's acquisition if they brought out a black and white only, stills and video, camera?
Posted by: Trevor Johnson | Thursday, 14 March 2024 at 04:45 AM
Fuji and Panasonic allow users to load LUTs on the video side. I can't find a manufacturer who allows those on the stills side and would appreciate it if someone proved me wrong. "Styles" or "Looks" on the stills side are baked into the ASIC jpg generators.
The more I think about it, the more I see value in companies adopting the .dcp file formate for in-camera "curves", "look", and "base table" color management. We could take an Adobe Standard camera profile and download/use it on the stills side. And if the camera companies were smart, that'd make that format available on the video side, too.
@hugh crawford wrote: "@ Christopher Perez asks why users can’t install gamma curve and look up tables and all of the other filmmaker stuff in still cameras for still files, and I believe Fujifilm does exactly that in their cameras."
Posted by: Christopher Perez | Thursday, 14 March 2024 at 06:14 AM
Another side effect is the demise of the camcorder. They were useful devices with powered ultra-zoom ranges and large DOF that are very convenient for casual users. Not everyone cares about razor-thin DOF and cinematic pull-focussing. They came with reasonable mic inputs and headphone outputs, touch screen features, etc. We're still using 2 Canon HD camcorders from before 2010, plenty of image quality for our needs or most youtubers for that matter. And imho they were easier to hold for casual filming than most of the things sold today. Sure people use their phones a lot now but it's hard to zoom in on an elk that's 500 yards away with a smart phone.
I've seen ads for products that bulky phone attachments to make them easier to hold as camera/camcorders, which I find very funny.
As for cameras being loaded with unwanted video features, there's no escape from that. Mirrorless cameras are really just "camcorders" that take stills at their core. Eliminating the video features could easily be a firmware option and if you removed the red ring around that extra button and made it customizable like on Olympus/OMD bodies, it would be easy to pretend that the camera did NOT have video capabilities. Besides, it's not as if eliminating (or hiding) the video features would result in price savings, all the same hardware would remain inside.
Posted by: Robert Roaldi | Thursday, 14 March 2024 at 07:55 AM
Using the image of a washing machine moonlighting as a barbecue grill to grill, Nikon's move towards video in still cameras? Genius-level creativity, but maybe it's a bit like comparing apples and, well, washing machines. The truth is, slapping video capabilities onto cameras isn't some wild, out-of-left-field idea; it's more like realizing peanut butter and jelly aren't just roommates in the pantry; they're soulmates. It was inevitable in the evolution of photographic technology.
While this still-shooting film photographer appreciates your passion for vintage-style photography, let’s not forget you traded film for digital. So, your inner Luddite’s protests might not ring as authentic as they could. From where I stand, it looks like a savvy business move by Nikon, essential for keeping up with the times so the cash keeps flowing and the technology is pushed onward.
I reach for film when I want to shoot black and white, and you reach for a digital camera built for video making. Isn't technology fantastic with such a buffet of choices? Our skies are not falling; they are expanding with creative choices.
Posted by: darlene | Thursday, 14 March 2024 at 08:10 AM
A washing machine with a cooktop? I’ve never seen one of those. What appliance store do shop at?
Posted by: Craig Yuill | Thursday, 14 March 2024 at 08:55 AM
As others have mentioned, you didn't read my other article on video (don't poo poo).
I characterize your response here as the same kneejerk response I'm seeing from a lot of other folk.
A more complete analysis would tell you that, for instance, JPEG actually derives from video work. Would you like JPEG to go away? That's just one simple example, there are dozens more.
It would be one thing if Nikon bought RED and then tried to stuff all of the RED goodies into the Z System cameras. I don't believe that's why Nikon bought RED, nor do I believe you're going to see Z cameras suddenly get REDded.
I was recently at a conference where I spent time to learn about some of the things people are doing with Instagram and TikTok. The clever photographers are integrating video into their marketing, because it makes it stand out from purely static photo-based marketing. Video can show process better than stills do.
But just because video exists doesn't mean stills don't exist (and vice versa). Nikon, like Canon and Sony, would like to play in both because they are related and, when done properly, support one another.
Posted by: Thom Hogan | Thursday, 14 March 2024 at 10:03 AM
I'm with Mr. Burnes. Make the stills-only version an upgrade, a higher priced specialty camera, and give it a different color body or trim. Let the stills shooters proclaim their purity.
Not that I would pay (much) extra for that.
Posted by: Luke | Thursday, 14 March 2024 at 10:09 AM
One of my favorite techniques is to use the video to capture the before and after setup of a group or portrait, and then use one of the stills as the establishing static shot. One can only do this nicely with the higher-end cameras.
Posted by: Bob G. | Thursday, 14 March 2024 at 12:02 PM
Almost never is how often I use the video features in my cameras and it has probably been a decade since I shot any video. I understand it has to be there to broaden the market for the cameras, but, to be honest, I don’t even know if the video functions work (except for cameras that don’t allow you to disable video and I’ve accidentally hit the button). I do appreciate the cameramakers that allow you to fairly easily ignore video. Though I would like to see more of them to allow repurposing of the usually-very-conveniently-placed video button. I hate having to just turn it off and lose a convenient control button. Then there’s the flippy vs. tilt screens. I always want a tilt screen.
Posted by: Peter Cameron | Thursday, 14 March 2024 at 02:13 PM
Sous Vide clothes dryers! Great idea Mike.
Posted by: Ed Eubanks | Thursday, 14 March 2024 at 09:03 PM
I thought Leica had the niche covered with its Digital CL Camera - compact, high quality results with great lenses specifically designed for the format - but, discontinued. All it needed was an up-dated version with IBIS (and maybe tilt screen), but the gnomes of Wetzlar decided otherwise. I use both the Leica lenses and the Sigma Contemporary f1.4 lenses which give a nice variety of focal lengths to choose from. The Sigma lenses are stellar performers - an un-believable value!
I can see why FF might be in trouble, also why bother with 4/3rd's when they are the size of FF anyway?
Posted by: Rick in CO | Friday, 15 March 2024 at 03:47 PM
I have always had a passion for photography, however, I spent approximately 10 years working as a professional video producer. I made television commercials, promotional videos, and a TV pilot. Unlike photography, video production is more closely related to filmmaking and involves different skills. It is a form of visual storytelling that requires more than just a camera. To produce an engaging video, you must have a well-written script, talented actors, proper lighting and audio equipment, a crew, and access to editing software. You also need money. Using a DSLR as a substitute for a professional video camera is kind of silly. All the extras you need, already built into video cameras, so it never made sense to me.
Posted by: Richard Skoonberg | Friday, 15 March 2024 at 10:26 PM